In Defense Of The "B" Word

[Crossposted on Family Scholars Blog, Alas, and TADA. Arguments for the legitimacy of discrimination against LGBT people are not allowed on Alas.]

B Mosaic

In this post, I am not arguing that opposing same-sex marriage (SSM) is a bigoted policy. I will be arguing that in a forthcoming post; but that’s not my argument today. In this post, I will defend the use of the word “bigotry” in policy debate. That may seem like an odd thing to do, but when I read SSM opponents, I get the overwhelming impression that they believe that the word “bigotry” should never be used in a civil debate.

* * *

Let’s discuss the word “bigotry.” Starting with what I don’t mean.

When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean “you’re a monster.” When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean “you’re a bad person.” When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean “shut up.”

When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean that you feel direct hatred or animus towards anyone. When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean to ask for a lengthy narrative about your many close LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual) friends and the prejudice-free state of your mind. With all due respect, none of that is likely to be relevant in a policy discussion.

When I say “bigotry,” I don’t mean “I’m a better human being than you.” Everyone has some bigotry in them, me included.

* * *

So what does “bigotry” mean? In his post on “The B Word,” David Blankenhorn wrote:

…there is a lot of genuine anti-gay bigotry out there, including within the movement to oppose gay marriage. By anti-gay bigotry, I mean the expressed belief that homosexuals deserve our contempt and are the fair objects of ridicule. It’s there, and it helps to fuel opposition to gay marriage. I wish this weren’t true, but it is, and I don’t think that this fact is disputable on an empirical basis. So while I certainly don’t like being called a bigot, I suspect that many gay advocates of same-sex marriage have been called names at least as ugly as “bigot” far more times than I have ever or will ever be called ”bigot.”

The second thing is that the tactic works. It ends conversation. It divides the world into the decent people and the evil people, and in that way silences most anyone with a dissenting view who might not like to be publicly called out as an evil person.

Kudos, David, for acknowledging bigotry in the anti-SSM movement, and that the slings and arrows suffered by heterosexuals opposed to equality are not remotely as bad as the bigotry LGBT people have to live through. I know that seems like an obvious point to my readers on “Alas,” but it’s not a point most SSM opponents would bring up.

That said, I disagree with David on a few counts — such as his implication that using the word “bigotry” is just a silencing tactic. He’s also mistaken to blame SSM proponents for “silencing” anybody, because criticism is not censorship. When SSM opponents refuse to speak in public for fear of criticism, their cowardice has silenced them.

If I say “I think your policy is bigoted,” and the person I’m talking to stomps out of the room and refuses to speak, I’m not the one who has silenced debate.

* * *

Let’s examine David’s definition of “anti-gay bigotry,” which is, he says, “the expressed belief that homosexuals deserve our contempt and are the fair objects of ridicule.” David defines “bigotry” so narrowly that virtually no one, other than a handful of loud extremists, can be criticized for bigotry. That’s extremely helpful if your point is “I’m not a bigot!” It’s not helpful if we want a real understanding of how bigotry operates and harms marginalized groups in the real world.

Let’s take a historic example of bigotry: Exclusive clubs. The word “exclusive” referred to the exclusion of Jews from membership in golf and smoking clubs (a practice that died out by the 1970s). Members of these clubs often claimed to have nothing at all against Jews (the cliche “some of my best friends are Jewish” comes from such comments), and would never have explicitly said Jews deserved contempt or ridicule. The exclusive policies were defended on the basis of tradition, and of maintaining a certain desired atmosphere.

If we say that antisemitic bigotry is “the expressed belief that Jews deserve contempt and are fair objects of ridicule,” then we’d have to conclude that there was no bigotry involved in these no-Jews-allowed clubs. With hindsight, however, we can see at least two forms of bigotry here which that definition wouldn’t cover.

First, institutional bigotry. The rule itself, keeping Jews out of the clubs, was intrinsically bigoted.

Second, the subtle bigotry of devaluing Jews and Jewish interests. When club members weighed their clubby traditions in the one hand, and the legitimate need of Jews for equal treatment in the other hand, they weighed the needs of Jews far too lightly. I don’t think they did this out of any conscious malice; rather, they did this because they were brought up in a society that constantly treated Jews as simply less valuable human beings than gentiles. This devaluation is not as obvious as open contempt and ridicule, but it is an insidious and extremely harmful form of bigotry. In fact, because it’s so much more widespread and harder to address or fight, this form of bigotry is usually more harmful than openly expressed contempt.

