In the past week, I have been involved in discussions and debates related to the terminology used to describe traditionally oppressed groups. The use of language can be a highly charged topic in leftist and progressive circles, whether one is discussing women or traditionally oppressed ethnic and racial groups. The debate can rage over spelling or word choice. In some cases, the discussion is true political analysis. In others, it is simply a way to “win” an argument and cast the opponent as politically out-of-touch or bigoted.
My purpose here isn’t to insist that people use one word or another, that they adopt alternate spellings or spell words in a traditional fashion, but simply to explore the topic and the motivations behind certain word choices. We all know that language has power. The “power to name” has been important to radical feminists for decades. The power to marginalize individuals using derisive language is one that powerful groups have used for millennia. My purpose is to discuss how language evolves, the political usage of language, and how there can be considerable disagreement within historically oppressed and exploited groups about proper word usage. I think it’s important for anyone with leftist or progressive politics to understand this–that what they may consider “politically correct” may be a matter of considerable debate within the actual marginalized group.
Some of the words, phrases and designations that can be viewed as proper by one group, but not by another include “cisgender” or “cis”, women-vs-womyn/wimin, and Latino/Latina-vs-Hispanic-vs-Chicano/Chicana-vs-“people of color”.* The use of one or more of these terms can lead to heated debate. At times, this debate is based upon not understanding how the words are viewed or used by certain communities, while at others the debate is based upon a more thorough understanding of how the words are viewed or used. Regardless, the debates generally include accusations that someone “just doesn’t get it”. Perhaps they do get it. Perhaps they simply have other information or they disagree with the political arguments behind specific word usage. There are other words and phrases that inspire similar debate, but I will mostly confine myself to a discussion of these three, because they are the ones with which I have the most real life experience.
The term “cisgender” or “cis” can get one into hot water when moving from a liberal feminist environment to a radical feminist environment. In the liberal environment, one can be castigated for not using this word and paying fealty to its political implications. This confuses many feminists who begin moving into more radical feminist spaces from liberal feminist spaces. They may use the term thinking they are being kind, sensitive and politically aware, only to be told that they are actually being anti-woman. I agree that the term “cis” and “cisgender” are politically useless, at best. However, I think it would be helpful to tell women why the term and the theory behind it are disputed, rather than simply condemning them. Unfortunately, I think many of us may assume that other women understand the issues involved and are simply willfully ignoring those issues. I don’t think this helps our cause of advancing the analysis of gender as a destructive hierarchy, rather than a neutral continuum. It simply serves to confuse and alienate women who could be our allies.
Also related to the struggle of women is the use of alternate spellings for the very words “woman” and “women”. Because many radical feminists find the etymology and implications of the words problematic, they choose to use alternate spellings. Among others, these include “womyn”, “wimin”, and “womon”. On the other side are those who say that the use of such alternate spellings alienate potential allies by appearing to erase men. I find the argument that feminists need to cater to men’s egos–even when referring to women— misguided, at the very least. That said, I also prefer to use traditional spellings for words. For me, I fully understand the desire to name ourselves that lies behind the practice of alternate spellings. I have very little patience for those who ridicule others for using alternate spellings. However, I do find that the use of such spellings in articles meant to influence others (call it propaganda, if you want) can come across like jargon. I also have an ingrained desire to use proper grammar and spelling because of my background in journalism. So, I remain unpersuaded by the hardliners on either side.
The final language-related issue that stirs up debate is the terminology used to refer to both men and women who belong to historically oppressed and exploited racial or ethnic groups. In the U.S., these groups are usually, demographically speaking, in the minority of the population. On the other hand, when one considers the population of the world, they are not. For many, this demographic difference between white-majority countries and the rest of the world means that the only acceptable term to use is “people of color” to describe all members of historically oppressed ethnic and racial groups. This is understandable, and it’s a term I often use. However, it is not a panacea. There is considerable debate within Hispanic groups about how that particular group–which includes those in all racial categories–should be referred to. This is a long and storied debate, and one that gets little notice outside of this particular group.
