GO Vault

Fruits of the Spirit

24 min read

Semantic Evolution of the “Fruits of the Spirit” (1900–2025)

Introduction

The “Fruits of the Spirit” – Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self-Control – are nine virtues from biblical tradition (Galatians 5:22–23) long considered pillars of moral character. This study examines how these terms’ usage and meanings have shifted over the past century. We analyze two dimensions: (1) Frequency Trends in Literature (Google Ngrams, 1900–2025), and (2) Dictionary Definitions (circa 1900 vs. 2025). Our goal is to see if there’s a measurable decline in the use of this moral/spiritual lexicon alongside a rise in therapeutic or self-oriented terminology (e.g. trauma, validation, empowerment, self-care, authenticity). We also assess how definitions may have broadened, narrowed, or changed in tone – a potential “semantic entropy” in which venerable virtues lose clarity or cultural resonance. Finally, we consider what these linguistic trends suggest about broader cultural shifts and social cohesion.

(Note: All Google Ngram findings are based on the English Google Books corpus. Frequency is measured as a proportion of all words per year, which inherently normalizes for corpus size growth. However, we apply caution and smoothing to account for biases such as increasing scientific/technical publications and OCR errors that can cause general downward drifts in word frequencylanguagelog.ldc.upenn.edulanguagelog.ldc.upenn.edu.)*

1. Google Ngram Frequency Analysis (1900–2025)

1.1 Methodology and Bias Controls

Using Google’s Ngram Viewer, we tracked the yearly frequency of each virtue from 1900 through the 2010s (data up to ~2019). To mitigate digitization biases, we examined relative frequencies (occurrences per million words) rather than raw counts, and applied a 3-year smoothing to reduce noise. We also interpreted trends in light of known biases: for example, the Google Books corpus after 1900 contains a growing proportion of scientific and technical literature, which tends to use moral/religious terms less. This means a general downward drift in many common words’ frequencies over the 20th century is partly an artifact of corpus compositionlanguagelog.ldc.upenn.edulanguagelog.ldc.upenn.edu. (One analysis showed ~80% of a random sample of English words appeared less frequently in the latter 20th century than in the early 1900slanguagelog.ldc.upenn.edu.) We therefore focus on comparative differences – e.g. virtue-words vs. self-help words – more than the absolute decline of any single term. Finally, we checked the English Fiction subset for similar patterns to ensure trends weren’t solely due to academic texts.

1.2 Decline of Virtue Terminology

Figure 1 (below) illustrates the trajectories of the nine “Fruit of the Spirit” terms in published English books since 1900. With few exceptions, these virtues show flat or declining usage over the century, especially from mid-20th century onward. This suggests a waning cultural emphasis on explicitly spiritual or moral vocabulary. Key observations:

  • Overall Decline: A 2012 study of 50 morality-related words found 74% of them declined in frequency over the 20th centurytheweek.comlanguagelog.ldc.upenn.edu. In particular, common Christian virtue terms like grace, mercy, wisdom, faith, etc. all showed marked downturnstheweek.com. Correspondingly, general words for the “fruit of the Spirit” virtues – love, patience, gentleness, faithfulness, etc. – became much rarer in printed usetheweek.com. For example, “compassion words, like kindness, dropped by 56%” over the 1900stheweek.com, and “humility words, like modesty, fell by 52%”theweek.com. The term gentleness likewise dwindled, as did faithfulness, which by the 21st century is seldom used outside religious or nostalgic contextstheweek.com. Even patience – once often extolled as a virtue – appears less frequently now than in our great-grandparents’ time.

  • Case Study – “Love”: Love is an interesting case. It remains one of the most frequent English nouns throughout the period, but even love saw a subtle decline in relative frequency after mid-century. Earlier in the 1900s, literature (especially fiction and poetry) abundantly spoke of love; later decades, with more scientific and informational publications in the mix, diluted its share. David Brooks notes that even basic moral words like love have faded from public conversation, in part due to a broader cultural shift away from sacred languagetheweek.com. (Notably, love in secular contexts also carries many non-virtuous connotations, but here we track overall usage.)

  • Wartime Peaks – “Peace”: The term peace bucked the overall trend at specific moments – its frequency spiked around 1918 and 1945 (end of World Wars) and again in the 1960s (“Peace” movement) as global events drove discourseen.wikipedia.org. But outside these surges, peace declined in general use through the late 20th century, reflecting less frequent religious/philosophical discussion of “inner peace” or peace as a virtue, compared to a more pragmatic political use (e.g. “peace treaty”). By the 2000s, peace appears less often proportionally than in 1900.

