⚠️Be advised that this article discusses slurs and otherwise offensive vocabulary.
Words evolve, that is a fact. The way they do so, however, can be puzzling – all the more when it comes to the sensitive task of labelling people. In this context, words reflect fluctuating changes in social norms, gaining or losing connotations as they follow the power dynamics between different groups. Were you ever told to stop using a certain word because it has “become offensive”? Did that bother you? How did it happen? Why are we uncomfortable with words anyway?
In this article, I attempt to explain why normal or respectful terms become derogatory, unacceptable or taboo, in which contexts, and other interesting phenomena that charactise the euphemism treadmill.
Table of contents
- What is a derogatory word
- Political correctness and the euphemism treadmill
- Conclusion
- Sources
1. What is a derogatory word?
Derogatory words express contempt or discomfort. This usually applies to concepts perceived as dirty, offensive or shameful, such as defecation and urination, sex, illness and disease, death, disability or poverty for example. It is why we will avoid referring too directly to such concepts, and say “excuse me for a moment” or “I need to go to the restroom” instead of “I will go poop” or “I need to take a shit” – the more avoidance, the more socially appropriate.
When it comes to referring to people, expressing contempt and discomfort can be problematic. The Collins Dictionary tells us that “if you make a derogatory remark or comment about someone or something, you express your low opinion of them”. Using a derogatory term to refer to someone or a group is thus tantamount to expressing one’s superiority or dominance. Sometimes so strongly that the label may become deeply insulting, unacceptable, taboo – a slur.
In this article, I will talk primarily about derogatory labels, by which I mean derogatory words used specifically for persons or groups.
But how does a term come to be derogatory in the first place?
1.1 Pejoration and the emergence of derogatory words and slurs
Going back into the history of derogatory labels and slurs, we often find words that are considered neutral or even appropriate, but born in a context of oppression or social exclusion. The obvious and unavoidable example of this is American slavery and the N-word. Originally, the N-word was a “normal” and “straightforward” term to refer to Black people, but its acceptance went hand-in-hand with that of slavery itself. In such circumstances, the word was bound to become a symbol of oppression.
The N-word is an extreme example. For most derogatory terms nowadays, there isn’t a context of oppression as strong as slavery and deep segregation to serve as their foundation (which is why that word remains the most taboo term in the English language, according to many). That said, various waves of oppression have targeted many different groups over time, resulting in violent words as well. Terms such as “queer”, “faggot”, “dyke” and others, for example, were or are meant to promote a heteronormative society over a sexually diverse one. The term “retard” has become inappropriate from implying the superiority of the mentally able over the mentally disabled. I will include more examples in later sections.
Pejoration (the phenomenon by which words become derogatory) reaches its peak when a word starts being used as an insult towards people outside the targeted community. For example, calling someone a “faggot” regardless of their sexuality implies that homosexuality is offensive or shameful. Milder derogatory terms follow a similar development:
- “yankee” being originally used by British people to ridicule Americans,
- “nerd” and “geek” which are occasionally meant to ridicule those perceived as overly intellectual,
- “blonde” as used to belittle women’s capacities,
- etc.
Now, some interesting things happen if you add political correctness into the mix.
2. Political correctness and the euphemism treadmill
Contrary to slavery times, the Western World in the recent decades has been more or less characterised by political correctness (PC), outlining a political era centered around recognition, identity and difference. In short, this can be attributed to the broadening of the electorate. With both sexes, all ethnical groups and every school of thought now being (more or less) equally involved in a western nation’s politics, it has become a political asset for all political leanings to use cautious and inclusive language, so as to stay away from scandals and keep everyone close to the ballot boxes.
2.1 The euphemistic label and avoidance
The point of PC is to establish respectful distance with its subject, a way to ensure the lack of active exclusion or oppression. A Black person is not a Black person: they are a person of color. That’s a euphemism, a reasonable lexical strategy. In other words, PC wants us to say “I need to go to the restroom” instead of “I need to take a shit”, but specifically when referring to people. That’s just a polite thing to do, right? You might think it’s a definitive solution,
but…
The issue of political correctness / euphemisation is that, in establishing distance, it must perform avoidance. Avoidance is double-edged. Avoiding bad words is good, but avoiding the reason why they are bad isn’t – that’s passive exclusion. It attracts attention by wanting not to (“wait… why won’t you just call that person Black?”), and thus makes the speaker’s distance or discomfort clear. It is alienation in its strictest sense: emphasising that someone (or a group) is other, different – alien.
