Did someone ever work out the relevant academic theory that describes this linguistic process?
A word starts out as neutral, but gradually transitions to becoming a slur (a process that seemingly takes decades), and is replaced by a new politically correct word which is seen as too avant-garde at first, but gets established in part due to a lack of push-back (because any criticism will make the person levelling it seem a bigot/racist/ass), and eventually that becomes the default word, until it starts sliding into slur territory and the cycle starts anew.
I'm not sure if this process can actually be prevented.
I think the treadmill aspect also happens for words used by teenagers. They use, for example, “hip”. Once their children are teenagers, they don’t want to be like their parents, so they use “hot”. Their children, in turn, pick yet another word, making “cool” the new “hot” (chances are I’m not mentioning these in the historically correct order)
The same process seems to apply to social networks (“Facebook is for parents”)
In all these cases, there’s a mechanism that makes a word or product tabu within certain social circles, forcing them to come up with a new term.
The process that leads to things becoming tabu stays, however, so the cycle repeats itself.
I wouldn’t know what it would be, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were a more generic term that applies to all of these.
I definitely recognize this process (and have heard the term euphemism treadmill from McWhorter the other commenter pointed out) but since when has "disabled" been used as a slur? I'm sure it's happened, but I'm not sure I've ever heard of someone using disabled in a derogatory manner like you would hear "retarded" commonly used now.
I get the sense that "disabled" is still in its avant-garde phase. "retarded" passed that in my circles maybe a few years ago, but also there was a time where it was much like "disabled" is today.
Aside, somehow "retarded" got replaced by "special needs" or "short bus" in some circles which also sounds insulting to me, so maybe we'll continue this treadmill for awhile longer.
I literally recall "differently abled" as being the punch line to a joke (Simpsons perhaps?). A character put his foot in his mouth, and tried to back-pedal and sort of ad-hoc formulated the phrase "differently abled" as a way to sound more PC and sensitive. It was quite literally supposed a joke at the time.
Language is so fluid and used by different people with different connotations of words that I don’t think it’s “preventable” if it is something to be prevented.
I see this tug of war of new word as part of the process for finding the best word… for this particular zeitgeist.
I remember in the 2000s, “a person with autism” was preferred because they are first and foremost a person who happens to have autism. But this year I learned some people prefer the term “autistic” as they claim it as part of who they are.
It's pretty inane when you think about it. At some point wouldn't people start noting that, hey, you're trying to solve something clearly, but what you're attempting to do is clearly not the right approach.
This does signal what type of person you are dealing with if they don't go along with the word change. For example, if I heard someone using the negro word I would think that there was an excellent chance that person was racist. The renaming also signals to everyone racism isn't acceptable (in a very minor way). It is hard to change a culture but the words we use in one of the ways we do it.
When the world stops being racist this renaming will stop.
It’s like a woke cycle. I’m not sure it’s really about the words, but in some ways, the new people look at the terrible attitudes of the previous people (easy to count on that) and feel the need to disavow it by creating a linguistic line in the sand.. some jump over it, but the others get the sharp end of the stick, culturally speaking.
The advocacy and social signaling feels more imperative than the ancillary social improvements that may be happening either way. It also feels generationally alienating, while some of the “I see things with new eyes” part can happen even among those who don’t even know the words have changed.
I'm not sure about your example - "black" and "African American" are still perfectly acceptable terms, or did I miss something?
Regardless, it may be the case that a permanent state of euphemism treadmilling does solve a problem - a social signal, perhaps, to distinguish those who embrace social change and those who resist it. It's pretty effective at that too.
It's considered incredibly insensitive to refer to black people as "African American" as it makes a presumption about their nationality. See countless examples, of Americans thinking they're being polite and addressing, say, an Ethiopian woman, living in London as "African American".
Considered by whom? I happen to agree, it's a very silly term. However it's still in widespread use, and if it's losing ground at all it's to "Black" and "Black American", which is reverse to the direction you originally indicated.
I opened this thread hoping to say this exact same thing and you hit the nail on the head.
I had this discussion with someone not long ago about the term "homeless" or "homelessness" and their argument was that this was an overly aggressive word and was outdated. The damn word describes exactly what it is, which is a person that is without a home.
Indeed, I've sometimes had the possibly insensitive but joking thought, "Differently abled? What abilities are they hiding? If timmy gets his legs crushed by a bus, can he fly?! Can he now shoot lasers from his nipples? As far as I'm concerned sick triceps from wheeling along don't count as an ability."
It also fits better into the social model of disability, which I find very valuable, and assigns agency to the disabling where it belongs.
Ex: I don't experience my poor vision as a disability right now, because I'm easily able to access an aid that allows me to do everything I want to with no major downsides, in the form of glasses.
But if I were to become direly impoverished and lose access to them (again lol), I would be disabled by that circumstance. My physical state has stayed the same. The disability is in what I can't access and why, not the impairment itself, which can be addressed.
"Stop"? That's harsh
"Tellling?" That excludes people who are unable to talk
"People?" Whoa, aren't we constantly going on about animals and even plants being sentient creatues?
So "differently continue communicating to sentient creatures"... Oh wait, creationism? ...
My reaction to "differently able" as a disabled person is to think: changing what you call it doesn't change my disability and certainly doesnt change how I feel about myself. If anything it seems lazy and pandering.
I can't do many things that most others can. That's just how it is and I have accepted that. I work with what I have, just like we all do.
Calling it something you consider less offensive doesn't obviate you from treating me with respect and decency. If you want to know something about my disability ask. Be polite and respectful, Understand the appropriateness of the situation and don't obsess on my differences.
When we first met I didn't ask, "wow why are you so ugly?" So maybe asking "why do you limp?" Shouldn't be your first question.
Compassion isn't avoiding offending me, or offending your own feelings.
