On the "activist language merry-go-round," Stephen Pinker's "euphemism treadmill," and "political correctness" more generally
A couple weeks ago, I published a fairly lengthy essay called A Personal History of the “T-word” (and some more general reflections on language and activism). The first half discusses shifting attitudes regarding the word "tranny" that I have witnessed over my last decade-plus of being involved in trans communities. The second half (and in my opinion, the most important part) of the essay more generally discusses how language within trans communities remains in a perpetual state of flux, where virtually every word associated with transgender people and experiences is eventually deemed by some people to be problematic, and new terms are constantly being proposed to take their place. I referred to this phenomenon as the "activist language merry-go-round."
I go on to make the case that the "activist language merry-go-round" is fueled by stigma: Trans people are stigmatized in our culture, and this stigma latches onto the words that are used to describe us and our experiences. As a result, many activists may feel compelled to focus on changing language (i.e., swapping out "bad" words with new words that feel more neutral or empowering). However, so long as trans people remain stigmatized, these newer terms will eventually become tainted by that stigma, and there will be even further calls for newer and supposedly better replacement terms. I argue that there are no magical "perfect words" that will make everyone happy. And the "activist language merry-go-round" will not stop until trans people are no longer stigmatized, at which point there will be no compelling need to replace existing trans-related terms.
After posting the piece to my blog, one of the commenters mentioned similarities between my "activist language merry-go-round" concept and what cognitive scientist/linguist/author Steven Pinker once called the "euphemism treadmill." I had not heard his term before, but a little bit of google-searching led me to this 1994 article[PDF link] in which Pinker offers numerous examples of this phenomenon over the last century. It seems clear that we are describing the same trend, and I completely agree with his assertion: "give a concept a new name, and the name becomes colored by the concept; the concept does not become freshened by the name."
While I believe that we are discussing the same phenomenon, I disagree with certain aspects of his framing of the issue. I want to discuss these differences of perspective here, not because I enjoy critiquing twenty-year-old Steven Pinker essays (I certainly have better things to do with my time), but because the shortcomings of his essay extend more generally to complaints about linguistic "political correctness" that are commonly made to this day (e.g., as can be seen in current debates regarding the word "tranny").
For one thing, Pinker seems to put his emphasis on the pointlessness of replacing tainted words with "euphemisms"--a term that critics of "political correctness" often associate with words that they believe are less direct and clear in meaning, and which are meant to appease people who are "too sensitive" about a particular issue. While he doesn't explicitly say so in the article, the overall thrust of his argument seems to be that we should simply stop doing this. He primarily talks about how the "euphemism treadmill" makes life difficult for well-intentioned people who have trouble keeping up with all the latest correct terminology, while saying virtually nothing about how marginalized groups themselves feel about living with labels that have become tainted over time.
I also get the impression from other things Pinker has said (e.g., this interview here) that he is primarily concerned with how "political correctness" in language can thwart political dissent in society. His focus is reminiscent of George Orwell's thesis in 1984: Censoring certain words, or making certain ideas taboo, can be a way of controlling people and what is imaginable and politically possible. While I agree that limiting or eliminating language can sometimes lead to serious negative consequences (as I discuss below), he doesn't talk at all about how the *existence* of certain words (particularly those that have become slurs in the public eye) can also be used to wield power over others, especially marginalized populations.
The other major difference between Pinker's take and my own is that he seems to view this as a top-down phenomenon. He begins his article with the (then recent) writers' guidelines issued by the LA Times that "bans or restricts some 150 words or phrases." He talks about "the arbiters of the changing linguistic fashions," as though somewhere in some ivory tower there exists a handful of elite powerful people who are deciding what words we are allowed to use and which ones we should avoid. He says, "Using the latest term for a minority often shows not sensitivity but subscribing to the right magazines or going to the right cocktail parties."
As someone who is not a member of a minority or marginalized group himself, it makes sense that Pinker would *experience* this as a top-down phenomenon, one that seemingly originates in college administration or newspaper & magazine editorial offices who unilaterally decree what language is acceptable and what is not. Notably, framing this as a top-down phenomenon gives credence to his fears of an Orwellian-like attempt by the powers-that-be to control people and thwart political dissent.