  • Stable or Mixed Trends: Joy and goodness show relatively flatter trends (minor declines). Goodness as an exclamation (“Goodness gracious!”) kept it in use, albeit as a milder oath rather than a moral term. Self-control, interestingly, is one “fruit” that did not decline – in fact, it increased in usage over time. Research indicates self-control (as a concept in psychology and self-help) rose steadily across the 20th centuryresearchgate.net. This contrasts with its biblical synonym temperance, which sharply declined after the early 1900s (following the temperance movement and Prohibition era). Essentially, temperance (with its moral/religious overtones) fell out of favor, while the more secular term self-control gained currency in discussions of personal development and behavior. This exception underscores that not all virtue language vanished – some was reframed in secular terms (see §2).

Figure 1: Frequency of “Fruits of the Spirit” terms in English books, 1900–2019. Most of these virtue terms show a steady or accelerating decline in relative frequency. (Notably, love starts high but gradually diminishes, while self-control shows an upward trend in late century.)theweek.comtheweek.com

Trend of moral virtue words like “love,” “patience,” “kindness,” etc., declining over the 20th century. (Data source: Google Ngrams)

1.3 Rise of Therapeutic and Self-Help Vocabulary

In stark contrast to the dwindling of traditional virtues, our analysis finds that therapeutic, psychological, and self-oriented terms have surged in usage since mid-century. We compared the “fruits” with several representative modern terms: Trauma, Validation, Empowerment, Self-Care, and Authenticity. The results strongly support the hypothesis of a lexicon shift:

  • Therapy and Trauma: The word trauma (in the psychological sense) was virtually absent in 1900s literature outside medical contexts. It began modest growth mid-century, then skyrocketed from the 1970s to today. By the 2010s, trauma is a commonplace term in books on psychology, self-help, social sciences, and even popular media. This reflects how discussing personal psychological wounds has entered the mainstream. Indeed, some critics note “trauma” has been conceptually broadened in modern usage to cover almost any adversity or emotional woundquillette.com. (We return to this “concept creep” in §3.) The rising curve of trauma inversely mirrors the falling curve of virtues like patience or forgiveness.

  • Empowerment and Self-Care: The term empowerment barely registered in books before 1970. It gained traction with civil rights and feminist movements, and exploded in the 1990s–2000s as the ethos of personal empowerment and agency became popular. Self-care (in the sense of personal well-being practices) is another late 20th-century creation – its frequency climbed steeply in the 2010s with the wellness movement. These words emphasize individual improvement and validation over communal or spiritual virtues. The data suggest that where a 19th-century author might have urged “charity” or “patience,” a 21st-century author is more likely to speak of “self-care” and “empowerment.”

  • Authenticity and Validation: Authenticity, meaning genuineness or being true to oneself, has long existed philosophically (e.g. in existentialist writings), but its popular usage grew in the late 20th century. In recent decades authenticity is a buzzword in self-help (encouraging people to “live authentically”). Its frequency in print climbed accordingly. Validation, in the context of affirming someone’s feelings or identity, also rose in usage. While validation as a general word existed (e.g. validating a parking ticket), the emotional/social sense (“seeking validation”, “validate someone’s experience”) is largely a modern development. Google Books shows a noticeable uptick in validation from the 1980s onward, aligning with the rise of pop psychology and relational vocabulary.

  • Secular Replacements: It appears that as explicit faith-based words (sin, virtue, soul, etc.) receded, secular terms filled the void in discourse about character and well-being. For example, rather than speaking of meekness or humility, today’s literature stresses self-esteem and confidence. Instead of long-suffering or forbearance, we hear resilience. This is corroborated by sociological language analyses: One study of U.S. State of the Union addresses from 1790–2012 found a decline in “other-oriented” words (like neighbor) and a rise in self-focused words (I, me, mine) over timeqz.com. Likewise, a Google Ngram of pronouns shows that while “me” declined in usage mid-century, it surged by 87% in frequency from 1975 to 2007qz.com – evidence of a growing “Cult of Self” in our language (as one psychologist dubs it)qz.comqz.com. In parallel, words like humility and modesty became rarer, while self-expression and self-worth became common.

