Phenomenal

Here’s a small rhetorical shift you can try: whenever you’re prompted to say “imposter syndrome,” substitute the phrase imposter phenomenon instead. The latter was the term used in the original paper introducing the concept, while the former has emerged in the decades since. But where phenomena are rooted in the observable world, “syndrome” both medicalizes and pathologizes the people with the experience. That is, by talking of an imposter phenomenon, we turn our gaze to the material circumstances that give rise to a false sense of inadequacy; while when we talk of a syndrome, we locate the problem within the confines of an individual’s body—and limit our ability to respond and attend to that problem to what is within that individual’s control. The more I hear the phrase “imposter syndrome,” the more I worry we are recreating the very thing we are trying to eliminate, through the simple fact that our language excludes the worldly conditions from which it grows. But small changes in language can lead to big changes in the way we think and act; try it and see what happens. (Or, better yet: try talking about how an environment or situation leaves you feeling impostered.)