What is the purpose of euphemisms?

Our friend @Ascenray appears to claim that the purpose of a euphemism is not to avoid “offending” people. I suggest that the purpose of a euphemism is to avoid offending people.

I consider the following examples to be euphemisms:

  • “colored person” → “person of color”
  • “Negro” → “Black” or “African-American”
  • “Oriental” → “Asian”
  • “cripple” → “disabled”
  • “crazy”, “loony” → “eccentric”

I suggest that it is a matter of politeness, and does not significantly change the semantic extension, to choose the right term in favor of the left term.

"What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet” ~ Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet

~Max

I think you misunderstand what the term “euphemism” means. The above expressions are not euphemisms.

A euphemism is an expression that means exactly the same thing, but says it more gently. When we say “passed away”, we mean nothing more nor less than “died”, we mean exactly the same thing. That’s a euphemism.

But “person of color” is not a euphemism for “colored person”. The superficial meaning of the two expressions is obviously exactly the same; but their total semantic content is different for historical social reasons. Racists used “colored” to marginalize people, so that specific expression carries that semantic baggage. When we say “person of color” we are explicitly avoiding that semantic baggage, we are explicitly not trying to marginalize people, we are using that expression precisely because it does not mean the same thing.

I do not mean to argue that your average English-language speaker would say “person of color” carries the same connotation today as “colored person” does today (although until very recently, I would have done so). For the purposes of this debate, by “euphemism” I mean that someone sixty years ago may have used “colored person”, and today they would communicate the exact same idea with the word “person of color”. If you object to the term euphemism, substitute whatever word you think appropriate for this phenomenon.

I anticipate one possible objection, “how can we discuss the purpose of a social phenomenon? The linguistic trends of society at large may have various causes, not all of which align to any particular purpose, let alone a conscious purpose.” To resolve this dilemma, I think it is best to remember that the phenomenon, which I say is a form of euphemism, can and has occurred within a single person’s lifetime. Theoretically and in practice, it can be the very same individual who would use one word sixty years ago, and a different word today, with roughly the same intension and the very same extension. We may not be able to conclusively determine what changed every individual’s mind, but we can easily conjure a number of case studies - hypothetical or actual - to test the validity of any theory.


I persist in my suggestion that the purpose behind this sort of euphemism is identical to the choice between “crazy” and “eccentric”, or “overweight” and “fat”; that the purpose is to avoid offending people. I think it’s a matter of politeness. Now let me describe a case or two that supports my theory, and then you may attempt to describe an individual who changes from one term to the other for some incompatible reason.

Here is a boy on the cusp of manhood, with dark brown skin, in the year 1960. He uses the term “negro” because, to the best of his knowledge, that is the proper term to describe what we would now call a Black person. However, the word is constantly used in association with hurtful and racist acts. If not already, the boy quickly becomes sick of being distinguished from others as “negro”, but at the same time, he prefers “negro” music, girls, etc. and sees the word as part of his identity. Now it is late in the '60s, he catches wind of reclaiming the word “black”. The argument goes, negro has taken on all of this baggage of slavery and segregation, it’s about time we let that word and all that oppression go. And so what was “negro” music is now “Black” music, what were once “negro” girls are now “Black” girls, etc. And where the “negro” was usually something to be ashamed of, “Black” is always to be a source of pride. By the early '70s, he is convinced and prefers “Black” over “negro”.

In this individual we see a transition in the first degree. He didn’t come up with the idea of replacing “negro” with “Black”, but he heard the original arguments and was persuaded by them on their own merits. I hope you will agree with the plausibility of this case, and perhaps even argue that self-determination is the true reason (American) society prefers “Black” to “negro” today.

Now here is a contemporary of our first example, a young woman in 1960 but not a person of color. She uses the term “negro” because, to the best of her knowledge, that is the proper term to describe what we would now call a Black person. She lives through the civil rights movement like the rest of the nation, a bit indifferent to it, and by the mid-1970s she finds herself an adult white woman in the frequent company of “Negros”. That doesn’t bother her and some become her friends. But as she is exposed to them, she learns that the word “negro” bothers them. At first a matter of polite behavior and only in their presence, she uses the word “black” in lieu of “negro”. Over the years, less and less people use the word “negro” at all, including herself. By the 1990s, the word had become obsolete in her mind; ultimately, she stopped using it to avoid offending others.

I suggest that the majority of society, when creating a euphemism, behaves somewhat similar to this latter case. That is why I say the purpose of a euphemism is to avoid offending others.

I appreciate your consideration of this rather lengthy argument, sincerely,

~Max

Euphemisms can can many different purposes. I don’t think you can say that all euphemisms are intended to avoid offending people.

