Recently on The John Walsh Show, Walsh introduced his white supremacist guests, explaining they preferred to be identified as “racialists” not “racists.” Walsh maintained an aura of tolerance for his guests, but was also able to express his ambivalence to the term – call them what you will, it doesn’t change what they are. Or does it?
The evolution of language mirrors a similar evolution of conventional morality. To cite the most obvious and sensitive example, what is the difference between a (insert the “n” word) and a black person? Or, what is the difference between a gay person and a queer? Between handicapped and differently-abled? Between manic-depressive and bipolar? On a language level at least, we can say these words have different connotations – different stigmas.
Stigma itself is not a nice word. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, stigma archaically referred to “a mark made upon the skin by burning with a hot iron (rarely, by cutting or pricking), as a token of infamy or subjection.” Or in the plural, stigmata: “marks resembling the wounds on the crucified body of Christ”; brands of potentially dangerous nonconformity. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, a stigma is generally not a desirable affliction.
But all these definitions point to a visible, tangible mark upon the body. The contemporary use of stigma only comes into play with the second definition of the verb, stigmatize: “to call by a disgraceful or reproachful name; to characterize by a term implying severe censure or condemnation.” Thus, it is stigmatizing to be called an “n” word or a “queer.” The body or mind becomes branded by the word. Although the underlying issue does not change – one does not stop being black or gay – the judgment implied by the earlier term is divorced from the actual description.
But is this a chicken and egg scenario? Can changing a word actually change someone’s perception or must social change come first? I don’t know. But I do know that language is how we construct our social reality, thus it is vital we construct a world in which we want to live. We need to evaluate our word choices so as not to perpetuate social stereotypes.
That does not mean, however, that we should complacently allow subtle language manipulation to seduce us into a reality contrary to our social goals. It is absolutely imperative we not only evaluate the words we use but also why we use them. If we are unaware of the reasoning behind language use, we cannot make rational decisions about word choice and cannot, therefore, communicate effectively and sensitively.
Before I am accused of rampant political correctness, let me state that I am not advocating that we stop describing people in terms of innate characteristics. There is a definitive need to accurately describe people – be they blonde or brunette, gay or straight, black or white.
But hence my problem with the term “racialist” – it attempts to disguise rather than describe. The American Heritage Dictionary, asserts that “racialist” is chiefly a British variant of “racist.” In the United States, therefore, “racialist” takes on the more common connotations of “racial” – a useful and non-stigmatized word that refers to race without implicit judgment. And thus, there is a big difference between racial pride and racist pride.
It is obvious why such a change would appeal to white supremacists. By changing the name of their program, they hope to escape immediate censure. If just one person pauses and thinks that being a “racialist” doesn’t make them a bigot, the racists have won.
And this illustrates the fundamental problem with the progressive political correctness of our language. The humanist move to whitewash language and blindly void all so-called stigmatized words can and has been abused. There can be a point where words lose their meaning and description becomes almost impossible.
And, as the backlash from the Classification of Race, Ethnicity, Color and National Origin initiative demonstrates, sensitivity is not a matter of ignorance; it is a matter of respect. And you cannot truly respect someone unless you understand the obstacles they have faced and overcome, be they personal, cultural, economic, historical, racial or physical. Understanding leads to compassion. Ignorance leads to fear. And as a wise Yoda once said, “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.”
Language evolves. Slang changes, words drop out of use, others gain popularity. This happens naturally in response to social change. But language can also be used to spur social change. Redefining group identity internally can only go so far before external labels need to reflect new status. It is imperative that we are sensitive to the needs of marginalized groups by allowing and utilizing their self-determined identifiers.
But more importantly, before we blindly use new words or old phraseology, we must evaluate the underlying ideas and issues. We must accept responsibility for the message our words are sending be it positive or negative. We must not allow our language to speak for us.
We must not allow language to disguise the truth. We must become discriminating language users instead of disguising discrimination by changing the language. We must not allow the political correctness program to neutralize our individuality. We must be sensitive but not blind. And we must not allow a fear of stigma to destroy our most powerful tool – our words.
We need a descriptive language, even if it runs the risk of stigmatization, in order to communicate the basic principles we uphold. We have a long history of adapting our language to suit our ethics. If we allow our language to become whitewashed, we will lose that ability. There are many words I could use when it comes to racists. I want to keep them all.
Sutton is an assistant viewpoint editor. E-mail her at jsutton@media.ucla.edu.