When there is such discomfort, it is generally tied to a toned-down, not-necessarily-conscious attempt to preserve the status quo, i.e. the power relationship of a majority over a minority. This, unfortunately, is a drive for continued discrimination – hence why statements such as “I’m not a racist, but…” generally don’t bode well.
The euphemistic label is the king of political correctness. “People of color”, “people of short stature”, “people with a disability”, “people with special needs”, “people from a low-income background”, or the beautifully generic “those people”. Terms which enable the speaker to refer to anyone in a respectful way! …or so they assume, perhaps in a good-faith attempt to take a step back from more overtly hurtful ideologies. It’s always better than using slurs, right?
Because euphemisms are rooted in avoidance, they inevitably come to be seen as dishonest and highlight problems, such as the lack of political action necessary to tackle social issues, or the speaker’s own lack of awareness of said issues. Of course, we’ve all found ourselves in a situation where a euphemistic label was the “least worst” option, for lack of a better word – literally. That doesn’t make them good words though.
As much as euphemistic labels might seem like a solution for a while (“people of color”, at the time of writing, is a good example of this), criticisms are bound to crop up as long as a social imbalance exists. And yes, “people of color” has been criticised plenty already. This is how a term becomes more derogatory over time, hopping onto the treadmill.
2.2 The treadmill in motion
Though it starts out as “a better word than all previous ones”, a euphemistic label is quickly tainted by the power relationship it is born from. In other words, it becomes derogatory, just like the N-word in the American plantations.
After a survival period where it might stay above the acceptability threshold, the term will finally succumb and become a bad word. There, we are faced with two options: fixing the social imbalance, or coining a new politically correct term to replace the former one. The cycle will repeat as long as social equilibrium between the parties has not been achieved.
In linguistic terms, we refer to a straightforward term as an ortophemism (straight talk), which turns into a dysphemism (offensive talk) as it becomes derogatory, which we then replace with a euphemism (polite talk). Such are the main stages of the treadmill.
The constant coining of new euphemistic labels is like repeatedly attempting to put a bar of soap on the upper part of a slide’s wet slope. As much as you will hope for it to stay there, it will slide.
2.3 Identity-first vs person-first language: the treadmill undecided
In recent years (starting in the mid-2000s), the euphemism treadmill has been at work to determine which of two approaches should be socially appropriate: person-first language or identity-first language?
Person-first language describes a family of euphemisms that has become familiar to us, especially as English speakers: person with autism, person with cancer, person who uses a wheelchair, person with a disability. For a little over two decades, those terms have been pushed forward as appropriate to describe many stigmatised groups. In fact, they have practically been presented as a cure-all in terms of derogatory language: it literally puts the person first, not reducing their identity to a single characteristic, such as the fact that they need a wheelchair, or that they have autism. What could be wrong with that?
It is generally agreed upon that neither a wheelchair nor cancer define who someone is, and as such, “person who uses a wheelchair” and “person with cancer” are generally welcome labels. In certain cases however, a person’s identity may be inseparable from a disability or disorder. The autistic community, for example, often prefers identity-first language, such as “autistic person”, over the person-first version “person with autism”, which seems to wrongly imply that the person and the disorder are separate, in a similar way as someone is separate from their wheelchair.
A similar conundrum exists with “physically challenged”, which can be seen as implying that someone who cannot walk faces mere “challenges” and not life-shaping obstacles. Here, two views compete: one promotes such terms as “physically challenged” to avoid dehumanising a person and as a reminder that handicapped people can live a “normal” life as much as the next person, while the other frowns upon it as reductive of the person’s experience. Especially when faced with the failure of accessibility policies.
2.4 Other derogatory words
My article focuses mainly on derogatory words referring to groups of people (derogatory labels). That said, the treadmill works for any word that a majority agrees is uncomfortable.
“Slum” was displaced by “ghetto” and “inner city” until these became derogatory – circling back to “slum” on occasion.
