Related to my post about the use of "neoliberal" - I'm not a prescriptivist, I know language is fluid. But there's a trend in how words get used in Discourse that obscures and dilutes meaning, which is the opposite of what we want language to do.
"Emotional labor" was originally coined to refer to the work of managing one's own feelings as part of one's job, like how wait staff are expected to be cheerful regardless of their personal circumstances or abusive treatment by customers. Because that is a component of labor analysis that frequently gets overlooked, and it's a skill that's central to a lot of jobs that get written off as "unskilled". Having that term enhances our ability to understand the world and communicate our ideas about it.
But now "emotional labor" has been watered down and diluted almost to meaninglessness. It is more often used to refer to what I've seen called "mental load" (the behind-the-scenes process of tracking and managing tasks and information), or emotional dynamics in non-transactional relationships (e.g. online interaction), or even just basic caregiving and emotional support. How does this enhance understanding and communication?
See also: trigger, intersectionality, gaslighting, executive dysfunction, TERF... and neoliberal, apparently.
It's like a world-wide game of telephone. Someone has an insight, and then the concept gets passed around through a series of increasingly sketchy definitions, and then by the end it's mush.
