Epithets and pejorative language
Epithets and pejorative language refer to derogatory terms used to demean individuals or groups, often based on their ethnicity, nationality, or other characteristics. While some epithets may be delivered humorously, the intent behind many is to inflict harm or embarrassment, particularly toward marginalized communities. Such language can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and evoke negative historical associations, especially for groups that have faced systemic discrimination, such as African Americans, Jewish Americans, and Indigenous peoples. The impact of these terms extends beyond personal interactions, as they can seep into cultural representations through media, art, and literature, influencing societal attitudes across generations.
The tension between freedom of speech and the right to be free from discrimination is central to discussions surrounding epithets. While individuals in the U.S. are protected under the First Amendment, this right can conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment's aim of ensuring equal protection under the law. Moreover, the relationship between verbal abuse and subsequent physical violence against minority groups underscores the societal ramifications of such language. Critical race theorists emphasize the need for legal recognition of the harms caused by racial invective, advocating for a balance that protects both free speech and the dignity of all individuals. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for fostering a respectful and inclusive society.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Epithets and pejorative language
Every minority group, and many nationalities, may be the victim of some form of invective directed toward them by members of hostile or rival groups. On occasion, these epithets may be intended humorously, but more frequently, the intent of such a term is to cause hurt or embarrassment to the target group. These epithets are most damaging to the minority and ethnic groups that have been most severely marginalized in a given society. For a White American, being called a “Yankee” is hardly likely to cause undue pain, even when slogans such as “Yankee, go home” are scrawled on the walls of Western European capitals, because this term has a positive connotation as well (at least in the minds of the majority group). Other terms may be used as epithets for certain minorities or nations but are not universally regarded as slanderous. For example, the term “Pollock,” attributed to a Polish American, may not be well-intentioned, but it is based on polak, the name Polish people use to call themselves, and it may be the manner of delivery rather than the epithet itself that is offensive.
The most damaging form of pejorative language, however, is that which is directed toward groups that have suffered repeatedly in the wider society just for being who they are or who have been exploited and shunned by the dominant group. African Americans, Jewish Americans, Asian Americans, Indigenous Americans, and Latino Americans are often subject to abusive language that dwells on physical, socioeconomic, and historical qualities that single them out as groups seemingly eternally on the receiving end of ethnic hatred. The terms themselves carry a semantic load that evokes painful associations in the target group. The abuse is not restricted to personal encounters but can become pervasive in the culture through the media of cartoons and caricatures, film, comics, graffiti, popular literature, mass mailings, and the Internet. This ensures that the negative stereotype will perpetuate itself to future generations.
According to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, freedom of speech is an inalienable right of American citizens. However, this right, when exercised without regard to the effect speech has on others, can come into conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed to provide “equal protection of the law” to all citizens, born or naturalized. The right of an individual citizen to say what he or she thinks thus comes into direct conflict with the right of every citizen to be free from prejudicial treatment. Among the issues that this debate raises is the relationship between words and actions, because violence directed against minority groups is often preceded by verbal abuse.
Critical race theorists, who have assessed this question from a legal and moral standpoint, view racial relations in the United States as having a history of repeated injurious outcomes that must be recognized as torts and redressed legally. The damage that is done by racial invective is well documented and ranges from hurt feelings to such serious social ramifications as social isolation, physical manifestations of fear, self-hate, and suicide. The injury is not only to the victim but also to the perpetrator and to the society as a whole, because racial invective violates the fundamental egalitarian principle upon which the Constitution of the United States is based and which forms the moral underpinnings of the society.
For these reasons, critical race theorists would support a public sanction against racial invective that would recognize the harm done to those members of society least able to resist this type of assault. The key issue in such legal redress would be the balancing of First Amendment rights of freedom of speech with the right of the individual to be free from racial slander.
Bibliography
Anderson, Luvell, and Michael Barnes, "Hate Speech." Edited by Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2023, plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/hate-speech/. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.
Bracken, Harry M. Freedom of Speech: Words Are Not Deeds. Praeger, 1994.
Freedman, Monroe H., and Eric M. Freedman. Group Defamation and Freedom of Speech: The Relationship between Language and Violence. Greenwood, 1995.
Herbst, Philip H. The Color of Words: An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Ethnic Bias in the United States. Intercultural, 1997.
“Hate Crimes - Laws and Policies.” Department of Justice, www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/laws-and-policies. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.
Matsuda, Mari J. Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Westview, 1993.
McArthur, Tom. "Ethnic Name." Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford UP, 2005.
Ray, Rashawn, and Alexandra Gibbons. “Why Are States Banning Critical Race Theory?” Brookings Institution, Nov. 2021, www.brookings.edu/articles/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.
Rinner, Stefan. "Slurs and Freedom of Speech." Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 40, no. 5, 2023, pp. 836-848. doi.org/10.1111/japp.12596. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Saka, Paul. "Hate Speech." How to Think about Meaning. Springer, 2007. 121–54.