The scenario of Donald Trump serving time behind bars is a fascinating idea that many are intrigued by; his transition to ‘ex-con’ could change the perception associated with the label. Although it carries an almost taboo sense of abrupt honesty, this term has been gently replaced by phrases such as ‘justice-involved’ in U.S. federal prosecution terminology. It looks like shifting language could pave the way for a reformed criminal justice system, making this a thought-provoking occurrence.
There has been a surge of discourse on the continual evolution of euphemisms, a linguistic treadmill that has bigger implications than just semantics. Comedy legends like George Carlin and immortal authors like George Orwell have analyzed, critiqued, and even ridiculed this trend. Every now and then, the introduction of new phrases can make us feel like exasperated witnesses to vocabulary vandalism.
While these variations in language can sometimes seem arbitrary or meaningless, it’s critical to examine the reasoning behind them. They do more than just humor our collective impatience with language stagnation; they aim to re-sculpt our social constructs. For instance, let’s consider the term ‘ex-con,’ a label fraught with memories of hard-faced villains from the mid-20th century.
Replacing ‘ex-con’ with ‘justice-involved’ or ‘justice-impacted’ can seem less harsh, even bordering on defensive. It goes further than relocating stigma; it almost alludes to detachment from any crime committed. It suggests that a crime was an event that befell the person, rather than an action that was purposely executed.
Some new terms cleverly shift the perspective and responsibility, not just easing blame but realigning it. Hence, we see prisons being referred to as the ‘carceral system’ in certain narratives. This implies a question about the state’s authority to incarcerate individuals, hinting that the act of imprisonment itself could be perceived as a crime.
One of the objectives of lexical modification is to humanize and bestow dignity on individuals who are otherwise simplified into labels. Such intention can be seen in the Associated Press’s ‘person-first’ language policy, urging reference to any individual embroiled in the justice system in a respectable and dignified manner.
We have also witnessed a change in terminology for victims of slavery. The term ‘enslaved person’ is now deemed more appropriate than ‘slave,’ as it emphasizes that slavery was imposed upon them. By changing passive terms into active ones, we’re able to reinforce the inherent strength and resilience in these people.
The title ‘enslaver,’ as opposed to ‘slave owner,’ is a further development, suggesting that a person has deliberately and actively dehumanized another. While these transformations may not always be universally accepted, there’s undeniable potential in the revision of terms. Famous author Toni Morrison encapsulated this idea by stating that the individuals once defined are now wresting control of linguistic power from those who named them.
However, we must tread carefully as euphemisms can inadvertently erode the moral weight of words. Indeed, ‘enslaved person’ reframes the individual’s humanity, but it runs the risk of diluting the brutish injustice of their condition. The impact of using words like ‘sea slaves,’ for instance, is unmistakably strong, a gut punch to the reader that ‘enslaved people at sea’ may not deliver.
There’s a delicate dance between words and power, which often reveals itself in the shift from active to passive terminology. Euphemism inflation turns ‘obese’ people into ‘people with obesity’ and ‘alcoholics’ into those dealing with an ‘alcohol abuse disorder.’ These changes are subtly but purposefully designed to neutralize terms considered pejorative.
Language subtly reflects societal shifts. For instance, skincare companies like Unilever recently banished the word ‘normal’ from their product descriptions, pushing for more inclusive terminologies. Similarly, the term ‘homeless’ has been switched to ‘unhoused,’ hinting at a societal failure rather than individual loss. Truancy, once linked with juvenile delinquency, is now termed ‘absenteeism,’ implicating the school’s inefficiency over blaming the student.
In George Orwell’s era, imprecise language often served as a shield for the cruel and brutal actions of those in power. Yet, in our current society, vague language is frequently used to cushion the blow of grim realities. This reliance on euphemistic language has grown into a form of avoidance, often masking a lack of substantial reform.
Words often act as agents of resistance or oppression, loaded with potential harm or opportunity to spread incorrect information. We’re increasingly vigilant about our words, but it’s crucial to ensure this doesn’t dilute their ability to convey intent and meaning effectively. Language, with all its perceived brutality or softness, is a tool, and we need to use it wisely, understanding and considering the motivations and implications of our terminological choices.