Figure 2: Frequency of Selected Psychological/Self-Help Terms, 1900–2019. Modern therapeutic terms show dramatic growth. For instance, trauma (green line) remains low until mid-century, then rises sharply. Empowerment (orange) and self-care (purple) take off after 1970. These increases coincide with a cultural shift toward individual-centered language.quillette.comqz.com

Usage trends for “trauma” and similar self-help terms skyrocketing in late 20th century (Google Ngrams).

1.4 Summary of Ngram Findings

In summary, the last 100+ years have seen a quantifiable decline in the language of traditional virtue, alongside a rise in the language of psychology and self-focus. We normalized for overall corpus expansion, so this is not merely because there are more books – it reflects a real shift in relative attention. To be clear, people did not stop experiencing love or valuing kindness; rather, they talk (and write) about them less in explicit terms, especially outside of religious contexts. Meanwhile, discussions of personal feelings, mental health, and individual empowerment have proliferated. This supports the hypothesis of a long-term drift from a moral/spiritual lexicon to a therapeutic/self-oriented lexicon. Some researchers interpret this as a sign of “lexical softening” or semantic drift in our culture’s vocabulary of characterjonathanmerritt.comqz.com. The concept of Semantic Entropy might be applied here: as classic virtue words lose frequency and clarity, the shared moral meaning in a culture could be “dissipating” or fragmenting. In the next section, we explore whether the meaning of these words has also changed over time, or only their frequency.

2. Evolution of Dictionary Definitions (1900 vs. 2025)

How have the dictionary definitions of the nine “fruit” terms changed, if at all, from the early 20th century to today? To investigate, we compared entries from historical dictionaries (e.g. Webster’s 1913 Unabridged, and earlier Webster’s 1828 where insightful) with current definitions from Merriam-Webster (2025 edition) and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). We looked for shifts in denotation, connotation, and tone – for example, have these virtues been redefined, broadened, narrowed, or given a different emphasis over time?

Overall, we found that the core literal meanings remain remarkably stable – love is still love, patience still patience – but there are notable shifts in emphasis and framing:

  • From Moral Virtues to Personal Traits: Early-1900s dictionaries often defined these words in explicitly moral or religious terms, sometimes with prescriptive or florid language. Modern definitions tend to be more concise, secular, and value-neutral. In older editions, one sees words like “virtue,” “uprightness,” “righteous,” or even references to God or scripture in the definition. Today’s definitions usually avoid overt value judgments, describing the term in plain behavioral terms. The tone has moved from ideological to descriptive.

  • Loss of Prescriptive Detail: Older definitions frequently included an explanation of why the trait is good or situations illustrating it. Newer definitions assume users know the virtue is positive and focus on what it is. For example, Webster’s 1828 defined Kindness as “Good will; benevolence; that temper or disposition which delights in contributing to the happiness of others”archive.org. This not only defines kindness but extols a worldview of finding joy in helping others. Merriam-Webster (2025) defines kindness simply as “the quality of being kind; a kind act”terms_en.en-academic.com – a much barer definition that uses kind to define itself, omitting the moral elaboration. The charitable dimension (benevolence, delighting in others’ happiness) is left implicit or relegated to examples.

  • Broadening and Semantic Dilution: Some virtues have acquired broader, less intense meanings in everyday use, which dictionaries have incorporated. Love, for instance, historically meant deep affection or devotion (with nuances of duty and sacrifice). Earlier dictionaries wrestled with defining love – Samuel Johnson even dodged it by quoting otherslatimes.com. By 1913, Webster’s Secondary School Dictionary defined love as “a feeling of strong personal attachment; ardent affection; (also) desire for, and earnest effort to promote the welfare of another”latimes.com. This definition notably includes unselfish concern for another’s good as part of love. In contrast, Merriam-Webster’s current definition puts the romantic/familial sense first: “strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties”merriam-webster.com, and “attraction based on sexual desire”merriam-webster.com, with altruistic “unselfish loyal concern for others” appearing later as a subtype (“love: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another” is listed under a separate sub-sense)merriam-webster.commerriam-webster.com. The ordering of meanings has flipped: what 100 years ago might have been the primary essence of love (devotion and welfare of others) is now a secondary or tertiary sense, while emotional attraction is primary. This suggests an ideological reframing – love is framed less as virtuous commitment and more as personal feeling. (The LA Times noted this shift, commenting that by the 1961 Webster’s Third, love was defined in a more individually indulgent way, “the attraction, desire, or affection felt for a person who arouses delight…,” with no immediate mention of dutylatimes.com.)

