Earlier in the week, I made the mistake of entering a debate with someone about the nature of racial slurs and other offensive words. My argument was primarily linguistic. I tried to argue that not everyone who uses a word like “nigger” is necessarily using it in a malicious manner. The responses were predictably irate and unthinking. I was told repeatedly that the word’s meaning is inherently offensive, and it could never be used in a non-malicious manner.
This struck me as odd. Meaning is hardly static, and in fact the interpretation of words and phrases is notoriously fluid and far from absolute. Take, for instance, the phrase “Would you mind shutting the window?”
Now, if someone wanted to argue that this phrase had an absolute meaning, they would probably settle for its normal usage in normal contexts. It would be equivalent to a polite command or request for someone to close a window. However, consider the following scenarios:
1.) The phrase is uttered by someone in a windowless room while pointing at a door. Obviously, in this case we wouldn’t interpret it in the “normal” sense and search fruitlessly for a window to close. We would judge from his probably intentions and other context cues that he most likely wants the door closed, not the window. Notice how intentions can inform and even override the normal social contexts of words. (Indeed, considering people’s intentions is part of the social contexts of words, and claiming a word has absolute meaning despite intentions is to actually ignore a major social context of language interpretation.)
2.) The phrase is uttered by someone as you are opening a window on a computer. In this case, it is clear that the word “window” though spelled the same as that in the original phrase, is actually a completely different word, and refers to a program open on a computer screen, and shutting it means closing it or minimizing it.
3.) The phrase is uttered by someone who wants your opinion on the opening and closing of windows. Here, the person isn’t trying to make a demand or a request, but wants information about your state of mind. He is seeking a “yes” or “no” answer as to whether you would mind, and doesn’t necessarily want you to close the window.
4.) After laboriously opening a difficult window and you go over and then shut it, the phrase is uttered in a sort of snarky tone of voice. Obviously, the sarcasm is meant to imply that they are requesting that you do NOT close the window, as they just exerted a lot of effort in opening it.
Now, why is it that such subtle uses of language, context, and intention can never be considered for offensive words? Why would any other word, and even a whole sentence as indicated above, be subject to so many circumstances that can alter its meaning in a variety of ways, and yet a word like “nigger” or “fag” is absolutely set in stone and always offensive?
Perhaps the strangest argument, though, is what I call the “group-inclusive use” argument, wherein one can only use a racial slur if they are a member of that particular race. Of course, there are all sorts of technical problems with this argument. Half of my family is mexican, and half is german. Does this mean I can only use half of a racial slur for mexicans? Can I say “wet” or “back” but not “wetback”? It’s the sorites dilemma for race relations! If the theory of evolution predicts we all originated from a common ancestor who lived in Africa, aren’t we all African Americans? At what point am I not? What if, like a transgendered male, I’m a young white man who nevertheless identifies himself as an ethnic minority, despite my outward appearance? Is it okay in that scenario? The list goes on and on.
However, what upsets me most about this particular argument is that it espouses just the sort of racism it is meant to criticize. For instance, when asked why white people cannot ever use a word like “nigger” in a positive context, the responder says that this is because throughout history white people have used the word offensively.
Think about that argument. It is essentially an inductive argument, and can be laid bare like so:
1. All white people who use the word “nigger” are using the word offensively because white people in the past have used the word offensively.
Now let’s take a look at an average inbred yokel’s racist justification for labelling all blacks as criminals, “All black people are drug dealers! Just the other day I saw the cops arresting a black person selling drugs!” This can be rephrased:
2. All black people are drug dealers because in the past black people have been drug dealers.
Notice that both arguments are essentially of the same logical form. All x’s are y’s because some x’s have been y’s. Now, it is clear that the argument is obviously not deductively valid. It is also clear that both arguments are racial generalizations, because they try to apply a principle to all members of a racial group based upon the actions of a subset of that group. All white people must be using a word offensively because a subset of white people in the past used the word offensively.
The interesting thing is that when I point out this blatant racist generalization, and show the people making this argument the implicit racism, it tends to make them really, really mad. And really, that’s part of the point. I do not truly think their argument really indicates they are racist, I am only applying their own absolutist condemnation to their own statements. As I’ve noted above, I think a person’s intentions count for a lot, and it is clear that the people who use this argument have the best intentions and for some reason or other think they are fighting racism in making such an argument. With that said, though, it is clear that they may harbor racist motivations of their own without even knowing it, even when they do not consider themselves racist. It proves my point that we shouldn’t assume that offensive words are absolutes, as no part of language is absolute, because in doing so we may end up characterizing well-meaning people as racists. I’m a strong people in putting people before words. If there’s a possibility, given the context clues, that you aren’t trying to be offensive, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you’re waving a confederate flag and shouting obscenities, on the other hand…
Of course, one way to avoid the criticism I’ve raised is to simply argue that ALL uses of the word “nigger” are offensive, regardless of the speaker’s skin color. In that case, one would not be attributing meaning to a person based solely upon their ethnicity, and would avoid the criticism of generalizing based upon race–although they are still generalizing, I might add, because their linguistic absolutism seems to imply that because people in the past have used a word in an offensive manner, it must remain offensive for all. So much for the subtlety and constant flux of language!
Still, though, people seem to think it is impossible to use a word like “nigger” in a manner that is not offensive. Indeed, it is ironic that in the debate several of the people were asking me, “When is it EVER possible to use the word ‘nigger’ in a way that isn’t offensive?” My immediate response is to say, “Why, in the way you just used it. Referring to it as a word is obviously not the same as hurling the word at a person of color with a shout, fists clenched, and burning cross in the background.” What amazed me is that, instead of conceding my point, she apologized and said that she was indeed a racist. For referring to it as a word!
