The recent news of Laura Schlessinger’s use of the “N-word” provided fodder for a host of commentaries on the appropriate use of language from Schlessinger’s own position that words should not be restricted by one’s race, to those who believe that certain words should never be uttered regardless of one’s race, to those who suggest that Schlesinger’s subsequent apology proves she “folded like the proverbial cheap camera so as to pay homage to the Left’s idols.”(1)
This issue of the N-word is certainly not new and has been discussed in greater detail than the current talking-point commentaries by others, including a personal consideration by Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy.(2) While the Schlesinger debate continues over who has what “rights” to use this particular word, the whole affair raises a more basic question; that is, why use euphemisms to represent actual words deemed offensive by one group or another?
The substitution of euphemisms for “Certain terms of abuse – the N-word for black folk, the F-word for gays and the B-word for women”(3) can be confusing ; for example, many may interpret the “F-word” not as one related to homosexuals, but for another relating to carnal knowledge, while others for a word encompassing equal rights and legal protection for women.(4)
If Carol were to say to Peter, however, “You are an F-word A-word”, then it is unlikely that Peter would be confused by either the meaning of these euphemisms or of Carol’s sentiment. At the same time, it is also unlikely that Peter would be as offended as if Carol had uttered the actual words rather than the euphemisms. It is also unlikely that any offense would be taken by Peter if Carol were Peter’s loving sister, especially if Carol used the actual words in a joking or non-threatening manner. Words alone, of course, are not necessarily the full conveyance of meaning, but require the accompaniment of intent expressed by verbal delivery and body language, framed by the relationship between the speaker and the one spoken-to.
Euphemisms are not solely within the domain of the secular. Some within the religious community note that even God’s name could not be said in earlier times, believers opting instead for a euphemism(5). Some propose that the reasons for the use of religious euphemisms may include that,
…to name someone or something was to assert that you had actual or potential power over that person or thing…no one could name God. Indeed, no one could even say that holy name. It was written as an unpronounceable set of letters—YHWH—and when a Hebrew came upon that holy symbol in his scriptures, he did not read ‘Yahweh,’ as we might do, but he said the word Adonai, which literally means ‘my Lord.’ Hebrews were taught to say Adonai when they came to that holy symbol, lest they defile the holy name Yahweh by seeking to pronounce it.(6)
Is it possible, then, that we in the modern world, share a “religious belief” in the power of words with people who lived in the Bronze Age(7)? Do defenders of euphemisms today really believe that to use an actual word intended to disparage or belittle another truly gives the speaker power over the other person?
Euphemisms themselves can transform over time through a process of semantic shift(8), moving from meanings that were initially acceptable to meanings that are not, as what may have happened in the transformation of the word “negar” to the N-word(9). Why, then, even bother to use euphemisms rather than the actual words that euphemisms replace?
Perhaps euphemisms are used today as a means to bypass the tendency of the human mind to “hard-wire” certain emotions to certain words(10) and thereby lower the emotional tension among people? If euphemisms do bypass certain hard-wired word-emotion connections, then are we really just fooling our minds, and thereby ourselves, with euphemisms? And if we are just fooling ourselves, might it be better over the long run for people to use the actual words, acknowledge that the power is not in the word but in the meaning we assign to the word?
Might it not be better to accept responsibility for our emotional response to words, and to work toward a future when reason trumps emotional outbursts? Or is language so powerful that the substitution of words with euphemisms can reprogram our brains, changing the way that we view the world and others? Does the replacement of the actual word with a euphemism somehow change people such that those who would speak the actual word will abandon their beliefs/emotions that put the actual word into their mouths?
Links
(1) http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/08/23/dr-laura-and-the-n-word/
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/nigger.htm, http://www.amazon.com/Nigger-Strange-Career-Troublesome-Word/dp/0375713719, http://bit.ly/bm368R
(3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/24/laura-schlessinger-race-issues
(4) http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/159/index.jsp, http://www.thefword.org.uk/
(5) http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/article_05.htm, http://www.biblebell.org/mbag/mailbagba.html,
(6) http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=540&C=615
(7) http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm, http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/who-were-the-early-israelites-and-where-did-they-come-from/
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejoration, http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/meaning/index.html
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger
A Harris Interactive poll of 2,320 adults, conducted between March 1st and 8th of 2010 revealed a number of findings about what the participant believe about President Obama, including that he is:
- a socialist (40%)
- a Muslim (32%) and
- he may be the Anti-Christ (14%).
The Harris poll looked at the difference between responses by participants identifying themselves as Democrats and Republicans which revealed that many Republicans believed that the President is:
- a socialist (67%)
- a Muslim (57%) and
- is doing many of the things that Hitler did (38%)
Finally, the Harris poll looked at differences in responses based on the level of education of the participants (no college versus post-graduate education), finding that Obama is: Read the rest of this entry »
New healthcare law is making its way through the labyrinth that is the American legislative process. One of the last hurdles to the passage of new legislation was reportedly the issue of public funding for abortions; specifically, whether the language of the legislation would permit use of public funds for abortion or not (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125004701). In defense of the healthcare bill conservative Democrat Dale Kildee (D-MI) reportedly stated:
“I will be 81 years old this September. Certainly at this stage of my life I am not going to change my mind and support abortion. I am not going to jeopardize my eternal salvation. I’ve sought counsel from my priest, advice from my family, friends and constituents. And I have read the Senate abortion prohibition more than a dozen times. I am convinced that the original prohibition of the Hyde Amendment is in the Senate bill.”
Author Valerie Tarico’s recent post on Creationism and Science is worth a view. Excerpt follows; for the complete post go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/when-science-teachers-don_b_370090.html
“We all are prone to “confirmation bias” which is a tendency to seek information in support of what we already believe, disregarding any contradictions. Religious orthodoxy over the centuries has refined confirmation bias into an art form called “apologetics.” Apologists start with a set of handed down conclusions and then reason backwards from there, drawing in logic and evidence only as these support their foregone conclusion.”
This post is a review of an employment law case in the UK where an employee’s position on man-made climate change was considered a form of discrimination based on Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations.
The Nicholson Case
- The BBC and others reported that Tim Nicholson, who served as the head of sustainability for Grainger Plc, successfully won a bid to sue for wrongful termination based on his assertion that he was discriminated against due to his belief in man-made climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/8339652.stm).
- The legal basis for Mr. Nicholson’s suit is The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031660.htm).
- Mr. Nicholson’s claim of discrimination met the basic requirements for an employment tribunal hearing (http://www.thehrdirector.com/legal_updates/diversity-briefings/2995) – employment tribunals are independent judicial bodies who determine disputes between employers and employees over employment rights (http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/).