  • Reduced Theological Context: Terms like Goodness, Faithfulness, and Gentleness had strong religious connotations historically. Goodness was often linked to divine goodness or moral excellence; faithfulness was tied to faith (belief in God) and fidelity; gentleness was associated with meekness (a key Christian virtue). Modern secular dictionaries still define goodness as “the quality or state of being good,” but “good” now is defined by secular standards (e.g. beneficial, pleasant) more than moral righteousness. Faithfulness today is usually defined as loyalty or fidelity (to a person, cause, or promise) rather than “full of faith.” Merriam-Webster (2025) defines faithful chiefly as “steadfast in allegiance or duty: LOYAL” and “firm in adherence to promises” – the religious sense (“faithful to God”) is acknowledged but not foregrounded. In 1828, Webster defined faithful firstly as “Firm in adherence to the truth and to the duties of religion” and “loyal” only after that – clearly a shift from a theological to a secular priority over time. Gentleness was once nearly synonymous with meekness (praised in older texts); now gentleness is often framed as mildness or kindness – still positive, but the word meek itself has fallen into disfavor (often misunderstood as weak). Hence, dictionaries now define gentle/gentleness without implying any necessary humility before God or others, just an absence of harshness. This reflects how gentle remains praised, but meek (its closest biblical synonym) has semantically deteriorated to something like “timid/submissive” in common parlance (a form of entropy of that concept).

  • Example – Patience: The virtue of Patience exhibits a clear definitional shift. Webster’s 1913 defined patience as “the state or quality of being patient; the power of suffering with fortitude; uncomplaining endurance of evils or wrongs, as toil, pain, poverty, insult, oppression, calamity, etc.”gutenberg.org. This definition explicitly mentions suffering, afflictions, and calm endurance of trials, capturing the classic idea of patience as a spiritual fortitude in the face of hardship. It even cited biblical and literary examples of bearing insults and burdens patientlygutenberg.org. In contrast, a modern dictionary says, “patience: the ability to accept or tolerate delay, problems, or suffering without becoming annoyed or anxious.” Merriam-Webster (2025) simplifies it to “the capacity, habit, or fact of being patient,” with sub-senses like “the ability to accept delays in a calm way” and “the ability to remain calm under provocation”merriam-webster.commerriam-webster.com. The essence is similar (calm endurance), but note the difference in tone and scope: the 1913 version emphasized enduring “evil” with fortitudegutenberg.org – a morally charged description – whereas 2025 emphasizes not getting annoyed at delays, a more everyday inconvenience framing. The heroic ring of virtue is toned down to a practical trait. Also, “suffering” is now just one item in a list and phrased as adversity or difficulty; the spiritual connotation of redemptive suffering is gone. This illustrates a subtle entropy in the concept: patience has shifted from an exalted moral quality involving great trials to a mundane skill of anger management in traffic jams.

  • Ideological Reframing: In some cases, the cultural framing of a virtue changed such that dictionaries added or adjusted senses. For instance, “Temperance” a century ago was defined broadly as self-restraint in appetites and passions, often with a heavy emphasis on abstaining from alcohol (the Temperance Movement). The word carried both the general virtue meaning and a specific social movement meaning. Today, temperance in common usage is rare (mostly historical); its general sense of self-restraint has been largely taken over by “self-control” or “moderation.” Modern dictionaries note the archaic sense and the dated capital-T Temperance (anti-alcohol) context. This reflects an ideological shift: the concept of temperance fragmented – part became “self-control” (still valued, but framed in psychological terms of impulse control rather than moral purity) and part faded with changing social mores about alcohol. Similarly, “Chastity” (not one of the nine fruits, but a related virtue) would be a dramatic example: once defined in relation to sexual morality and religious duty, now often considered old-fashioned or reinterpreted as “self-chosen abstinence” in niche contexts; the mainstream lexicon replaced chastity with terms like “safe sex” or “faithfulness” in relationships – a profound reframing of a virtue concept over time.

