Vibrant! Nothing wrong with vibrancy, is there? Actually, there is trouble in River City and it is vibrancy.
In 2010, when I wrote the piece below, I had identified a certain usage of the term vibrant to mean, basically, a squalid, crime-ridden city area of some diversity that needed a positive spin and so: vibrant! I was specifically thinking about the western side of the 16th St. NW corridor of Washington, DC. When I lived in DC, Adams Morgan was the place you drove through but not drove to.
At the time, I searched for others who had identified this usage, both from a conservative standpoint and from the angle of it being a favorite lazy word that progressive journalists liked to use. In the seven years since, vibrant is now firmly established in the alt-right lexicon. Vibrant neighborhoods, according to alt-right voices, are those that progressives love to champion and perhaps even visit for a diverse dinner, but would never imagine living in.
July 2010
My riff on the word “vibrant” comes from my Shit I’m Always Trying to Figure Out article, but now I feel that it needs its own place.
My question is this: Why is the word “vibrant” a term loaded with political implications that is often used when the writer really wants to say “squalid”?
The first time this hit me, I was reading a Los Angeles Times article about the “vibrant” MacArthur Park area. Reading the article and looking at the pictures, my only impression was of a gangsta-ridden shithole that most residents would be more than happy to escape from.
Another example right here, from an article about the changing face of American suburbs:
An educated community with a vibrant arts scene. And a cultural melting pot where Brazilian grocers and Vietnamese nail salons blend in with the Walmarts and Burger Kings.
(Emphasis added by me)
Is vibrant a weasel word? I’m not sure what to call it. It’s certainly a serviceable word, one of those reliable words that writers throw out when they want to spin the article in a certain direction.