What Pinker (and others who frame "political correctness" as a primarily top-down phenomenon) fail to realize is that college administration and newspaper/magazine editorial offices are almost never asserting unilateral power over what language can be used to describe and discuss minorities and marginalized groups. Rather, they are merely responding to a bottom-up movement wherein a critical mass of members of a particular marginalized group have raised objections to certain words that they feel are tainted or outright slurs. And these marginalized individuals are not "exerting control" over the public at large (as they are not in any kind of position of power), but rather they are pushing against the way in which society relentlessly uses certain words to control (e.g., subdue, undermine, ridicule, demonize) them.
So to summarize, Steven Pinker's "euphemism treadmill" imagines a top-down phenomenon, and is primarily concerned with how the elimination of words (supposedly driven by the powers-that-be) complicates the lives of well-intentioned members of the dominant/majority group and ultimately thwarts political dissent. In contrast, my "activist language merry-go-round" (more accurately, I believe) describes a bottom-up phenomenon wherein marginalized populations are pushing back against the stigma that they face, and which (for understandable reasons) leads them to try to eliminate those words that are associated with that stigma. Pinker seems to only be concerned with the potential negative consequences of eliminating words, whereas my model recognizes both the power of words (e.g., the way in which slurs can be used to delegitimize and destroy people) as well as the power inherent in limiting words (e.g., when we try to eliminate words that have played a crucial role in certain marginalized individuals' activism or identity).
I am not especially concerned with how changes in trans-related language will impact the cisgender majority. Typically, dominant majorities tend to overreact when marginalized minorities attempt to transform the language that is commonly associated with them. But I do have concerns about how such word-elimination strategies can negatively impact our own communities. As I allude to in my original piece, some activists have attempted to eliminate the words "transsexual" and "bisexual" in recent years. Both of these words play crucial roles in my own activism and identity. So when some transgender- and/or bisexual-umbrella activists insist that these words are inherently "bad" for some reason or another, they are in a sense undermining my (and other people's) identity and activism. In other words, word-elimination strategies often alienate or invalidate members of our own communities, particularly those of different generations, classes, ethnicities, subcommunities, experiences, etc. And as stated above, they also fail to address the underlying stigma that drives the "activist language merry-go-round" in the first place.
I believe that we, as activists, should be suspicious of word-elimination-strategies. Not because they inconvenience Steven Pinker and others in the dominant majority, nor because they will lead to some kind of Orwellian dystopian future. Rather, we should be concerned with the ways in which word-elimination-strategies often deny the diversity of perspectives and experiences within our own communities (as I detailed in the original piece). And rather than simply eliminate words, we should focus the lion's share of our effort on eliminating the stigma that often lies beneath those words and gives them power in the first place.
I go on to make the case that the "activist language merry-go-round" is fueled by stigma: Trans people are stigmatized in our culture, and this stigma latches onto the words that are used to describe us and our experiences. As a result, many activists may feel compelled to focus on changing language (i.e., swapping out "bad" words with new words that feel more neutral or empowering). However, so long as trans people remain stigmatized, these newer terms will eventually become tainted by that stigma, and there will be even further calls for newer and supposedly better replacement terms. I argue that there are no magical "perfect words" that will make everyone happy. And the "activist language merry-go-round" will not stop until trans people are no longer stigmatized, at which point there will be no compelling need to replace existing trans-related terms.
After posting the piece to my blog, one of the commenters mentioned similarities between my "activist language merry-go-round" concept and what cognitive scientist/linguist/author Steven Pinker once called the "euphemism treadmill." I had not heard his term before, but a little bit of google-searching led me to this 1994 article[PDF link] in which Pinker offers numerous examples of this phenomenon over the last century. It seems clear that we are describing the same trend, and I completely agree with his assertion: "give a concept a new name, and the name becomes colored by the concept; the concept does not become freshened by the name."
While I believe that we are discussing the same phenomenon, I disagree with certain aspects of his framing of the issue. I want to discuss these differences of perspective here, not because I enjoy critiquing twenty-year-old Steven Pinker essays (I certainly have better things to do with my time), but because the shortcomings of his essay extend more generally to complaints about linguistic "political correctness" that are commonly made to this day (e.g., as can be seen in current debates regarding the word "tranny").
For one thing, Pinker seems to put his emphasis on the pointlessness of replacing tainted words with "euphemisms"--a term that critics of "political correctness" often associate with words that they believe are less direct and clear in meaning, and which are meant to appease people who are "too sensitive" about a particular issue. While he doesn't explicitly say so in the article, the overall thrust of his argument seems to be that we should simply stop doing this. He primarily talks about how the "euphemism treadmill" makes life difficult for well-intentioned people who have trouble keeping up with all the latest correct terminology, while saying virtually nothing about how marginalized groups themselves feel about living with labels that have become tainted over time.
