Reflecting on language, communication, the need for people with different backgrounds I would suggest also the need for historical awareness.
Language is more than just a vehicle for transmitting words—it carries layers of meaning shaped by context, culture, and time. In translation studies, it is widely recognized that translating a literary work almost inevitably results in a loss of meaning. This is because language embodies culturally and historically situated nuances—emotional, symbolic, and contextual—that are often untranslatable. The essence of a text is bound to its original language, and no translation can fully replicate that essence.
There is a clear parallel between language, culture, and region. Language is steeped in place-specific meanings. Even within the same national language, regional differences in expressions, values, and communication styles can lead to significant misunderstandings if they are not acknowledged. This suggests that policy communication, too, must be sensitive to local context. What resonates in one region may fall flat—or even provoke resistance—in another. Just as meaning can be lost in translation between languages, local nuance can be lost when policies rely on standardized, supposedly neutral language.
This is where historical awareness becomes crucial. History and the concept of path dependency help explain why language and culture differ across regions. Past decisions, power structures, and social institutions shape how communities communicate, move, and make sense of their environment. These historical layers form deeply embedded paths—linguistic, cultural, and behavioral—that are not easily altered. They influence not only regional dialects but also people’s attitudes toward public space, governance, and one another.
In the Netherlands, society was long shaped by a system of pillarization (verzuiling), where Catholics, Protestants, liberals, and socialists each had their own schools, newspapers, unions, and community organizations. Although the boundaries between these pillars have become less rigid over time, their influence remains deeply embedded in both formal structures and informal cultural patterns. The legacy of pillarization continues to shape how communities organize themselves, how trust is formed, and how people relate to authority and public institutions. Those with historical awareness can still see its traces in contemporary decision-making and public interaction.
Recognizing these linguistic, cultural, and historical dimensions is essential for meaningful engagement. It calls for more than surface-level consultation—it requires a willingness to understand the “deep context” in which people live and interpret policy. This awareness does not just enrich our understanding; it leads to more grounded, locally resonant, and socially responsive decisions.
Reflecting on language, communication, the need for people with different backgrounds I would suggest also the need for historical awareness.
Language is more than just a vehicle for transmitting words—it carries layers of meaning shaped by context, culture, and time. In translation studies, it is widely recognized that translating a literary work almost inevitably results in a loss of meaning. This is because language embodies culturally and historically situated nuances—emotional, symbolic, and contextual—that are often untranslatable. The essence of a text is bound to its original language, and no translation can fully replicate that essence.
There is a clear parallel between language, culture, and region. Language is steeped in place-specific meanings. Even within the same national language, regional differences in expressions, values, and communication styles can lead to significant misunderstandings if they are not acknowledged. This suggests that policy communication, too, must be sensitive to local context. What resonates in one region may fall flat—or even provoke resistance—in another. Just as meaning can be lost in translation between languages, local nuance can be lost when policies rely on standardized, supposedly neutral language.
This is where historical awareness becomes crucial. History and the concept of path dependency help explain why language and culture differ across regions. Past decisions, power structures, and social institutions shape how communities communicate, move, and make sense of their environment. These historical layers form deeply embedded paths—linguistic, cultural, and behavioral—that are not easily altered. They influence not only regional dialects but also people’s attitudes toward public space, governance, and one another.
In the Netherlands, society was long shaped by a system of pillarization (verzuiling), where Catholics, Protestants, liberals, and socialists each had their own schools, newspapers, unions, and community organizations. Although the boundaries between these pillars have become less rigid over time, their influence remains deeply embedded in both formal structures and informal cultural patterns. The legacy of pillarization continues to shape how communities organize themselves, how trust is formed, and how people relate to authority and public institutions. Those with historical awareness can still see its traces in contemporary decision-making and public interaction.
Recognizing these linguistic, cultural, and historical dimensions is essential for meaningful engagement. It calls for more than surface-level consultation—it requires a willingness to understand the “deep context” in which people live and interpret policy. This awareness does not just enrich our understanding; it leads to more grounded, locally resonant, and socially responsive decisions.