Euphemism

59 Euphemism

Kimberly Baltzer‐Jaray

There is no ethnic cleansing in Bahrain.

Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, King of Bahrain, on whether there’s genocide being committed in his country

A euphemism is a delicate, indirect, inoffensive, or vague word or phrase that takes the place of one that is unpleasant, blunt, offensive, or graphic. Euphemisms create emotional distance and thus provide a level of comfort and ease when discussing a topic that is sensitive, difficult, or disturbing. In some situations, they are used to prevent inappropriately stirring people’s emotions – also known as being politically correct – by expressing an idea or description in neutral terms, such as referring to illegal aliens as “undocumented workers” or persons with disabilities as “handicapable” or “differently abled.” In other instances, euphemisms are intentionally used to sway people’s opinions or emotions to a particular side, as in the example of politicians’ referring to the anti‐abortion position as “pro‐life,” torture techniques as “enhanced interrogation,” or the non‐combatant civilians who die during armed conflict as “collateral damage.” At times they are also used to conceal a person’s role in or responsibility for a bad deed, as George Carlin (1990) pointed out later in his standup routine: “The CIA doesn’t kill anybody anymore; they neutralize people or they depopulate the area. The government doesn’t lie; it engages in disinformation. The Pentagon actually measures nuclear radiation in something they call sunshine units.”

A euphemism becomes misleading when it conceals or downplays something relevant to a judgment. Calling the poor people with “a negative cash‐flow position” can turn attention from deprivation to accounting language. When a fired friend becomes someone “whose workplace management wanted to curtail redundancies in its human resources,” both the loss and the person responsible can disappear from view. The risk is that a softer description discourages questions about what happened, why it happened, and who is responsible. Tactful wording is not inherently fallacious; the issue is whether it distorts understanding.

Being ambiguous or vague in meaning brands euphemisms as a type of weasel word. We see these used frequently in politics, corporate business, and advertising media, but they are quite common in everyday language. Weasel words appear to say something truthful or meaningful, but really they conceal truth and meaning, and thus protect the speaker or advocate from counter‐attacks or legal redress. If a product says that it “combats wrinkles” and that “Dermatology experts agree skin appears more smooth,” then said product commits the fallacy of weasel wording because (1) “combat” seems to indicate that it fights, but it’s not clear how much so, and that choice of word means the product doesn’t conquer the wrinkles (so what exactly does it do and what degree should I expect?) and, (2) how many and which dermatology experts agreed, what does agreement really mean, and what is meant by skin “appears” more smooth? It’s very hard to argue with or sue a company that makes persuasive claims that are at the same time not very specific.

Look for vague appeals to unnamed experts, missing agents, and claims whose meaning changes when questioned. Passive voice and qualifiers such as probably or often are not deceptive by themselves; they can accurately express uncertainty. Ask what the wording commits the speaker to. Beauty advertisements promising “defying age,” “erasing wrinkles,” and “perfecting the skin” may imply more than their stated evidence supports, especially alongside retouched images. The useful questions concern the actual effect, how it was measured, and who evaluated it.

Sometimes we use soft language to sound professional, civilized, or to tread lightly around the emotions of others, and while that can be appropriate, we must be sure that we are not fudging the truth. Sometimes you have to “say it like it is” and be unpopular. Using honest, direct language and making sure the neutrality deployed is accurate is the best way to avoid euphemisms and weasel wording. It’s correct to keep the racist language in Huckleberry Finn since removing it would alter its authenticity and historical context; we need to be confronted sometimes with an ugly past to grow. However, it’s not right to say to a parent “your son got a D on his exam because he is minimally exceptional at math.” A direct response would identify the low exam grade and the skills that need work. It need not turn one result into an insult about the student’s ability.