We no longer talk about “venereal diseases”, which is a roundabout way to refer to sex-related diseases as “Venus’ ailments” – Venus being the Roman goddess of love, herself a euphemism for sexual intercourse. It is a very poetic and layered example of euphemism to which we now prefer the factual “sexually transmitted infections”. We like to euphemise this new term yet again by abbreviating it: “STIs”. Yes, sex requires a lot of euphemisation.
The words “toilet” and “bathroom” started out as euphemisms, replacing the older “house of office”, which itself had replaced “privy house” and “bog house”, all of which were euphemisms. Others yet include “restroom”, “washroom”, and “water closet”.
2.5 The various states of the treadmill
The exact nature of the treadmill varies from one case to another, obeying the nuances bestowed by historical and current group relationships.
A common antidote to the downsides of a euphemistic label is a factual and descriptive term – even better, a term that the ones concerned themselves would prefer. Unfortunately, that’s often more easily said than… said. Each case deserves its own article, but let’s briefly touch upon a few.
2.5.1 People of color
As we’ve seen, “people of color” is not necessarily the answer to the narrower “Black people”, nor are “African-American”, the segregationally-tainted “colored”, or the even more loaded terms that came before. Note that while the N-word proper was born as a “neutral”, non-euphemistic term, the term “Negro” differs as having a euphemistic origin (loaning a foreign word, Spanish in this case, is a form of avoidance).
The N-word situation involves a case of “reverse avoidance”: by spelling the N-word as n*gga rather than n*gger, the Black community attempts to reclaim the word by avoiding the slur proper. This, however, is sometimes described as euphemistic within the community itself. Ironically, this makes the original spelling n*gger slightly more appropriate to use among Black people.
By the way, using asterisks as self-censorship as I do now is a form of euphemism. And so is calling the N-word “N-word”.
2.5.2 Native Americans
Native Americans would rather not be called Indians… but not always. “Native American” can be seen as overinclusive, encompassing so many different cultures in all of the Americas that it is irrelevant and unhelpful. “Indian” is often used by… Native Americans themselves as an identitarian statement, as well as in the name of several federal organisations.
In short, “Indian” is perceived as more relevant to reclaim than “Native American” as it was the first “inappropriate” name given to the Native population by European colonisers (similarly to n*gger vs n*gga mentioned above). It seems like “Native American” is currently the appropriate term to use as an outsider, while “Indian” tends to be appropriate only within the community.
2.5.3 Disability and handicap
Medical terms have a bad reputation, especially historical ones. “Idiot”, “imbecile”, “moron” and “retard” all started out as psychological descriptors. Since they attempt to establish an order of intelligence however, it was only a matter of time until they became insulting. “Hysterical” followed a similar route, being anchored in a sexist approach of psychology which expressedly targeted women. “Spastic” is one I was unaware of prior to researching the topic, though it is extremely offensive in the United Kingdom.
Even nowadays, disability and handicap fuel a particularly rapid treadmill. “Mentally retarded” was displaced within decades in favour of several alternatives such as ”mentally challenged” or “mentally handicapped”. Recently, person-first language has pushed forward terms such as “people with special needs” or “people with learning difficulties”. Another question is whether people admitted in specialised institutions should be referred to as “clients” or “patients”, or yet another alternative.
“Lame” is an example of derogatory term derived from physical disability (amputated limbs).
My theory to explain such lexical productivity in medical labelling is that we are not as socially aware of ableism as we may be of other discriminations. It may take some time before the lexical melting pot simmers down here.
2.5.4 People with dwarfism
People with dwarfism will prefer to be called “little person” or “person of short stature” due to the associations of dwarf with mythology. As for “midget”, it became offensive due to the freakshow industry. The odd “vertically challenged” seems to have emerged as a humorous euphemism, never becoming appropriate in the first place.
2.5.5 Deaf people
Deaf people would typically rather be called deaf, but “hearing-impaired” is also appropriate. “People who can’t hear”, while compliant with person-first language, is not only avoidant but also not necessarily accurate. Capitalising the label as “the Deaf” is sometimes recommended.