* * *

As I use the term, “bigotry” means unjustly treating any group’s humanity or well-being as less valuable or consequential because of who they are. This can be obvious, such as a person in a Republican Senator’s office writing “all faggots must die.” But it can also be subtle, such as a court system that systematically punishes black men a little more harshly for the same crimes, or pressure on LGBT children to appear “normal.”

It’s worth repeating that the more subtle forms of bigotry (other than overt violence and murder, which is relatively rare) do the most harm. An angry slur on a website is sickening to read; but a congressional staffer who wisely keeps such views unexpressed, but subtly nudges policy in an anti-LGBT direction over a career spanning decades, will have a much greater impact.

When our definition of bigotry is limited to only obvious overt bigotry, we’re in effect condoning the most harmful and widespread forms of bigotry, by protecting it from being named or criticized.

* * *

Any group can be treated with bigotry. But bigotry is most harmful, and the moral case against bigotry strongest, when the targeted group is a frequent target of bigotry. This is because the harms of bigotry are cumulative. When I’m bigoted against left-handed plumbers named Albert, that’s probably just a harmless eccentricity; when I’m bigoted against LGBT, I’m contributing to a long and ongoing system of harm to LGBT people.

* * *

Virtually everyone’s mind has some bigotry within. As Richard Davis wrote:

The truth is that almost nobody is entirely free of racism, bigotry, prejudice or intolerance in some form – the world is not neatly divided between the despicable bigots and enlightened, tolerant souls. Psychologists who administer tests to detect implicit bias in people have discovered that most of us have an “inner bigot” who may not be too obvious but who pulls some levers that distort our perceptions and control how we act. […]

Here’s the truth of the matter – you are not your inner bigot. No one is. If you observe any bigoted thought or feeling that comes to you and ask “is this REALLY who I am?” the ultimate answer will be “no, it isn’t.” […] If you see these thoughts and feelings for what they are, recognize how they grow out of fear and ignorance, then you tame them. Their power dissipates.

I don’t know what’s inside your mind when I debate you. It’s none of my business. So during debates, I try never to say “you’re a bigot.” (Although over the course of thousands of debates, doubtless I’ve slipped up sometimes.)

But I won’t hesitate to argue that an idea is bigoted; or a statement is bigoted; or a policy is bigoted.

I realize that the “b” word makes many people uncomfortable, and unhappy. It may even make people feel attacked.

But should we really declare the concept of “bigotry” forever out of bounds for all discussion, just because talking about it makes some people unhappy? How can we “see these thoughts and feelings for what they are” if half the people in this debate don’t even want the word said?

* * *

A point about those gentlemen defending exclusive clubs. Most of them were educated people. I’m sure many considered themselves kind people, who would never intend to harm anyone, Jews included. They were smart, they were sincere.

With hindsight, most of us would agree that they were badly mistaken.

To be clear: I’m not suggesting that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is exactly like exclusive clubs. (Every civil rights struggle is different.)

Rather, I’m saying that if they were mistaken, then we could be mistaken, too. It’s possible that our policies, like theirs, are bigoted, and we don’t realize it. We can’t hope to know if we dismiss all attempts to bring “the B word” into debate as personal insults, ad hom attacks, or as silencing tactics.

Civil policy debate, therefore, should not exclude that an idea or policy may be wrong because it is bigoted. The word “bigotry’ cannot and should not be banned from our discussions. And those who claim to be sincere opponents of bigotry should be the most willing to examine bigotry seriously.

This entry posted in crossposted on TADA, Language Politics. Bookmark the permalink. 

19 Responses to In Defense Of The "B" Word

  1. 1
    Erik D. says:

    This was a huge point of contention in an argument I had online. The person swore up and down they were not a bigot, was willing to support Civil Unions, but not only objected to gays using the term marriage, but went so far as to claim that gays were “demanding” special rights to be allowed to use the term marriage. (Special access to the term marriage was how it was phrased, I believe.) Unfortunately it’s hard to argue when one is angry, so I didn’t present my argument as well as I liked, which boiled down to the usage of a special term to define gay marriage was just an attempt to other them, to keep them out of the tribe, so to speak. As long as marriage remains a legal term, then gays have just as much right to said LEGAL term as opposite sex couples.

  2. 2
    fannie says:

    What I find is that some of those opposed to same-sex marriage, rather than expressing overt anti-gay slurs and animus, espouse that softer form of bigotry that is heterocentrism/heterosupremacism. To many such people, it is just an objective truth that heterosexuality (and, consequently, hetero relationships and hetero parenting) are better than homosexuality (and same-sex couples and same-sex parenting).