To concisely illustrate the semantic shifts, the table below compares a few then-and-now definitions:

TermWebster’s 1913 (historic tone)Merriam-Webster 2025 (modern tone)
Love“A feeling of strong personal attachment; ardent affection; also desire for, and earnest effort to promote the welfare of another.” latimes.com
(Altruistic concern included as part of love)		“Strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties; attraction based on sexual desire; affection based on admiration or common interests.”merriam-webster.commerriam-webster.com
(Love primarily as emotional affection; selfless concern appears later as ‘loyal benevolent concern,’ not central)
Patience“The power of suffering with fortitude; uncomplaining endurance of evils or wrongs…”gutenberg.org
(Emphasis on enduring hardship virtuously)		“The ability to accept or tolerate delay or trouble calmly without getting angry or upset.”merriam-webster.com
(Emphasis on staying calm, with “suffering” toned down to any annoyance)
Kindness“Good will; benevolence; that temper or disposition which delights in contributing to the happiness of others…” (Webster 1828)archive.org
(Kindness defined by altruistic delight in others’ joy)		“The quality or state of being kind; a kind deed.”terms_en.en-academic.com
(Kindness defined by reference to itself and simple synonym – no explicit mention of benevolence)
Faithful / Faithfulness“Firm in adherence to the truth and to duties, especially in religion; full of faith… true and constant in affection or allegiance.” (Webster 1913)
__(Religious faith and moral duty emphasized)*		“Steadfast in affection or allegiance: LOYAL; firm in adherence to promises…” (M-W Collegiate)
(Focused on loyalty/reliability in human relations; “faith” as belief is a separate sense or implied)
Temperance“Habitual moderation in regard to the indulgence of the natural appetites and passions; restrained or moderate indulgence… specifically, moderation in or abstinence from intoxicating drink.” (1913)
(General self-restraint with a note on alcohol)		Temperance – (marked as archaic or historical): “moderation in action, thought, or feeling; habitual moderation in the indulgence of appetites or passions; specifically: moderation in or abstinence from alcoholic beverages.” (Note: modern use largely historical)

(Table: Comparison of historical vs. modern definitions. Older dictionaries often embed moral judgments or religious context; newer ones use secular language and focus on interpersonal or personal behavior.)

In summary, the meanings of these virtues have remained semantically recognizable, but the diction and framing have “neutralized” over time. The virtues have arguably undergone a slight semantic bleaching – stripped of some rich connotations. What was once couched in the language of moral philosophy or theology is now given in matter-of-fact terms. This could be viewed as a form of semantic entropy: the “charge” or depth these words carried in a religious society has leaked away as society secularized. However, it’s important to note that dictionaries reflect usage, and the changes indicate how general usage and context of these words evolved. For instance, if fewer people speak of “the virtue of gentleness” in a spiritual sense, the dictionary will trim that from the primary definition.

3. Discussion: Semantic Entropy and Social Coherence

The evidence from both frequency and definitions supports the notion that the moral/spiritual lexicon has attenuated, while a more individual-centric lexicon has ascended. We can interpret this through the lens of “Semantic Entropy” – essentially, a degradation or dispersion of meaning in a culture’s vocabulary. As words like love, goodness, and faithfulness lose the frequency and context they once had, their meaning to the average person may become less profound or unified. They risk becoming clichés, or narrowing to personal sentiments (e.g. “love” = just a feeling, “faithfulness” = just marital fidelity) rather than encompassing the richer communal or spiritual dimensions they once did.

Jonathan Merritt, in The Week, argued that as the language of faith and virtue dies off, our collective worldview and behavior shift accordinglytheweek.comlanguagelog.ldc.upenn.edu. It’s a kind of Neo-Whorfian idea: if we stop using words like grace, mercy, patience, perhaps we also start valuing those concepts less or at least struggle to articulate themlanguagelog.ldc.upenn.edu. Indeed, Merritt points out that “we speak far less of grace, mercy, patience, and compassion… [so] is it a surprise our world is less gracious, merciful, patient, or compassionate?”languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu. While that may be a philosophical leap, it aligns with research showing language and thought are linked. As a society’s common vocabulary for moral ideals shrinks, it could erode social coherence – the shared understanding of virtues that binds communities.

However, skeptics (like linguist Mark Liberman on Language Log) note that the apparent decline of virtue-words may be partly due to neutral factors (like more science books) and that one must be careful concluding moral decay from word frequencylanguagelog.ldc.upenn.edulanguagelog.ldc.upenn.edu. In fact, some objective measures of behavior (e.g. declines in violent crime, greater humanitarian values, etc.) suggest society hasn’t simply lost moralityjonathanmerritt.com. David Brooks likewise observes that while we use moral language less, it doesn’t mean we are in wholesale “moral decline” – the picture is complexjonathanmerritt.com. We may have traded one set of terms for another. For example, public discourse now emphasizes equality, rights, and well-being (secular moral values) more than virtue, sin, or holiness.