Compassion is about understanding, hey they can't do some things many of us can or need to do them differently. But they're a person and deserve to be treated like one just like anyone else.
That doesn't make sense as a disability is a lack of ability.
It sounds like a copy of the British term "special needs" used to refer to someone with cognitive impairment, sometimes shorted in conversion by people as "special".
Like most of these wokisms, it's not about bettering the situation or lives, it's more about complying with a singly-minded mindset of a singular world view that wokists would have us all hold. It's the same way with any cult (whether religious or social). When you control words and vocabulary you are just one step from controlling thoughts.
>When you control words and vocabulary you are just one step from controlling thoughts.
Yes? That's the entire point. Language shapes thought, and so word choice matters, and so there is a movement to be mindful of word choices. It's not a "cult" or dystopian thought control because it's completely democratic - people have every right to shame each other for poor word choices. "Wokists" aren't some cabal, manipulatively pulling strings from behind a shadowy curtain - these views only have power because they're held by a lot of people.
If you want to convince people to do things differently, you'll have to address their views on their own merits. Attacking the basic principle of social enforcement of moral values won't accomplish anything.
When I was a kid "handicapped" was common, but then it became regarded as offensive and was replaced by "disabled". I thought at the time it was silly, as abled/disabled was pretty binary ('dis-' = 'not'), whereas "handicap" covers a whole range, and encourages us to think of ways to "level the paying field".
53 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadA word starts out as neutral, but gradually transitions to becoming a slur (a process that seemingly takes decades), and is replaced by a new politically correct word which is seen as too avant-garde at first, but gets established in part due to a lack of push-back (because any criticism will make the person levelling it seem a bigot/racist/ass), and eventually that becomes the default word, until it starts sliding into slur territory and the cycle starts anew.
I'm not sure if this process can actually be prevented.
The same process seems to apply to social networks (“Facebook is for parents”)
In all these cases, there’s a mechanism that makes a word or product tabu within certain social circles, forcing them to come up with a new term.
The process that leads to things becoming tabu stays, however, so the cycle repeats itself.
I wouldn’t know what it would be, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were a more generic term that applies to all of these.
Also known as "euphemism cycle": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill
Aside, somehow "retarded" got replaced by "special needs" or "short bus" in some circles which also sounds insulting to me, so maybe we'll continue this treadmill for awhile longer.
I could go with the first two in a code review.
Differently abled is OK. Learning differences or special needs also works. Disabilities I think is still OK.
I'm kind of on board with getting away from retarded and disabled.
Realize that there are people making a living off of trying to find new things to be offended by.
Once you realize that, the world starts to make a lot of sense :)
I see this tug of war of new word as part of the process for finding the best word… for this particular zeitgeist.
I remember in the 2000s, “a person with autism” was preferred because they are first and foremost a person who happens to have autism. But this year I learned some people prefer the term “autistic” as they claim it as part of who they are.
> "negro" => "colored" => "black" => "African American" => "person of color"
It's pretty inane when you think about it. At some point wouldn't people start noting that, hey, you're trying to solve something clearly, but what you're attempting to do is clearly not the right approach.
When the world stops being racist this renaming will stop.
As well say “renaming will not stop.” Something will always be wrong to someone. Change will always be right to someone.
The advocacy and social signaling feels more imperative than the ancillary social improvements that may be happening either way. It also feels generationally alienating, while some of the “I see things with new eyes” part can happen even among those who don’t even know the words have changed.
Regardless, it may be the case that a permanent state of euphemism treadmilling does solve a problem - a social signal, perhaps, to distinguish those who embrace social change and those who resist it. It's pretty effective at that too.
I had this discussion with someone not long ago about the term "homeless" or "homelessness" and their argument was that this was an overly aggressive word and was outdated. The damn word describes exactly what it is, which is a person that is without a home.
The universe is not balanced and fair. It didn't give me something in exchange for what it took from me, and that is okay.
Ex: I don't experience my poor vision as a disability right now, because I'm easily able to access an aid that allows me to do everything I want to with no major downsides, in the form of glasses.
But if I were to become direly impoverished and lose access to them (again lol), I would be disabled by that circumstance. My physical state has stayed the same. The disability is in what I can't access and why, not the impairment itself, which can be addressed.
"Stop"? That's harsh "Tellling?" That excludes people who are unable to talk "People?" Whoa, aren't we constantly going on about animals and even plants being sentient creatues?
So "differently continue communicating to sentient creatures"... Oh wait, creationism? ...
Or you know, just call me by my name? That works too I guess.
I can't do many things that most others can. That's just how it is and I have accepted that. I work with what I have, just like we all do.
Calling it something you consider less offensive doesn't obviate you from treating me with respect and decency. If you want to know something about my disability ask. Be polite and respectful, Understand the appropriateness of the situation and don't obsess on my differences.
When we first met I didn't ask, "wow why are you so ugly?" So maybe asking "why do you limp?" Shouldn't be your first question.
Compassion isn't avoiding offending me, or offending your own feelings.
Compassion is about understanding, hey they can't do some things many of us can or need to do them differently. But they're a person and deserve to be treated like one just like anyone else.
This isn't hard.
It sounds like a copy of the British term "special needs" used to refer to someone with cognitive impairment, sometimes shorted in conversion by people as "special".
Yes? That's the entire point. Language shapes thought, and so word choice matters, and so there is a movement to be mindful of word choices. It's not a "cult" or dystopian thought control because it's completely democratic - people have every right to shame each other for poor word choices. "Wokists" aren't some cabal, manipulatively pulling strings from behind a shadowy curtain - these views only have power because they're held by a lot of people.
If you want to convince people to do things differently, you'll have to address their views on their own merits. Attacking the basic principle of social enforcement of moral values won't accomplish anything.