Hard-headed philosophers wouldn't succumb to political correctness, would they? Ha! I just received the January 2009 issue of Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy. This is one of the top periodicals in the field. On page 308, in an essay entitled "Hybrid Expressivism: Virtues and Vices," Mark Schroeder writes:
I'll close with a question I find hard to articulate, but to which I nevertheless feel that a successful hybrid view ought to owe us some satisfactory answer. When we notice that pejoratives like 'n——r' and "kraut' are not purely descriptive, we look for different ways of talking about the same thing—ways which don't involve us in commitment to those kinds of attitudes.
The word "nigger" is not written out, like "kraut." This is mind-boggling. First, Schroeder is not using the word; he is mentioning it. Compare the following:
1. George is a nigger.
2. The word "nigger" derives from "negro," which means black.
In 1, the word "nigger" is being used. In 2, it is being mentioned, referred to, or talked about. It's one thing to say that nobody should use the word "nigger" (although even that is doubtful); it's quite another to say that nobody should mention, refer to, or talk about it. That a philosopher could fail to notice the difference, or be so afraid of being called a racist as to refrain even from mentioning the word, is embarrassing. Has it come to that in academia? Are people insulted or offended merely by seeing or hearing certain words? Are you starting to see what I mean when I say that academia is a stifling place? It's as if all the bright people who inhabit the place have lost their minds (or their spines).
Second, why is it acceptable to spell out the word "kraut" but not the word "nigger"? Why the asymmetry? Either both words should be spelled out or neither word should be. Is there a relevant difference between the two? If so, I don't see it.
Addendum: On his web page, Schroeder writes: "I am currently associate professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California." Not to pick on Schroeder, but this is a common locution in academia. What function is performed by the word "currently"? Imagine saying, "I am currently married to Jane (or Joe)." Schroeder is implying that he won't be at USC for long. He's a young man on the move (or on the make). He is going places. He's at USC now, but he plans to move onward and upward! As soon as he can, he's gonna get outta that hellhole!
Addendum 2: Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of "nigger." Note that the word is mentioned, but not used, in this dictionary. I can't think of any reason for not mentioning a word, except political correctness. I can think of many reasons for not using a particular word.
Addendum 3: If you reread this post, you will see that I mentioned the word "nigger" several times (including just now) but never used it. It's the difference between using a hammer and mentioning a hammer.
Addendum 4: Imagine someone saying that, since a loaded gun is dangerous, it should not be used—and then adding, "We shouldn't mention it, either." What harm is there in mentioning, referring to, or talking about a loaded gun? I suppose it's possible that by mentioning it, we draw attention to it and thereby increase the likelihood that someone will use it. But surely that's not what's going on with Schroeder! I can't believe that he thinks that if he mentions the word "nigger," he thereby increases the likelihood that someone will use it. And even if someone does use it as a result of his mentioning it, is he responsible for its use?
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 