Philosophy of language in the 21st century has cultivated a concern for the hateful, the coercive, and the lethal. Amidst this shift of attention toward politically significant speech, ‘non-ideal’ philosophers of language investigate whether common conceptual toolkits from ‘mainstream’ philosophy of language manage to make contact with our non-ideal world in the first place. Drawing on a tradition of Wittgensteinian critical social thought, I contend that philosophers of language risk their (ideology‐)critical bite when they isolate our words from the activities (...) into which they are woven. That is, when philosophers fail to register our ordinary investment in the words we put on display—the interests, stakes, and concerns in light of which we voice them—we make their political import unavailable to philosophy of language. But the non-ideal philosopher’s concept of idealization is itself a normatively non-neutral tool; and, as such, it exemplifies the sort of theoretical resource that may be mobilized with an investment in shaping not only our epistemic resources but also our senses of what matters. (shrink)