One key point in this article that stands out is the idea that language both shapes and limits the development of values. Through language, we can articulate and share beliefs, norms, and cultural ideals. For example, words like “justice,” “freedom,” and “equality” carry meanings that are socially constructed and shared, enabling communities to rally around common ideals. The language we use to describe our values thus becomes essential for building collective understanding and commitment.

However, language also constrains our ability to develop values fully. Limited by cultural and historical contexts, language can lack precise words for certain concepts, or those concepts may be entirely absent in some cultures. This is especially apparent in cross-cultural comparisons: while some cultures may lack a word for “personal success,” they may have rich terminology around “community harmony.” The absence of specific terms does not imply a lack of value but rather a different framework for what is deemed important. Without language for certain values, it becomes challenging to fully articulate or explore them, which restricts how they’re developed and understood within that linguistic framework.

Language can also reinforce stereotypes and biases, influencing how we perceive values in ourselves and others. For example, euphemisms for marginalized groups can affect societal attitudes and limit a community’s ability to develop inclusive values. Similarly, vague or euphemistic language can dilute values’ meanings, making it harder for people to connect with or advocate for them. This limitation is particularly impactful when considering that many values are instilled early in life, often shaped by parental influences and lived experiences, extending to the language used to describe and contextualize these values.

Source: Guth, William D., and Renato Tagiuri. “Personal Values and Corporate Strategy.” Harvard Business Review, 1965.