2.5.6 Autistic people
The autistic community won’t necessarily like the label “Asperger’s” anymore, due to its obsolescence, or the fact that its inventor collaborated with the nazi regime. “Autistic” is normally fine, with “on the spectrum” attempting to be even more inclusive to the cost of being slightly avoidant. “Neurodivergent” works well too and may be on the rise – assuming that the divergence in question doesn’t come to be seen as deviance.
2.5.7 Disadvantaged professions
“Disadvantaged professions” is itself a euphemism for ungrateful, underpaid, or degrading jobs. In many languages, new words are being coined for such professions, in an attempt to meliorate their status (that is, make it less derogatory).
A janitor is now a custodian; the French equivalent balayeur (“sweeper”) became technicien de surface (“surface technician”). A secretary might now be a personal assistant. As for garbagemen, they became garbage collectors, then environmental service workers. An undertaker might prefer to be referred to as a funeral director, a teacher as an educationalist. This paper lists many more starting page 5.
In certain languages, using English is a melioration strategy. In Poland, for example, you could see job advertisements looking for a “sales representative” or a “human resources manager” [sic].
The feminisation of professional labels for inclusivity is also an issue, especially in gendered languages such as French where, for example, autrice or auteure (“female writer”) compete as feminine alternatives to the masculine/neutral auteur. English is not exempt of this problem, with chairperson / spokesperson replacing chairman / spokesman or supervisor replacing foreman.
2.5.8 Speciesism
Though speciesism almost qualifies as an exception as it is not directly a human-related issue, some advocate to stop using deprecating expressions based on perceived animal flaws: “dirty as a pig”, “batty”, etc.
2.6 Reclaiming and normalising: escaping the treadmill
The euphemism treadmill is a sad fatality in any society with social imbalances. Sometimes however, the connotations of a term do change for the better.
As a term dies out into inappropriateness, another phenomenon may yet revive it: reappropriation. In such an event, the targeted community reclaims the term, making it appropriate to use only within that community. In this context, it can be used sarcastically against the oppressor, or as an internal sign of mutual recognition. It is a process through which the community, by making the term their own, effectively disarms the oppressor. Again, the paramount example is the N-word, which is used among Black people; but words like “Indian” for Native Americans, or “queer” for the LGBT+ community qualify as well.
Then comes the last step, which may or may not occur: normalisation (or melioration). This is the process by which a word becomes appropriate for all again. This is also demonstrated with the word “queer”, which started out as an insult, was reappropriated by the queer community, then spread out again as an appropriate and generic term for the LGBT+ community.
Each derogatory term has its own story. Sometimes, words take but a short dip in the derogatory pool – if “nerd” and “geek” can be used as insults (like so, so many words, really), they’re also hardly offensive.
2.7 The euphemism treadmill as a political issue
The euphemism treadmill is as much a byproduct of politics as it is a divisive issue in its own right. Though it is generally attached to left-leaning policies of inclusivity and acceptance, political correctness is also widely used by the right-leaning to avoid antagonising minorities. The right will often blame PC on the left for its attempt at policing thought and speech, while the left will denounce its instrumentalisation by the right to whitewash social issues.
Attitudes towards PC have always varied widely, with some urging to use terms neutrally, even if they are derogatory, in order to “disarm the bullies” and discourage a cycle of lexical dishonesty (that is, “x word is only a bad word if you keep yourself from using it neutrally”). One aspect that is sometimes pointed out is the hostility of PC towards the elderly, who may have a harder time keeping up with language trends. It is also occasionally denounced as faddish, or as a tool designed solely to elevate its user, in a self-righteous, holier-than-thou kind of way. Nobody wants to arrive at a point where one must say “coffee without milk” instead of “black coffee”.
To people outside the oppressed group (especially older people, who might have lived through an entire cycle of semantic changes), it can be hard to understand why a word might only be appropriate inside said group, as if “forbidden” to everyone but a few “privileged”. This, of course, would be misunderstanding the nature of social privileges, and the dynamics of discrimination – but it is worth noting that strong feelings exist on both side of the issue.
Before concluding, I would add that this article has been fairly English-centered. Let’s have a quick section about that.
2.8 Other languages…
…have their own euphemism treadmill. My native French, for example, has verlan, which is a pretty unique strategy to coin slang words by changing the order of syllables. In that fashion, the term « Noir » (black / Black person) can be verlanised as « Renoi« , and « Arabe » (Arabic) as « Rebeu« . These are considered relatively accepted terms, but sometimes seen as avoidant (and thus, derogatory) in a context where immigration is a sensitive issue.
