We’ve been using the phrase “in this economy” to refer to state of the economy.

A couple examples that might sound plausible to you:

• “In this economy, new college grads are at a disadvantage.” 
  
• “In this economy, retirement is not possible.” 
  

Built into the expression, “in this economy,” is the understanding that we are facing an economic situation where there’s little to no growth, unemployment is high, and poverty is on the rise. In sum, times are tough.

We can agree on what “in this economy” means, but why do we say, “in this economy?” It’s always interesting to think about what we’re choosing to say—and all the alternatives. What are we not saying? Why not say, “the current economic situation?” Why not say, “recession” or “depression,” or “crisis?”

Linguists look at a phrase like “in this economy” and notice the word “this.” It’s a term that reflects “deixis,” or situates the phrase in space and time. Depending on the speaker and the context, terms like “this” and “that” attach themselves to different meanings.

In the expression, “in this economy,” the word “this” does two things:

1. It keeps the economy “physically” close to the speaker. It’s very personal. It’s nearby.
2. It talks about the present and maybe even the near future. It’s now. It’s tomorrow. It’s probably not going to change in the short-term.

Saying “in this economy” is different from saying “current economy,” which speaks to a time in place (now) and presumes that, with time, the economic situation might change.

To what extent is how we think about the economy shaped by the currency of the phrase “in this economy?”

(I am not crazy enough to think that an economic crisis can pass with a slight mindset/language change, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.)

Years ago, we invited my uncle and family to dinner. The meal was delicious. My mom is an excellent cook.

My uncle commented that the meal was “restaurant style,” and my mom took offense. Was it a compliment? What did he mean by “restaurant style?”

At the time, no one asked him to clarify, and, years later, the family debate on the topic (still) sounds like this:

·      My mom is certain that her brother was not impressed. To my mom, a home cook takes care to prepare a meal with respect for quality and tradition; whereas, restaurants “throw things on a plate” to turn a profit.

·      I (and others) suspect he was complimenting the meal (at best) or inferring that the dishes were new or different (at worst). In Italy, restaurants are places where you’re introduced to a new flavor or a fresh spin on a traditional dish. You eat out to enjoy something you cannot (or would not) make yourself.

We’ll never know for sure if this was a cross-cultural misunderstanding or the case of an ungrateful guest.

How could a brother and sister have such a misunderstanding?

My mom grew up in Italy, but has lived in the U.S. for over fifty years. Her brother has lived in Italy his whole life.  They see each other infrequently, when my family visits Italy.

It’s possible that the cultural lens through which each of them is filtering the term “restaurant style” is different. I suspect that my mom’s cooking skills don’t factor into the discussion at all. It’s all about the cultural value you attribute to restaurants and eating out.

Clearly, there’s mixed opinion on the topic.

In the U.S., marketers play to both camps—those of us who wish we could prepare a meal as well as our favorite restaurants do, and those of us who long for home-cooked meals. A quick walk down any grocery store aisle will display some products boasting “home style” and others promising “restaurant style.”  

Which is your bias? How might it influence your shopping choices? Or your comments to a gracious host?