I think that sort of mindset is rather absurd. Several of the commenters in the discussion who vehemently disagreed with me nevertheless pointed out that they’ve seen situations in which mixed-race peer groups have used the word “nigga” as a sign of friendship. What is funny about this is not that no one in the peer group was offended, but that the white woman overhearing it was. Indeed, I can think of countless situations where it wouldn’t be immediately evident that a person using the word is trying to be malicious. If one is reading it from a book, or singing along to a rap song, for instance. If someone doesn’t know the meaning of the word and is simply repeating it. If someone is trying to use the word poetically or metaphorically in an artistic work about racism. If someone is just trying to convey brotherhood or friendship…to say that all of these people in all of these situations are thereby racist is rather absurd. The best bet in these situations is to think, “If I can replace the offensive word with a non-offensive synonym (like ‘friend’), then perhaps that is actually what he means by this word?” You don’t have to be able to read minds, just contexts.
In fact, it’s not just absurd. It trivializes the very notion of racism. Imagine a white man who donats money to civil rights organizations, votes for politicians based upon their civil rights records, campaigns against racial hate crimes, and yet occasionally says the word “nigger” (but intends it to mean “friend”). Now, it is obvious we would not consider this person racist if we removed that last attribute. But if that single attribute, the fact that he uses a certain word, can render a person we’d normally consider abundantly non-racist a bigot, then aren’t we guilty of trivializing his racism? When I think of racism, I think of those trying to deny rights to others, who see others as inferior, who see others as evil or bad…not simply as people who use certain sorts of language. To equate the “racist” man I outlined above with a member of the KKK is like deciding to define “murder” as the swatting of flies, and then reviling a swatter of flies as equal in shame to Jeffrey Dahmer.
And the talk of “privilege” is what really gets me. Now, I realize that privilege is a very real phenomenon. A poor, black, disabled woman will almost always have less opportunity than a rich, able-bodied, white man. The problem is that people use appeals to “privilege” as blankets for errors in reasoning. If, for instance, I cannot accept the argument that only black people can use the word “nigger” because white people have used it as a slur in the past, it isn’t because I find the foundation of the argument racist in itself and logically invalid. No, it’s because I come from a position of privilege and am incapable of understanding things from another perspective. Now, this is really a very poor excuse for bad reasoning. To think one must be a member of a particular group to fully understand that group is nonsensical. Privilege isn’t just some sort of reified pedastal that applies uniformly to one class of a binary opposition, but is instead a product of a whole web of interrelated characteristics. In general, a black person has less privilege than a white person, a poor person less than a rich person, but what about a rich black person compard with a poor white person? I’m willing to bet thousands of dollars that a rich black man like Colin Powell has a hell of a lot more privilege than this straight, poor, half-mexican, atheist male. Does that mean Colin Powell cannot possibly understand privilege? Of course not. He’s a black man. I’m sure he’s been in situations where he’s been in a position of powerlessness. To say he cannot understand straight, poor, half-mexican, atheist males like myself simply because he is not a poor, straight, half-mexican atheist dude is just a convenient way for me to avoid criticism from him. It is a lot like the move theists make with atheists who are critiquing God’s existence when they claim that God is ineffable and unknowable and wholly removed from anything we could even attempt to address or understand. It’s just an easy way to avoid criticism or a discussion. In fact, it’s a form of privilege in itself. Can’t they understand their position of privilege in these debates, that they have it so easy because they can just appeal mindlessly to this term instead of trying to put forth a reasonable argument? Me, I have to scratch and work and think, but as soon as someone says “privilege” it’s over!
I understand that I am likely to take a lot of flak for this, because it seems the great majority of people conveniently become linguistic absolutists when it comes to offensive words, even in spite of the fact that they have been documented to change meaning. Is there a cultural context where the phrase, “I’m going to kill you!” means you should fear for your life? Of course. But there is also a cultural context where you’d be foolish to fear for your life upon hearing the same phrase–if, for instance, I say it while laughing and smiling because you played a practical joke on me. Why should we ignore these contexts, and subtleties like people’s actual intentions in using certain language, in favor of a bull-headed absolutism that ignores the people behind those words in a rather misguided attempt to villify them or portray them as insensitive bigots?
Am I a linguistic nihilist? No. I am not arguing that words mean whatever, whenever, with no rhyme or reason. If I’m in a room without windows and ask if you’d mind shutting the window while pointing to an open door, you can infer from context clues that I want the door closed. This does not mean that you can reasonably infer from context cues that what I really mean is “Grab me a bucket and feed me my own feces” when I ask you to close the window. I’m not trying to appeal to some unknowable, Wittgensteinian private language, folks. But neither am I a linguistic absolutist. Words don’t mean one thing and one thing only, independent of other influences. I fall somewhere in the middle, in the real world. The world where “window” can conceivably mean “door” in the right contexts, but not necessarily “Feed me feces.”
Feel free to discuss in the comments, but please refrain from name-calling and rudeness. I know from first-hand experience that those who campaign the loudest against using offensive language are the quickest to use it themselves! (You can, of course, call me a piece of shit douchebag if your intentions are not malicious, naturally! Sort of like the big-brotherish, arm around the shoulder, “How the fuck ya doin, fuckface?” thing you’re likely to get from your friends who are still in college.)
So, tell me how the fuck YOU doin’, fuckfaces. Feel free to voice your disagreement. I won’t bite.