Euphemisms are often used to conceal a purpose from people who might otherwise object.
‘increase government revenue’, rather than ‘raise taxes’
‘enhanced interrogation’, rather than ‘torture’
‘improve company efficiency’, rather than ‘fire half the staff’

Euphemisms are also often used to avoid hurting people, rather than to avoid offending them.
‘passed away’, rather than ‘died’
‘overweight’, rather than ‘fat’

Euphemisms can also be used to avoid embarrassing people.
‘use the bathroom’, rather than refer to bodily functions

As far as racial terminology is concerned, I agree with @Acsenray that the purpose is more to signal the speaker’s attitude towards a group of people than to avoid offending or hurting them. The signal may be intended as much for members of their own racial group as for members of the group they are talking about.

Does the speaker regard this group as inferiors or as equals? Does he like them or despise them? What political or ideological views does the speaker have?

There may be some component of not causing hurt or offense, but mostly it’s about the speaker’s attitude.

Edward Albee got it right:
George : Martha , will you show her where we keep the, uh , euphemism ?

This much, and the first three uses, I must concede. Where I asserted avoidance of offense, I admit that it could just as easily be to conceal or to avoid embarrassment.

Let me try and follow you, and assume I choose one term over the other because I want to signal my attitude towards a group. What attitude do I want to signal? An attitude of respect for this group… or in general. Members of the group don’t necessarily have to be in my presence, maybe I just want to come across as a respectful person. And so I choose language that I deem to be respectful. But that doesn’t answer the question of why some language is respectful today, and why other language which used to be respectful is now considered disrespectful.

I see now that I was careless in drafting the topic for debate, but I think that is the core question and debate I am trying to get at.

~Max

Ah, I have never really gotten euphemisms. I mean, I get them in that I understand that people use them and I understand that people are offended when other people don’t. Prime example, I once got in a lot of trouble for referring to cow shit.
Me, to my mother: “But you said it!”
Mother: “No. I said cow CHIPS.”
Me: “But…what are cow chips?”
Mother: “Words we can say.”
Oh, okay. Cow chips, horse manure, dog turds, kitty poop, deer scat, goose tootsie rolls, rabbit pellets…etc. But never shit! Because the word makes it all better, even if you step in it. We have so many words for shit, so we never have to say that old anglo-saxon word at all!

ETA: I would never think of using words to describe people as euphemisms, at least not in terms of race. More in terms of like, I’m young at heart, you’re immature, he’s puerile.

It’s partly that language and meaning are always changing and evolving. The connotations of words become different over time, especially as society changes.

It’s not only racial terminology, it’s a general tendency.

Semantic change

20 words that once meant something very different

With racial terminology, social changes happen and there are changes in racial attitudes. When society changes, people want to indicate that change by using new terminology to indicate the new situation.

Old terms then become an indicator of old attitudes, or of disapproval of the social changes.

Here’s my example of a euphemism that didn’t seem to make sense. One of the institutions I worked at had a series of relatively small buildings where small groups of people could live in a home-like setting with supervision. It was called Cottage Life and each of the buildings was called a cottage. Someone decided this sounded way too institutional so the term Cottage Life was abolished and you had to call the buildings “living units.” Use of the term cottage was strictly forbidden.

A euphemism is a “good word” for a bad thing.

In that thread we are talking about terms like “colored person” and “person of color.” In this context, we aren’t talking about a euphemism. “Person of color” isn’t a good word for a bad thing.

Well, maybe to some people it is. Maybe the issue here is that we are talking about people who really do harbor the attitude thy non-white people are fundamentally a bad thing.

The issue here is that we live in a society that has used language as one of its principal tools of oppression.

The issue isn’t whether it’s “offending someone” by use of a term created or coöpted or hijacked by the white supremacist majority as a tool of oppression. It’s that the use of that term actively reasserts that oppressive power.

The characterization of “offending” trivializes what’s actually happening, and blames the victim for es feelings, rather than blaming the oppressor for oppressing.

I remember reading that euphemisms let so-called refined or intellectual people say all the bad stuff without getting in trouble. So say go to the bathroom or toilet instead of take a dump.

Exactly. There’s even an opposite of a euphemism, “cacophemism,” albeit, you don’t hear it much.

Examples would be calling sexual intercourse either “making love” (euphemism), or “doing the nasty” (cacophemism).

Those don’t shift much over time. It’s true that some become dated; hardly anyone uses the term “hanky-panky” for sexual intercourse anymore (or for anything-- it used to strictly mean sex, then it went through a phase of meaning just doing something you shouldn’t be doing, then it pretty much faded from use altogether). It could come back into vogue as a euphemism if it were to be used in a popular film set in an earlier time period, or something, but it will never become a cacophemism. Words don’t work like that. Euphemisms blur some sort of reality you don’t want to state directly-- “going to the bathroom”; “passing away”; “in his cups”; “in the family way.”

Cacophemisms take the messiest part of whatever you are talking about, even if it’s a small part, and brings it to the fore. “Knocked up,” makes the “had sex” part of being pregnant the most relevant part-- not that there’s anything wrong with that, but up until the actual birth, it’s often the messiest part. Depends on how much morning sickness you have. But at any rate, “knocked up” will never migrate to being a euphemism.

