In an earlier post I cited a 2023 study measuring public reactions to a variety of civic words, including “belonging.” The study’s sponsor, PACE (Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement), has now released a new report, How to Talk Bridgey 2.0 – Lessons and Takeaways from PACE’s 2025-2026 Civic Language Perceptions Project. While it’s a bit cheesy, “bridgey” aptly captures the notion of using language that effectively bridges across cultural divides. And once again, “Belonging” rises to the top of civic dialogue in its positivity across our various societal divisions.
For context, PACE explains the purpose of using “bridgey” language:
Talking bridgey isn’t about compromising on deeply-held values. It’s about navigating differences with confidence and integrity in a complex civic environment. Leaders who understand how language is received across differences can communicate their values with greater clarity and power…. People differ across many identities and lived experiences, and those differences shape how words land. Talking bridgey does not mean avoiding important topics or flattening meaning; it means being intentional about language so words do not become the barrier to
understanding.
In the most recent study of 21 civic terms, “bridgeyness strength” was measured by Net Positivity (how many people rate a term positively vs. negatively) and Net Brings Together (how many people see a term as unifying vs. divisive), adjusted by a Variance Penalty ( a statistical penalty for terms where demographic groups diverge in positivity). In plain-speak, “a term is more bridgey when it is broadly positive, broadly unifying, and not sharply contested across groups.”
“Belonging” earned a score of 68%, surpassed only by Community (76%), Freedom (76%), Unity (71%), and Service (70%). And of all 21 terms tested, only “Belonging” and “Community” were found to be bridgey across ideology, age, and urban/rural groups.
On the other hand, “Diversity” struggled with a score of 26%, followed by “Social Justice” at 21% and Racial Equity at 20%. While “Diversity” had a Net Positivity of 50% (compared to “Belonging” at 75%), it had a very low Net Brings Together score of just 9% (compared to “Belonging” at 65%).
The lesson I take from this is of course not to abandon efforts for diversity, equity, and inclusion in our law firms. Instead, the lesson for practicing Belonging is to use language to accurately convey our organizations’ objectives in a way that lands effectively across divides, inviting collaboration, not confrontation. By being intentional about the language I use, I can more persuasively make my point, eye-to-eye, without poking other people in the eye.