Chuck Out The Chintz

One of the most memorable television advertisements from the 1990s was IKEA’s ‘Chuck Out Your Chintz’ campaign. In the ad, we see women throwing out gaudy British décor – floral bedspreads, patterned sofas, tasselled curtains – and filling their homes with sleek, minimalist, Scandinavian furniture. The message is that outdated clutter is holding Britain back from becoming a truly modern, progressive nation, one that’s as light and playful as IKEA’s trademark products. 

The IKEA ad campaign changed Britain’s home furnishing habits forever. But there’s a lesson for us here about academic writing, too. The best kind of writing embraces simplicity, functionality, and elegance – all clean lines and no loose ends.

Unfortunately, journal articles often contain the intellectual equivalent of clutter: arcane language, unwieldy jargon, paragraphs overstuffed with words and ideas. Reading academic writing is like living in an apartment that’s architecturally sound yet aesthetically dire; the walls are solid enough, but the chairs don’t match, the bookcase is wonky, and there are tacky trinkets everywhere. So let’s take our cue from IKEA and chuck out that chintz. 

William Zinsser, author of On Writing Well, offers this advice: ‘Examine every word you put on paper. You’ll find a surprising number that don’t serve any purpose […] Be grateful for everything you can throw away’ (1976/2006: 12). Zinsser wants us to imagine an empty skip into which we can toss anything that doesn’t support our argument or advance our story. It might feel weird to gut a fully functioning paragraph – until we realize that cutting unnecessary words makes our writing lighter and airier and easier to read. 

Take the following passage. It’s from an article published in the Journal of Business Ethics on the topic of corporate social responsibility: 

The term responsibility can be interpreted in two different ways. On the one hand, it looks at liability and accountability for past incidents, while on the other hand, it can be interpreted as future oriented with a focus on working toward easing “structural injustices” that arise from the existing systems, are shared, and “can be discharged only through collective action” (Ibid., p. 103). (Rotter, et al., 2014: 586) 

On first reading, there’s nothing wrong with this passage. The point is clear: corporate social responsibility involves acknowledging company misdeeds in the past and supporting positive social change in the future. 

But on second reading, you start to notice a few wrinkles. Perhaps you wonder if the phrasing could be streamlined. Perhaps you stumble over the verbs that arrive in quick succession towards the end of the passage (arise from, are shared, can be discharged). Or perhaps you’d like the author to choose between liability and accountability – keeping both seems like overkill. 

Here’s how we might rework the passage according to the principles of Scandinavian minimalism: 

The term responsibility can be understood in two ways. On the one hand, it means accepting blame for past indiscretions. On the other, it means combatting “structural injustices…through collective action” (Ibid., p. 103). 

The original passage is sixty words, the revised one thirty – that’s a fifty percent word-discount, as economical as flat-pack furniture.

What kind of chintz did we chuck out? Here’s a list:  

1. Two ways replaces two different ways. Two ways are by definition different ways, so we don’t need to repeat ourselves.  

2. It means replaces it looks at. Responsibility doesn’t look at anything, but it does mean something.  

3. It means replaces it can be interpreted as. If something can be interpreted as something, then it obviously means something – so just say it straight.

4. Accepting blame replaces liability and accountability. One concrete action is easier to grasp than two abstract concepts.  

5. Past indiscretions replaces past incidents. Indiscretions is more specific than incidents. 

6. Combatting replaces a focus on working toward easing. Combatting is urgent and decisive; a focus on working towards easing is hesitant and evasive. And wouldn’t we prefer to be urgent and decisive in our fight against structural injustices?  

7. And finally, the big one: Structural injustices through collective action replaces structural injustices that arise from the existing systems, are shared, and can be discharged only through collective action. A structural injustice already implies an existing system. Cut. Can be discharged is redundant because combatting now does the job. Cut. Are shared is untethered to anything else in the sentence. Cut.

It’s freeing to delete words by the handful, just as it was freeing for Brits in the 1990s to rip up their shag pile carpets and tear down their William Morris wallpaper. IKEA left us with better interiors – more spacious, more stylish, more liveable – and that’s just what we should aim for in our writing, too.