Language Police
September 21, 2008
A recent assignment for my communication 100 class revolved around “offensive language.” The first part of the assignment asked me to give an example of offensive language from my own life. The second part asked for an explanation of how the language could have been changed to “improve communication.” Both parts required support from our textbook.
After reading the given chapter in the textbook, I was more irritated than a paper cut on a poison ivy rash. As a writer, I don’t like it when people start trying to limit my vocabulary. I finally made up a fake example, and muddled through, but I was too irritated to leave it at that. After my BS answers, I added the following:
There is no such thing as offensive language; there are only offensive ideas. A word has no power to offend without the meaning, or idea, behind it.
I found this assignment very difficult. When I tried to think of real examples of offensive language from my life that could be developed into “more effective communication”, I was at a loss. So, I turned to the place I knew I could find something considered “offensive”: cable television. Yes, my example came from a TV show, because in real life, when I hear a blatantly derogatory term, it is usually so entwined with a statement of such ignorance or offensiveness that it is beyond any possible redemption.
Most of the book’s recommendations for avoiding the list of “isims” involve behavior, more than language. “Avoid attributing individuals’ economic or social problems to the race of the individual…” (p. 85) This is a behavioral issue. “Avoid overattribution.” (p. 87) This is a behavioral issue.
When it comes to actual language, the book makes a lot of recommendations, most of which revolve around using preferred cultural identifiers. (p. 90) Yet, the suggestions listed are muddled beyond comprehension. “Lady is negatively evaluated by many because it connotes the stereotype of the prim and proper woman.” This is utter nonsense. “African Americans prefer African American to black…although black is often used with white, as well as in a variety of other contexts…” So let me get this straight: African American is the preferred term most of the time, but sometimes black is acceptable, but only in certain contexts, which we can’t define. How is this useful to anyone?
I’m not saying racial slurs are a good thing, but arbitrarily deeming certain words offensive does nothing to improve communication, nor to reduce prejudice attitudes. Offensive sentiments do not become any less offensive just by changing the words used to convey such ideas. Is there really any difference between saying, “the elderly are hard of hearing” and “old persons are hard of hearing?” No, they are both playing to a stereotype. I believe people should worry less about “offensive” language and more about the attitudes and beliefs that lead to such language.
