First, "euphemism creep", or the "euphemism treadmill," per Steven Pinker is a real thing. James McWhorter has also written much about it.
It's when a euphemism replaces a no-longer acceptable term, but soon enough becomes no longer acceptable itself.
Think "handicapped" being replaced by "disabled," then that becoming not acceptable and it being replaced by "differently abled." Some day in the not too distant future, because of the word "differently," that will be replaced as well.
This is a field with enough to mine that I am going to write about this on various spots, including my philosophy and critical thinking blog. But, there as here, I'll use the same starting point — Substacker Corey Hutchins talking about how different media outlets in Colorado struggle (or maybe "struggle" with scare quotes intended) on how to talk about "people who aren't supposed to be here," or if I need scare quotes inside that, "people who aren't 'supposed' to be here."
Or, per old friend Brains, who used it non-disparagingly? "Ill Eagles."
Here, it's not just ground-level, but, in media, an official style issue, as the Associated Press long ago said both "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" aren't allows.
I agree for sure with the word "alien." That said, quoting Hutchins, I disagree with the AP already trying to get ahead of euphemism creep three years ago.
“We don’t use the terms illegal immigrant, unauthorized immigrant, irregular migrant, alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented (except when quoting people or documents that use these terms),” the AP wrote. “Many immigrants and migrants have some sort of documents, but not the necessary ones.”
As I said in a comment to Hutchins, why not just add "allegedly" in front of "undocumented immigrants"?
Per that Shitter link, the AP does offer alternatives. But? Most of them are kind of cumbersome, which undercuts the usefulness of language.
Also, per the authors I cited at the top of the page, this issue tends to get politicized. And, it's usually "conservatives" vs "liberals." Setting aside L/libertarians and some Green types who claim to be neither right nor left, the politicized polarity also ignores friendly skeptical non-liberal leftists.
I want to move beyond that angle, as I've already tackled the politics on my main blog.
In part, we're at Wittgenstein's language as game. For various reasons, including but by no means limited to, politics, and within that, in the US, including but by no means limited to two-party "duopoly" politics, not everybody will be willing to play the same game.
For me, this isn't a killer. But, it is a heads-up, depending on how serious the issue is.
Within politics, the AP says that if an official statement has "illegal immigrants" and it's being quoted, quote as is — no bowdlerizing.
However, that's print media. Political interviews, or everyday oral communication, political or otherwise, the issue is not so avoidable.
To extend the language as a game angle, language, like Monopoly, can have "house rules" versions. It can also have people cheating, or the linguistic equivalent thereof. Or throwing temper tantrums.
Let us take the "word" (that's a scare quote, not a reference quote, folks) "trans."
I don't use it, and won't let it be used in written communication with me. It's either a prefix missing a referent noun or adjective, or the first name of an old GM car.
We can talk about "transsexual" or "transgender." And, that's all I'll talk about. Try to use the stemless prefix and I am out of the conversation.
This, then gets into larger issues scientific as well as cultural and sociological.
But, let's tie it to philosophical issues. Per last week's piece, I reject attempts to claim that existence is an attribute, whether a general attribute or one of specific items, rather than simply a descriptor.
That itself is not a euphemism. But, it's arguable that something like "Ground of Being," especially with English, not German, title-case spelling, is.
No comments:
Post a Comment