If there’s one euphemism that grates on my linguistic sensibilities more than any other then that euphemism is ‘The N-word’.

If that’s a phrase you’re inclined to use then, please, let me remind you that the word you’re actually looking for is either ‘nigger’, if you’re referring to its (generally) pejorative usage, or ‘nigga’, if you’re referring to its modern usage within, primarily, African-American urban ’street’ culture. And whether or not you can legitimately use either term in speech or its written form has nothing to do with your personal background or ethnic origins. it’s simply a function of whether you can use such terms intelligently and in their appropriate context.

The periodic and, often, desperately inane ‘debates’ that break out whenever the term ‘nigger’ (or ‘nigga’) rears its head are, for me at least, the clearest possible signs of a deep-seated intellectual poverty that lies at the heart of the current public discourse surrounding questions of race and ethnicity, a discourse that too often resolves itself into no more than an ill-conceived slanging match between two entirely debased political narratives.

On one side of the ‘debate’ we have the credo of ‘political correctness’, a concept rooted in Marxist-Leninist political ideology (to be ‘politically correct’ originally meant nothing more than following the agreed party line) which migrated into the politics of gender and identity during the late 1960s/early 1970’s. Conceptually, political correctness is rooted in the syncretic application of Marxist class theory to the politics of culture and identity; its driven by the central proposition – from which all other things follow – is that individuals who share a common ‘identity’ derived from their gender, ethnic and/or cultural origins, religion, sexuality, etc. should be considered to form a distinct class with all the the theoretical baggage (class conciousness/false consciousness, relationships to power structures, etc.) that goes with such a designation.

In linguistic terms, which is what we’re talking about here, ‘political correctness’ has it roots in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which holds that the grammatical categories in use in spoken/written language shape its speakers’/writers’ underlying ideas and actions and, when analysed, will reveal an individual’s unconscious biases, i.e. that language either shapes or influences thought, depending on whether one buys into the strong or weak form of the hypothesis.

(The strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was, of course, both ‘popular’ in Marxist circles and was famously used by George Orwell as the basis of ‘Newspeak’, the notion that the state could control and shape the thoughts of individuals by controlling the language they use and altering the meaning of certain words, by edict, to suit the political objectives of the state.)

As a nuanced linguistic principle, ‘political correctness’ merely cautions one to be mindful of what one says and of both how that might impact on the listener and, if one is prone to introspection, what it might indicate about one’s own underlying assumptions – in short it’s a reminder to put your brain in to gear before opening your mouth if you’re intent on speaking to someone in a polite and appropriate fashion. In practice, and particularly when crudely melded with political assumptions derived from class theory, what it too often becomes is a rigid and overly-simplistic set of ‘rules’ as to what can and cannot be considered acceptable language in any circumstances, one that invests certain words with an undue and unwarranted power to cause offence regardless of the context in which they are used.

Needless to say I personally find this deeply irritating, especially when its accompanied by the ostentatious use of unnecessary euphemisms. A while back I read an article in the Guardian (as I recall) by a black journalist on the subject of urban black street culture in the US; one in which the author was quite content to use the words ‘nigger’ and ‘nigga’ in incorporating quotations into the article while steadfastly (and repeatedly) using the euphemism, ‘The N -word’ when called upon to refer to either epithet in the course of their own text. Not only was this jarring in terms of the effect it had on the flow and readability of the article but it also left one with the impression that the author’s primary concern in writing the piece was that of clearly establishing their own, self-presumed, moral and ethical primacy over the individuals who were the subject of the article. The underlying ‘message’ the article was sending, whether by design or unconsciously amounted to little more than, ‘Look at me. I’m better than them because I would never, ever, use the word “nigger”, personally, in any circumstances’.

However, and much more importantly, such attitudes serve only to debase the whole public narrative on, for example, race and ethnicity, modulating the debate around the crude premise that certain words and phrases must be avoided at all costs and in all circumstances for no better reason than the fact that there are some in society who are, not to put too fine a point on it, too stupid and ignorant to engage in intelligent debate on such issues without having the personal prejudices reinforced and sustained by the use of racial epithets. In other words, you can’t say or use the word ‘nigger’, even in a entirely valid context, because some people are held to be too thick to appreciate context and can only be engaged in terms that constantly reinforce a moral/ethical proscription against the use of such language.

As result, a large portion of the public discourse on race and ethnicity (and on gender, sexuality, etc.) is routinely conducted at the level of the lowest common denominator; those who must be constantly ‘moralised at’ if they are not to reveal themselves to be the repositories of unacceptable attitudes. Forget any thoughts of tacking racism by way of education, let’s just try and drill it out them by rote.

On the other ’side’ of the ‘debate’, things are seldom any better for much the same reasons – too much of the narrative is keyed towards the lowest common denominator, only in this case the intent is often that of fostering and exploiting prejudice, rather than suppressing it.