I also get the impression from other things Pinker has said (e.g., this interview here) that he is primarily concerned with how "political correctness" in language can thwart political dissent in society. His focus is reminiscent of George Orwell's thesis in 1984: Censoring certain words, or making certain ideas taboo, can be a way of controlling people and what is imaginable and politically possible. While I agree that limiting or eliminating language can sometimes lead to serious negative consequences (as I discuss below), he doesn't talk at all about how the *existence* of certain words (particularly those that have become slurs in the public eye) can also be used to wield power over others, especially marginalized populations.
The other major difference between Pinker's take and my own is that he seems to view this as a top-down phenomenon. He begins his article with the (then recent) writers' guidelines issued by the LA Times that "bans or restricts some 150 words or phrases." He talks about "the arbiters of the changing linguistic fashions," as though somewhere in some ivory tower there exists a handful of elite powerful people who are deciding what words we are allowed to use and which ones we should avoid. He says, "Using the latest term for a minority often shows not sensitivity but subscribing to the right magazines or going to the right cocktail parties."
As someone who is not a member of a minority or marginalized group himself, it makes sense that Pinker would *experience* this as a top-down phenomenon, one that seemingly originates in college administration or newspaper & magazine editorial offices who unilaterally decree what language is acceptable and what is not. Notably, framing this as a top-down phenomenon gives credence to his fears of an Orwellian-like attempt by the powers-that-be to control people and thwart political dissent.
What Pinker (and others who frame "political correctness" as a primarily top-down phenomenon) fail to realize is that college administration and newspaper/magazine editorial offices are almost never asserting unilateral power over what language can be used to describe and discuss minorities and marginalized groups. Rather, they are merely responding to a bottom-up movement wherein a critical mass of members of a particular marginalized group have raised objections to certain words that they feel are tainted or outright slurs. And these marginalized individuals are not "exerting control" over the public at large (as they are not in any kind of position of power), but rather they are pushing against the way in which society relentlessly uses certain words to control (e.g., subdue, undermine, ridicule, demonize) them.
So to summarize, Steven Pinker's "euphemism treadmill" imagines a top-down phenomenon, and is primarily concerned with how the elimination of words (supposedly driven by the powers-that-be) complicates the lives of well-intentioned members of the dominant/majority group and ultimately thwarts political dissent. In contrast, my "activist language merry-go-round" (more accurately, I believe) describes a bottom-up phenomenon wherein marginalized populations are pushing back against the stigma that they face, and which (for understandable reasons) leads them to try to eliminate those words that are associated with that stigma. Pinker seems to only be concerned with the potential negative consequences of eliminating words, whereas my model recognizes both the power of words (e.g., the way in which slurs can be used to delegitimize and destroy people) as well as the power inherent in limiting words (e.g., when we try to eliminate words that have played a crucial role in certain marginalized individuals' activism or identity).
I am not especially concerned with how changes in trans-related language will impact the cisgender majority. Typically, dominant majorities tend to overreact when marginalized minorities attempt to transform the language that is commonly associated with them. But I do have concerns about how such word-elimination strategies can negatively impact our own communities. As I allude to in my original piece, some activists have attempted to eliminate the words "transsexual" and "bisexual" in recent years. Both of these words play crucial roles in my own activism and identity. So when some transgender- and/or bisexual-umbrella activists insist that these words are inherently "bad" for some reason or another, they are in a sense undermining my (and other people's) identity and activism. In other words, word-elimination strategies often alienate or invalidate members of our own communities, particularly those of different generations, classes, ethnicities, subcommunities, experiences, etc. And as stated above, they also fail to address the underlying stigma that drives the "activist language merry-go-round" in the first place.
I believe that we, as activists, should be suspicious of word-elimination-strategies. Not because they inconvenience Steven Pinker and others in the dominant majority, nor because they will lead to some kind of Orwellian dystopian future. Rather, we should be concerned with the ways in which word-elimination-strategies often deny the diversity of perspectives and experiences within our own communities (as I detailed in the original piece). And rather than simply eliminate words, we should focus the lion's share of our effort on eliminating the stigma that often lies beneath those words and gives them power in the first place.
No comments have been added yet.