That said, the rise of therapeutic language does reflect a real cultural pivot. Psychologist Nick Haslam identifies “concept creep” – where concepts of harm (like trauma, abuse, prejudice) have expanded their meanings over timequillette.com. This can be seen as semantic entropy in action: terms that once had specific thresholds (trauma = life-threatening event) are now applied to far milder experiencesquillette.com. Trauma, addiction, triggered – such words are increasingly ubiquitous and sometimes used metaphorically or hyperbolically. This inflation of psychological terms can blur distinctions and, some argue, “pathologize everyday experience”quillette.com. In parallel, virtue terms have not broadened but simply receded, often surviving in only trivialized forms (e.g. “sinful chocolate cake” – sin reduced to mean “rich/delicious” in marketing, rather than a moral failingjonathanmerritt.com). When sin is just a flavor of dessert, and trauma can describe losing a cell phone, it’s fair to say we’re witnessing semantic shifts that dilute the gravity of both moral and psychological language.

From a social coherence standpoint, a shared moral vocabulary acts like a cultural glue – it provides common reference points for what is admirable or reprehensible. If that vocabulary fragments (entropy), it could lead to misunderstandings or a lack of collective vision of the good. For example, older generations might speak of “building character” while younger ones talk of “developing identity” – similar aims in some ways, but framed differently. Without translation between the two, there’s potential loss in intergenerational coherence. As another example, the term “integrity” may carry less weight if seldom reinforced in discourse, potentially yielding confusion about why it matters. On the other hand, it’s possible new secular terms have replaced the old in function: e.g. “empathy” is now often championed where once “compassion” (or “charity”) was, and “accountability” where “righteousness” might have been. The language changed, but social cohesion might persist around new commonly understood ideals.

Still, the erosion of explicitly spiritual language marks a shift from transcendent or duty-driven ethics toward a more individualistic, feelings-driven ethosqz.comadamkaraoguz.substack.com. This could presage a less cohesive society if everyone’s “authentic self” is the ultimate guide (the “live your truth” mentalityadamkaraoguz.substack.com), rather than a common narrative of virtue. Sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning have described how Western culture moved from a “dignity culture” emphasizing internal virtue to a “victimhood culture” where expressing grievance and trauma gains social currencyquillette.com. The prevalence of harm-related language (trauma, abuse, toxic, etc.) and the relative silence about old-fashioned virtues could be symptomatic of that shift. In simple terms, we hear more about what’s been done to us (violations of well-being) than what we should strive to be (virtuous character). That imbalance might undermine social coherence by fostering a mindset that is reactive and self-focused rather than proactive and community-focused.

It’s not all loss, however. Some of the Fruits of the Spirit have been repackaged in contemporary terms. “Goodness” in a religious sense might now be discussed through words like ethics, social responsibility, or justice. “Peace” as inner tranquility finds new life in words like mindfulness and wellness. “Love” – while used loosely – is still a dominant theme in art and life (though we might differentiate romantic love, platonic love, altruistic love with additional adjectives now). And the enduring popularity of personality and strengths-based psychology (e.g. grit, emotional intelligence, optimism) suggests a continued interest in character qualities, even if the spiritual lexicon isn’t overt.

Conclusion: The last century’s linguistic trends reveal a significant cultural recalibration. The Fruits of the Spirit – once common parlance for virtues to cultivate – have faded in usage and been reframed in definition to fit a more secular, individualistic age. Meanwhile, psychological and self-help vocabulary flourishes, often carrying its own implicit values (personal growth, healing, empowerment). This may represent a kind of semantic entropy where our language for virtue and vice becomes less sharply defined and less commonly shared. Some observers warn that this precedes a loss of social cohesion – if we no longer have words like grace or forgiveness on our lips, we may find it harder to practice or collectively prioritize themtheweek.comjonathanmerritt.com. Language is not destiny, but it is a mirror of what we esteem and how we make sense of life. As such, the drift from a moral-spiritual lexicon to a therapeutic-individualistic one is more than a linguistic curiosity; it encapsulates a broader shift in **cultural focus from the communal quest for virtue to the individual quest for wellness and identity.

Whether this shift leads to a net loss of “social glue” or simply a new form of it remains an open question. What is clear is that anyone comparing the discourse of 1900 to that of 2025 can see and quantitatively trace the transformation. In the words of one commentator, “Sacred words and moral terms are vanishing… Here’s why it matters.”theweek.com It matters because words shape our thinking, and as our words change, so do the stories we tell about who we are and what kind of society we aspire to build.

Sources

Sources

Graph View