Derogatory words are a huge challenge for translators, especially between languages that have differing views on linguistic taboos. While researching the topic, I came across a study concerned with the translation of an English-language erotic novel into Indonesian. Different processes such as euphemisation, generalisation or deletion are used by the translator upon encountering too explicit depictions. Something to keep in mind when reading a translated novel: how much did your native language’s tolerance to taboos affect the writing?
I have also dedicated an article to the “N-word” in Russian, which involves fascinating, intercultural dynamics of pejoration.
3. Conclusion
Human societies are diverse and imbalanced. Not every group enjoys equal rights and recognition at any given time, even in nations that are recognised as egalitarian and democratic. Words are the perfect witnesses of that, especially when used to label said groups. The deeper the oppression, the more the targeted community will be seen as “bad”, in turn generating negatively-charged language to refer to its members.
In an attempt to restore decency and politeness (or in a bid for political outreach), politically correct terms will replace the ones that have become negative. These will be euphemisms, terms that establish respectful distance. But because euphemisms are avoidant, they inevitably come to be seen as dishonest, a mere façade applied on unaddressed social issues. As such, a euphemism will become derogatory as well.
This cyclical dynamic establishes what we refer to as the euphemism treadmill: a descriptive, to-the-point term (an orthophemism) becomes derogatory (a dysphemism) because of the context of oppression it is born from, prompting political correctness to coin a new, toned-down, appropriate term (a euphemism), which in turns becomes derogatory due to perceived avoidance and dishonesty.
As a way out of the euphemism treadmill, a derogatory term is sometimes reclaimed by the targeted community. As a community term, the label becomes appropriate to use for those involved, but remains inappropriate for outsiders to use (e.g. the N-word, “Indian”, “faggot”). Occasionally, negative connotations die out enough for the term to become popular as a neutral term again (e.g. “queer”).
The euphemism treadmill affects all labels for groups that are culturally seen as “inferior”. More broadly, it affects all words that refer to something that is perceived as offensive, shameful or dirty (“venereal disease”, “toilet”…).
As a reflection of social tensions, the euphemism treadmill is a political issue in and of itself. It reveals and solves tensions between groups, but feeds them in equal amounts as well. As such, it can be seen either as a solution, a façade, or a problem. Above all, it is important to recall that a linguistic issue is necessarily preceded by a social one. Labels for people will only ever be as equal as the people themselves.
I used to think I was poor. Then they told me I wasn’t poor, I was needy. Then they told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as needy, I was deprived. Then they told me underpriviledged was overused, I was disadvantaged. I still don’t have a dime, but I have a great vocabulary.
Jules Feiffer
4. Sources
- Steven Pinker, The Game of the Name, The New York Times, 1994
- Luke Fleming and Michael Lempert, “Introduction: Beyond Bad Words”, Anthropological Quarterly, 2011
- Bertrand Labasse, “L’art de l’agonistique Lexicale”, La Valeur Des Informations: Ressorts et Contraintes Du Marché Des Idées, 2020
- Paul Bloom, “Explaining Linguistic Diversity”, American Scientist, 2002
- Ben O’Neill, A Critique of Politically Correct Language, The Independent Review, 2011
- Adriana Łuczkowska, Euphemistic names of professions in English and Polish, Linguistica Silesiana 29, 2008
- Norman Fairclough, “‘Political Correctness’: The Politics of Culture and Language”, Discourse & Society 14, 2003
- Richard Nordquist, Definition and Examples of Orthophemism, ThoughtCo, 2019
- ‘Indian’ or ‘Native American’? [Reservations, Part 0], CPG Grey (YouTube), 2020
- Inclusive language: words to use and avoid when writing about disability, gov.uk, 2021
- Beth Haller, Journalists should learn to carefully traverse a variety of disability terminology, 2016
- Lydia Brown, Identity-First Language, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, 2011
- Sulistini Putranti, Mangatur Nababan & Sri. Tarjana, Euphemism, Orthophemism, and Dysphemism in the Translation of Sexual Languages, 2017
- The Collins dictionary, Wiktionary, and Ngrams