When Words Shift: How Trust in Institutions Shapes Identity
We often think of identity as something personal — forged by family, culture, belief, and experience. But there’s another layer we rarely name: the quiet influence of public institutions. Schools, governments, scientific bodies, and health organizations don’t just give us facts — they give us frames. They help shape how we see the world, and by extension, how we see ourselves in it.
That’s why it hits so hard when those institutions shift their language — especially in moments of crisis.
Take the COVID-19 pandemic, for example. As mRNA vaccines rolled out, the CDC quietly revised its definition of “vaccine.” It wasn’t a huge change — just a shift in wording to better reflect how vaccines work, particularly newer types that don’t use live or attenuated viruses. To those immersed in science, it was a clarification. To many others, it felt like something more: a redefining of trust.
Because language isn’t neutral. Words like immunity, protection, and vaccine carry emotional weight. When those definitions shift without widespread communication or public understanding, it doesn’t just spark confusion — it can shake the very foundation of a person’s sense of reality.
People who already live with anxiety about health, institutions, or control are especially vulnerable to this kind of destabilization. If the “official story” keeps evolving — even for good reasons — it can start to feel like the ground is always moving beneath them. And when no one in authority slows down to acknowledge that feeling, it begins to look a lot like gaslighting, even if that’s not the intent.
And this is where identity comes in.
For many people, trusting institutions is part of how they define being a good citizen. It ties into how they see themselves in relation to their country, their community, their values. When that trust is shaken, it’s not just a fact that changes — it’s a piece of who they are that gets questioned.
Others, especially those already skeptical of authority, saw the definition change as confirmation of what they feared all along: that institutions will shift the goalposts to protect their own narrative. And whether or not that’s true in a given case, the lack of open, transparent communication made it easier to believe.
This isn’t about who’s “right” on the science. The data can be solid. The research can be sound. But if the delivery feels manipulative or incomplete, the perception becomes the reality — and trust erodes. Once that trust erodes, people don’t just stop believing the facts. They start rebuilding their identities around not believing them.
That’s how a definition change becomes more than semantics. It becomes symbolic.
So what can we do?
We can start by remembering that communication is more than accuracy — it’s relationship. If institutions want to regain public trust, they need to go beyond press releases and start addressing the emotional logic of the people they’re trying to reach.
And for the rest of us — those trying to navigate this space in good faith — we can practice a little more curiosity. If someone is confused or resistant, maybe they’re not “anti-science.” Maybe they’re just trying to protect their identity in a world that keeps moving the lines.
Because trust, once broken, doesn’t come back through correction. It comes back through connection.