Among the ethnic group referred to as “Hispanic”, there is a history of debate even over that term. While it is currently used by the U.S. Census, there are those within the group who reject it due to its colonial implications. It is a term they feel is used to connect them solely to Spanish colonizers, and does not recognize that the majority of those called “Hispanic” are descended from both indigenous and colonial backgrounds, with others being descended from only indigenous backgrounds, indigenous and African backgrounds, or only African backgrounds. In short, it is considered Eurocentric and imperialist, as described by Cheech Marin.
Hispanic is a census term that some dildo in a government office made up to include all Spanish-speaking brown people. It is especially annoying to Chicanos because it is a catch-all term that includes the Spanish conqueror. By definition, it favors European cultural invasion, not indigenous roots. It also includes all Latino groups, which brings us together because Hispanic annoys all Latino groups.
In the 1960s, the words “Chicano” and “Chicana” became popular for Mexican-American activists, especially radical activists, to describe those of Mexican heritage who were born in the U.S. Others reject that term for so-called derisive implications, as it was once used by Mexicans to describe Mexican-Americans, who were perceived as having lost their heritage. The word has been used in the names of activist organizations in the U.S., such as Chicanos por la Causa. “La Raza” is another term used for politically active Mexican-Americans, especially in California. That, too, has been used in the names of activist organizations, such as the National Council of La Raza.
Similarly, the words “Latino” and “Latina” are subject to debate. These words are often viewed in a similar way as “Hispanic”, linking the peoples of Latin America to their colonizers’ languages without any recognition of the indigenous or African origins of many in Latin America. However, as indicated in the quote above, this is not a universal opinion, either.
And what of those in the U.S. who fall between categories, because they are of both Latin American and North/Western European descent? Are these people of color? Are they Hispanic? Are they Latinos and Latinas? Are they white? Does their status change according to the situation? This is important to me, because it involves my own children. I met a Mexican-American man–first generation born in the U.S.–22 years ago. I married him 21 years ago. We have two children. On official documents, they are listed as members of the Hispanic ethnicity and the white or Caucasian race. How they are treated likely depends on the situation. In person, they are treated as white. Their skin tone is white, so they have the privileges associated with that white appearance. Culturally, our family’s primary ties and influence are Mexican and Mexican-American. On the other hand, if one were to see just their names written on a job application or academic paper, my children would be considered Hispanic by the reader. As studies have shown, the appearance of a name indicating a female or member of another marginalized group can lead the reader to have built-in bias towards that individual and her qualifications.
But what of the term “people of color”? As I said, I commonly use it, but I have run into issues with that term, as well. It is not one my spouse embraces. In fact, he does not even embrace the term “Mexican-American”. He refers to himself, his family members and others within his national heritage group as simply “Mexican”, regardless of the country in which they were born or the passport which they carry. This may be because his father was born and raised in Mexico, and almost all of their family still lives in Mexico City. I have run into older Mexican-American folks who find the term “people of color” actively offensive. Like the old fashioned term “colored” that was once used to describe African-Americans and is now widely considered offensive, they feel it defines them in opposition to whites. It doesn’t say what or who they are, it says what or who they aren’t; there are “people” (who are white), and there are “people of color” (everyone else). It also lumps them in with others of widely differing backgrounds and heritage.
So, where do we arrive at with this discussion of language? For me, it’s realizing that even the terms most popular among leftists and progressives, the terms considered sensitive and supportive, are not always free of debate–quite fiery debate, in fact. When we run across folks who don’t use the terms we consider sensitive or supportive, we should find out why. Don’t assume insensitivity or lack of knowledge, unless it’s a historical pattern for a particular individual or the context makes it clear. Find out what they’re saying and why, especially if they are someone you don’t know well. Unless, of course, you’re just looking to silence someone who disagrees with you. Then, you can continue being that “liberal bully” that Offbeat Empire refers to. Just don’t expect to arrive at any real answers or gain new allies if you choose that path.
* I have used a number of links to Wikipedia articles in this piece. That is not because I think Wikipedia is necessarily a good source. Instead, I have chosen to include these articles because they include reference links to other, more helpful articles.