Why “All Lives Matter” doesn’t work

It’s not just a benign rhetorical move.

In the wake of George Floyd (Breonna Taylor; Ahmaud Arbery et al.) protests, white folks are digging their heels in as their compliance in sustaining racial injustice is increasingly the focus of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Their counterpoint? “All Lives Matter” (ALM) which on its face is a true statement, but the implication has the rhetorical effect of erasing the point of saying Black Lives Matter to begin with. To clarify, this post is written for a white audience that doesn’t see the big deal with an “All Lives Matter” retort to the BLM movement. My goal is to offer the reader a brief linguistic analysis to explain the harm of launching a seemingly innocuous ALM retort. Let’s dig in.   

In America, black lives do NOT matter as much as white lives do. Full stop.

Black Lives Matter is a simple and eloquent sentence comprised of an adjective (black) that modifies a noun (lives) and concludes with a verb (matter). What’s implied (e.g. explicitly missing) from the sentence is the rest of the predicate: “because Black bodies continue to be killed and incarcerated at a disproportionate rate compared to white bodies” (or something along these lines). It’s etymology is a hashtag so word choice is both strategic and provocative (whether it appears in text-form on social platforms or shouted as a rallying cry during a protest). Either way, the full sentence is (understandably) reduced to 3 words while the MESSAGE remains the same: in America, black lives do NOT matter as much as white lives do. Full stop.  

James Gee (2015) offers sociolinguists a set of analytical tools to examine how the ALM message construes a harmful tone. To begin, any phrase exists in a multi-layered web of contexts: historical, sociopolitical, psychological etc…. and any time that phrase is uttered, it floats in the messy context of the moment. These contexts reflect societal narratives, or what Gee calls Discourses (with a capital-D). To this I’d add that Discourses have associated values, beliefs and attitudes that position certain events and people in particular ways. Hence, BLM is a kind of shibboleth that signals social justice and criminal reform narratives. It’s a Discourse that speaks to the social justice warriors, leftist politicians and (increasingly) those middle-of-the-road white folk who are opting to lean into the activism culture of the moment. For its part, ALM signals status quo, racial hierarchies and a “let’s not get too crazy” kind of narrative. By replacing the adjective /black/ with /all/, the focus moves away from black power and bodily worth, and into a preservationist view of the system as it currently exists. 

ALM signals the status quo, a “let’s not get too crazy” kind of narrative.

Now, I don’t think ALM-ers have considered the context in which the phrase is being used, and it’s my hope that this explanation can illuminate how replacing one word for the other isn’t a benign rhetorical move. This is because language matters: how we use the words, phrases and platforms in our lives tell the world who we are and what we believe in.  So next time you (middle-of-the-roader) consider lobbing an ALM counterpoint, consider the subtext of the phrase and what it really means. And if you understand what you’re saying (according the analysis I’ve laid out here) then cop to being called a racist. 

Language Matters: how we use words and phrases tells the world who we are and what we believe in.

If you liked this post, I’ll be publishing more linguistic analyses on social and political topics of the moment. And if you’d like you learn more about how I can help teachers and administrators bring a critical lens to their pedagogy, email me at lillianardell@languagematters.org.