My point is, that the terms the OP cited, terms for racial identities, DO migrate. Today’s most PC term is tomorrow’s insult. “Colored people” was the prefered term once upon a time. Not in my lifetime, but in my grandmother’s, a woman who always strove to be kind and call people what they wanted, but on one rare occasion did slip up and say “colored people” in front of my then-19-yr-old brother c. 1991. Frere Crusader lit into her, at which point my mother told him the story of growing up in a mixed neighborhood in the 1940s, and how all the children played together, but there were still some unspoken rules about going into certain houses, and she was the only little white girl who bought presents, dressed in her nicest party dress, and attended all the birthday parties of the black girls on her street. My brother was about 6 inches tall after that.

But he was right that in 1991, “colored people” was not a nice term.

However, terms that migrate are neither euphemisms not cacophemisms. Those have immutable qualities, so they don’t migrate.

What the OP referred to are simply slang terms.

They come and go, because people are cruel, and as soon as a new, empowering term comes to the fore, there will be people who use it in such a way as to seek to disempower it. This is why some groups fight back by reclaiming terms that were once insulting (cf., “queer,” and “dyke”): “If I call me this, it won’t have any effect for you to call me this.” So a term is in, then out, then in again. But that has nothing to do with the realm of euphemism.

Well, a little, I suppose it does, since the OP did touch on the use of euphemisms for some terms for disabilities.

I’ve worked with and around disabled people my whole adult life, and on the whole, they hate circumlocutions to refer to their conditions. I was an American Sign Language/English interpreter for 15 years (carpal tunnel syndrome forced retirement), and to a person, Deaf people who are members of the Deaf community reject the term “hearing impaired.” The only people I have ever met who used it were late-deafened adults, and even many of them reject it, albeit, some prefer “hard-of-hearing.”

People who have physical disabilities generally hate alphabet soup terms like “physically challenged,” or “differently abled.” Most people prefer to be referred to by what they actually have-- CP, MS, MD, but barring that, “wheelchair user” or “amputee” or whatever is easily observable, is preferred over “physically challenged.”

I’m not sure why some people have felt it necessary to come up with long-winded terms, so I can’t really say whether the intent was meant to be euphemistic, or just inclusive-- “physically challenged” could mean anything, from an upper limb amputee to someone with CP to a lower body paraplegic. We already had “disabled” for that, but since terms tend not to migrate, I think it’s less of a euphemism, than someone trying to hurry an older term off the stage to usher in a new for, though to what purpose, I’m not sure.

OK. Need to wrap this up. Never intended to ramble on. English major hazard.

I don’t think this is the correct way to differentiate. After all, the defining feature of the concept of the “euphemism treadmill” is constant migration. I think the question is not stability vs migration. The question is, when a vocabulary change occurs, whether that corresponds to a true underlying semantic change, or whether it’s just circumlocution.

In the case of the racial examples cited by the OP, as I said in my first response I don’t think it’s accurate to call these things euphemisms, or to describe these examples as a euphemism treadmill, because the change corresponds to a real underlying change in social attitudes. There is semantic change because there is real social change. The old terms carry the semantic baggage of marginalizing and “othering” racial groups; the new terms do not. We’re (generally, I hope) not just being polite or expressing the same social attitudes in a roundabout way. To take a more radical example: if we refer to someone black, it’s not (I hope) because we still think of them as a n***** but we’re just too “polite” to call them that. Migration away from use of the word n***** corresponds to real social change and therefore real semantic change.

In the case of disabilities, the situation is less clear cut. This is sometimes cited as an archetypal example of the euphemism treadmill. I think we have a mixture of both things going on here. On the one hand, it’s true that social attitudes to disabled people really have changed - in that sense the semantic content of the terminology has changed. On the other hand, we are also constantly trying to circumlocute and be “gentler” about categorizing people according to some deficit - in that sense this is a euphemism treadmill, the semantics are unchanged. It’s hard to untangle the two processes.

I pretty much agree with everything you said-- I was pretty tired when I wrote that last post, and maybe didn’t express myself well.

But I still think that my point that terms that apply to things besides people-- places, acts, may go in and out of fashion, but don’t migrate from euphemism to cacophemism. (“Number 2” for bowel movement, for example.)

Terms for people, such as “colored people,” DO on the other had, migrate from “preferred term,” to “highly unacceptable,” which is why, when they are in a state of being preferred, they are not correctly called euphemisms.

And what about “restroom”, “bathroom”, “toilet”, “bog-house”, “crapper”, “john”, etc? Even the Master has written that these are all euphemisms. If you say you will use the toilet, that now literally refers to the fixture and not the room, even though toilet was itself once a euphemism for bog-house. Does that make “toilet” a euphemism which drifted into a cacophemism, despite it never being used to describe people?

~Max