Using offensive language – a user’s guide

How should we treat language and attitudes that once were common, and which we now find unacceptable? I’m facing up to this problem when describing labour colonies for people with disabilities. These colonies were fairly widespread in Britain before 1939, and a variety of terms were used by their founders and managers to describe their inmates.

I’m feeling slightly sensitive about this issue, as I recently walked into a language skirmish largely of my own making. In a presentation on higher education, I referred to Joan Bakewell’s commendable campaigning on behalf of part-time higher education. As most of the audience came from a generation who are unlikely to remember her, I briefly said who she was, and also referred to a derogatory way in which she was described by many in my own generation. At least one person was offended by this, and said so (though not to me at the time).

Language skirmishes are frequent, and easily survived, but this one made me think. How should we handle the problem in academic writing? My own research has produced many examples of terms and ideas that we would now find deeply offensive, and I hesitated long and hard about whether I should include those that referred to people with learning disabilities or who suffered from mental ill-health.

In the end, I used the terms that contemporaries used. For the most part, I was using direct quotes, so it should be pretty clear to a reader that this is the case, but I also added a very short footnote to make it explicit and ambiguous. While I added no such explanation to justify the inclusion of language that expresses anti-Semitic views, fear of the Chinese, loathing for the Irish, and racial hatred in general, I think it is clear that I am quoting, and not approving, these contemporary perspectives.

Will that stop someone getting offended when they read this material? Probably not, but at least my intention is clear. And I don’t like the alternatives. One is for me to interject on every occasion that this particular term or view is unacceptable to me; that seems utterly ahistorical. The other is to ignore completely any scheme that was developed by people who used a language for their inmates that people like me now find offensive; that seems to me utterly dishonest.

Am I entirely comfortable with my compromise? Not really, but I can live with it (and the occasional complaint that I expect to receive). I’d love to hear from anyone who has a better solution. But thinking about it today made me aware of the one body of objectionable language that I haven’t really thought about: namely, how people used to talk about people from the working class.

I’ve written about the period between 1880 and 1939, then the powerful and comfortable thought nothing of describing unemployed men in the most disparaging terms. They took it for granted that they could attack and undermine the standing and respect of those whom they saw as their moral and social, and not just economic, inferiors. The language they used about people’s bodies and dignity was just what Pierre Bourdieu was talking about when he spoke of ‘symbolic violence’.

Why didn’t I reflect on this before starting today’s blog? Is it that we once more live in a similar culture, where mockery and disdain colour so many conversations about ‘neds’ or ‘chavs’, and where the unemployed are again portrayed casually as layabouts and slobs who deserve nothing from the rest of us but contempt?


4 thoughts on “Using offensive language – a user’s guide

  1. Interesting article John. Language is clearly important. But I agree with everything you say. You can’t do a historically accurate piece in this context without referring to the terminology. I’d have thought your explanation beforehand would suffice? Aren’t some people just lacking understanding or overly sensitive? An important lesson for me here I think? Need to be careful.

  2. Study of language change and its relation to attitudes between people could be a study in itself. It casts a light on peoples motives and methods.
    You could make a declaration saying that the language used in quotations represent the views of people of the time and not your own views.

    • Thanks for these comments. Mike, I’ve effectively done as you suggest, but chose to put it in a footnote to the chapter on labour colonies and public health. I’m now wondering whether I should have made a clearer and more comprehensive statement on language. I know this isn’t a new problem!

  3. hi john, delayed response to this one. My thoughts as an oral/life historianis that language is an essential part of cultural history. Not to use the language of the time, in context, is to sanitise both the language & the history, lose an important element of it – it is, itself, historical evidence. As researchers we should be clear about this, appreciate that analysis needs to value cultural/historical embeddedness, find ways to reflect on that, understand how to work with it.
    The very fact that the language of politics, the labels assigned popularly to the unemployed, the working classes, etc, has shifted, reflects, for me that language use & development is deeply entwined with cultural/social change.
    I would see this challenge as an opportunity to explore & discuss this issue in a wider research context – in problems rest solutions, perhaps!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s