    I call this bigotry “softer” because many people who are heterocentrist view their beliefs as benign and, true to heterocentrist form, don’t consider heterocentrism’s negative effects on LGBT people, or don’t grant these negative effects much weight. I am reminded of the recently filed brief in the federal Prop 8 appeal which makes almost no mention of same-sex couples and instead centers its argumentation almost completely around the alleged role of marriage in fostering responsible heterosexual procreation- as though Prop 8 were passed in a world entirely devoid of same-sex families and LGBT people.

    I do think this form of bigotry is more insidious than more overt displays. To many folks, it looks friendly. To heterocentrists, they perpetuate inequality with the approval of their own consciences.

  3. 3
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    As I use the term, “bigotry” means unjustly treating any group’s humanity or well-being as less valuable or consequential because of who they are.

    If you conclude that a view is bigoted off the bat, it lets you skip the important part: is the action unjust? Or is the action justified?

    You are not, presumably, trying to be bigoted against republicans or white people or Israelis or Americans or a variety of other groups who you on occasion may attack. That’s because you presumably believe your comments to be justified. If your opponents labeled your views as bigoted or required you to admit to bigotry in order to maintain your conversation, you might or might not continue with the conversation.

    Civil policy debate, therefore, should not exclude that an idea or policy may be wrong because it is bigoted. The word “bigotry’ cannot and should not be banned from our discussions. And those who claim to be sincere opponents of bigotry should be the most willing to examine bigotry seriously.

    This is backwards. As you pointed out, bigotry implies that something is unjust. Unjust things are wrong. Treating someone unjustly is wrong. Things aren’t wrong because they’re bigoted, they’re bigoted because they are based on incorrect justifications, i.e. they’re bigoted because they are wrong.

    And it certainly stifles civil discourse. To label something as bigotry early in a conversation is to conclude with certainty that your initial personal beliefs are SO RIGHT that any opponent to those beliefs is worthy of being labeled with an insulting term. I’m not sure how you consider that conducive to conversation.

    Would you discuss illegal immigration with someone who stated that that any support of illegal immigration or illegal immigrants was un-American and traitorous? Would you expect people to discuss it with you, if you stated a that opposing illegal immigration was racist, and that bias against illegal immigrants was racist and/or bigoted?

    If by “civil discourse” you mean “discourse between like-minded people who already agree,” then your point is valid. If by “civil discourse” you mean “discussions between political opponents in an effort to find common ground, exchange facts, and try to convince the other party” then your point fails. The “Bigot” label is an attempt to claim the argument without dealing with the underlying question. It is no more linked to civil discourse than is an accusation that something is “un-American” or “traitorous” or anything else.

  4. 4
    Ampersand says:

    If you conclude that a view is bigoted off the bat, it lets you skip the important part: is the action unjust? Or is the action justified?

    I quite agree! That’s where the debate should lie, and that’s a debate I’m willing to have.

    I’m happy to debate “is X policy unjust.” In effect, if we’re debating “is X policy bigoted,” that’s just another way of saying “is this policy unjust”? That’s a totally debatable subject, no matter which way it’s phrased.

    I’m just unwilling to debate “does X person feel hate in her heart.” That’s not a debatable subject.

  5. 5
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Ampersand says:
    9/28/2010 at 3:06 pm

    I’m happy to debate “is X policy unjust.” In effect, if we’re debating “is X policy bigoted,” that’s just another way of saying “is this policy unjust”? That’s a totally debatable subject, no matter which way it’s phrased.

    (sarcasm on) that’s a completely retarded argument, blind to the truth of discourse, and traitorous and un-american to boot. (sarcasm off)

    I don’t think you’re stupid and I’m well aware that “retarded” and “blind” (in that context) are not appropriate here. I deliberately used them just to demonstrate that the “…no matter how it is phrased” argument is a lot easier to sustain when you’re defending your own speech than it is to sustain when you’re attacking someone’s use of their own preferred terms.

    If you think “bigoted” is the equivalent of “unjust,” and if you know that your opponents dislike your use of “bigoted” to describe their views and/or policies, then it doesn’t seem to match with civil discourse very well. Why not use “unjust” instead?

    The post above wasn’t actually a rhetorical question: Would you discuss illegal immigration with someone who stated that that any support of illegal immigration or illegal immigrants was un-American and traitorous? Would you expect people to discuss it with you, if you stated a that opposing illegal immigration was racist, and that bias against illegal immigrants was racist and/or bigoted?

    I’d have no problem discussing illegal immigration issues with someone who disagrees. I don’t care if they think my position is unfair or unjust; or that I am misapplying the law; or that I am incorrect about base facts; or that I was incorrect. After all, we’re disagreeing (civilly) and we aren’t expected to have the same views.

