The Etymology of "Schmooze"

January 30, 2006

This commentary aired for a national audience on All Things Considered on Jan. 30.

By: Diana Boxer
Diana Boxer is professor of linguistics at the University of Florida working on a book about creating, avoiding and defusing conflict in everyday talk.

“Casino Jack” Abramoff is sullying the good schmooze. Nobody denies that schmoozing is at the heart of lobbying. But the term has acquired a bad rap, and this latest ethics debacle is a nail in the coffin for what used to denote something positive.

“Schmooze” derives from the Yiddish shmuesn, which in turn derives from Hebrew shemuah, meaning “rumor.” Its earliest written reference dates to 1897. When the term was borrowed into American English, it originally meant to have a warm conversation—to shoot the breeze—to pass the time chatting. German also borrowed Yiddish shmus, and, while it now means something like “to kiss or neck” in German, its early evolution was something resembling empty flattery.

To be sure, it’s always been just a short step from schmoozing to flattery. But, used to be, when we schmoozed, we felt good about just chatting. We came away from the experience having opened or strengthened a relationship.

It wasn’t about networking or gaining favor. Good schmoozers, in the original sense of the term, may get what they want or need. But the benefits are indirect—they stem from the positive feelings achieved in the social interaction.

Ben Franklin’s schmoozing gift fit with his motto, “What good shall I do this day?” He wouldn’t have used the term, but, like him, Mark Twain understood is essence when he said, “Let us make a special effort to stop communicating with each other so we can we have a conversation.”

Unfortunately, the concept of schmoozing has, over time, come to serve the twin masters of what linguists call interaction and transaction – mostly, unfortunately, transaction.

Today schmoozing means chatting, with benefits. That’s why reporters covering the Abramoff scandal have found it irresistible.

As the Washington Post, one of several media outlets that have used the word in connection with the Abramoff scandal, had it, “Jack Abramoff had one of the biggest schmoozing operations in town.”

We could view the sleazing of schmoozing as evolution. Linguists no longer try and insist that everyone uphold the traditional meanings of words. Instead, we view language evolution as a natural process. We neither judge the changes nor mourn them.

But when language change reflects degradation in cultural values, the issue at heart is something much more serious. Schmoozing becomes an activity that serves only the purpose of the highest bidder. For lobbyists like Abramoff , “don’t schmooze, you lose” becomes the motto.

We should mourn the passing of the good schmooze not because of language change. There’s no holding language back in a dynamic society. No, we should mourn the schmooze because it no longer serves the good of the community.

The schmooze on Capitol Hill has made friends with the “bribe” – and that’s a sad place to be.