A Brief Essay on Slurs

Abstract

Slurs target race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics, immigrant status, line of work and many other demographics. They offend their targets—some more than others. Children who blurt out slurs are scolded regardless of their ignorance; but not uncommonly, targets appropriate slurs for themselves. The main questions of this paper are by which mechanism do slurs derogate, why some more forcefully than others, and how do targeted members succeed in mollifying some slurs? A lacuna in the literature on slurs is the rarity with which their offenses are specified. We are told little more than that they derogate, belittle, disparage, or diminish, but never how. Explanatory options here are, however, limited. We know a lot about how words achieve efficacy; with that in mind, in what follows we will canvass alternatives in the hope of illuminating the offensive nature of slurs. Our view, in brief, is that slurs are banished words, not because of any linguistic feature they exhibit or any content they carry, but rather because they are on a list of prohibited words—the higher up the list the more offensive their uses. This leaves a slew of questions: what determines whether a word is on or off the list, its position on the list; and why is it sometimes appropriate to flout its prohibition? The backdrop for this paper is the role of linguistics and philosophy of language in the investigation of slurs. Our answer is none.