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.