While one must acknowledge, freely, that there are some ardent critics of ‘political correctness’ who can, and do, deployed reasoned and nuanced arguments, there are many more for whom, consciously or unconsciously, an attack on ‘political correctness’, and especially one in which the suggest is that it has ‘gone mad’ amounts to no more than a pre-emptive defence of the prejudicial views and attitudes they are about to express – what we often refer to as the ‘I’m not racist but…’ line of argument.

The natural ‘home’ of such arguments is, of course, the tabloid press, particularly the right-wing triumvirate of the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Sun, the first of which provides a particularly fine (although non-ethnicity based) example of exactly what I’m talking about:

The issue became more toxic still with the arrival of a movement that demanded for gay people the same rights to family life as heterosexuals – cohabitation benefits, gay adoption, the promotion of gay sexuality in schools.

Anyone who objected was crucified as homophobic, creating a climate of rampant intimidation and cultural bullying which has successfully stifled debate and dragooned politicians into line.

‘Mad’ Mel may have rather put the horse after the cart here by obliquely deploying the ‘political correctness gone mad’ line after exposing her personal prejudices, but the basic principle remains the same. She deploys ‘arguments’ rooted in an all-too-common and histrionic view of the worst excesses of ‘political correctness’ in order to, at least, offset legitimate criticism of, if not justify/excuse, prejudicial attitudes that are nothing short of reprehensible – if a particular group in society is deemed to be undeserving of such a basic human right, indeed necessity, as that of being able to enjoy a family life then the clear inference is that the author of such remarks views that group as being less than human, and only Godwin’s Law prevents me from making explicit the destination to which that particular road leads. The labels choose you apply to such attitudes are irrelevant, they still stink to high hell, just as Mel’s assiduous use of non-pejorative language throughout – she sticks to neutral terms such as ‘lesbian’, ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ rather than deploy ‘harsher’ times like ‘queer’ and ‘dyke’ – in no sense masks the underlying bigotry and prejudice of her remarks.

Too often – far too often – these two entrenched but debased positions dominate the public discourse to the exclusion of reasoned argument and a nuanced understanding of the real issues, with each seeing the other as the ‘opposition’ rather than for what they real are: two sides of the same defaced coin, with each fuelling the other to ever greater excesses in a circular argument that does little but drown out rational debate and obscure the real issues.

It’s been said on numerous occasions, most recently by Alex Hilton (aka Recess Monkey) in this object lesson in the validity of Denis Healey’s first law of holes (when in one, stop digging) that we (meaning society, one assumes) are:

[not] ready yet for the word “nigger” to re-enter general use in the language.

Sorry, Alex, but no.

There may still be serious issues about the manner in which such a term is used in certain quarters but these are issues than cannot, and will not, be adequately addressed by, alternate, hiding behind euphemisms or by applying grossly over-simplified linguistic ‘rules’ in an effort to expunge certain words, and the concepts associate with them, out of existence Such an approach is no more valid than the suggestion that one can legitimately mount a near absolute defence of bigotry and prejudice in the name of free speech, as some seem willing to do. Defending someone’s right to express their views, however, reprehensible does not mean that you can get away with ignoring the content and context of their remarks, which is something than one or two of the more vocal (and less intelligent) self-styled ‘libertarians’ could do with remembering a bit more often.

(Our more intelligent libertarian readership can, of course, excuse themselves from that last remark – you [should] know who you are in any case.)

Words like ‘nigger’ absolutely do need to re-enter if not the general public discourse then certainly the public debate surrounding race and ethnicity, the intellectual standards of which desperately need to be raised well above their current abysmal level. If nothing else, how can one legitimately and intelligently engage in such a debate in a meaningful fashion without understanding and openly acknowledging the depth of social and political history that is wrapped up in such a simple six-letter word?

You can’t, not without diminishing that history and stripping it of its context, impact and importance and making it all seem just a bit too unreal to be credible.

‘Nigger’ is one of a number of words we should be rehabilitating into the English language and into the public narrative on race and ethnicity, not by seeking the change its meaning – as its politicised ‘reclamation’ in to urban slang as ‘nigga’ – and certainly not by permitting its pejorative use to go unchallenged but simply by using it intelligently and in its proper and appropriate context. And if that sometimes causes offence, then that’s all well good – you should be offended when you discover that major black historical figures (think Martin Luther King & Malcolm X for starters) would once have been routinely and casually referred to as niggers, even to their face; but you’ll only get a real sense of what that might have been like if you get to hear the word itself – nigger – and not some absurdly sanitised and contorted euphemism.

About the author
'Unity' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He also blogs at Ministry of Truth.
· Other posts by Unity

Filed under
Blog

Reader comments

Reactions: Twitter, blogs