    But I won’t waste my time discussing it with someone who believes that all of their opponents are racist bigots. That’s not civil disagreement. That’s simply a statement of an unwavering position, based on a moral conclusion, that isn’t going to change.

    When you label something as bigoted or racist, you are expressing in advance your refusal to adopt that view. It’s like trying to argue with a pro-life Christian. Once they have presented something as Satanic, there’s no point in discourse: Good Christians Do Not Get Convinced To Do Satanic Things. Once you have presented something as bigoted, it’s the same effect: Good Liberals Do Not Get Convinced To Do Bigoted Things.

  6. 6
    Thene says:

    I dunno about Amp but whether I use the word ‘bigot’ or not, I refuse to adopt the view that it would only be okay for me to marry someone I loved if that person chanced to be male. Does that mean there’s never any point in me engaging in discourse with anti-SSM people, however politely?

    Why is ‘bigot’ seen as some kind of conversation stopper in a way that ‘you can only marry an opposite-sex person’ is not? Because that kinda sounds like taking the feelings of the bigot more seriously than the feelings of the people who they’re bigoted against, which is something the original post urged us not to do.

  7. 7
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Why is ‘bigot’ seen as some kind of conversation stopper in a way that ‘you can only marry an opposite-sex person’ is not?
    Presumably we’re willing to change our beliefs, and that’s why we engage in debate.

    When we choose categories or labels for our beliefs, we identify some beliefs as more or less negotiable. There is a direct relationship between whether a belief is worth discussing and whether it is open to negotiation.

    Someone who identifies a statement as “bigoted” is selecting a label that signals–in advance–an unwillingness to accept a counterargument. Think about it: you generally have had a lifetime of discussions; have you ever agreed to sign on to a position AFTER you have identified it as bigoted, or racist?

    If it signals an unwillingness to accept opposing views, it’s a conversation stopper.

    Because that kinda sounds like taking the feelings of the bigot more seriously than the feelings of the people who they’re bigoted against, which is something the original post urged us not to do.
    And that sounds like the whole problem in a nutshell: You STARTED with concluding that A is bigoted towards B. You then define B as being the “bigoted against” victim. That may be correct, but it’s not an aid to discourse.

    I’m not saying that you can’t call people names. I’m just saying that it’s facile to pretend that doing so doesn’t act as a limitation on conversation: If you want to win an argument with an anti-gay wingnut, calling them a bigot might help. but if you want to actually find out what they think and why (i.e. “civil discourse,”) calling them a bigot will have the opposite effect.

  8. 8
    Bear says:

    gin-and-whiskey said, “I’m not saying that you can’t call people names. I’m just saying that it’s facile to pretend that doing so doesn’t act as a limitation on conversation: If you want to win an argument with an anti-gay wingnut, calling them a bigot might help. but if you want to actually find out what they think and why (i.e. “civil discourse,”) calling them a bigot will have the opposite effect.”

    I don’t think you read amp’s post very closely, since he makes a distinction between calling someone a bigot and arguing that an idea or a position is bigoted.

  9. 9
    Alice says:

    I’m really curious about this notion that in order to engage in civil discourse with someone who regards oneself, one’s loving relationships or one’s family as inherently inferior to them or theirs, or who sees one’s loving relationships as a threat to the foundations of the state, one must accept in advance that one may come to agree with them.

    It seems an excessive standard of civility, and not one I’ve seen operating successfully elsewhere.

  10. 10
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Bear says:
    9/28/2010 at 7:28 pm
    I don’t think you read amp’s post very closely, since he makes a distinction between calling someone a bigot and arguing that an idea or a position is bigoted.

    It’s functionally a distinction without much of a difference, as it relates to discourse in the practical world. It carries the same load. And it’s equally inflammatory with little benefit, if you think that “unjust” is equivalent.

    Alice says:
    9/28/2010 at 7:37 pm

    I’m really curious about this notion that in order to engage in civil discourse with someone who regards oneself, one’s loving relationships or one’s family as inherently inferior to them or theirs, or who sees one’s loving relationships as a threat to the foundations of the state, one must accept in advance that one may come to agree with them.
    It seems an excessive standard of civility, and not one I’ve seen operating successfully elsewhere.

    What, then, do you take “civil discourse” to mean? Doesn’t it generally imply that people are engaged in a conversation with the mutual goal of convincing their opponent? Doesn’t that imply a good faith requirement to listen to, consider, and theoretically be convinced by your opponent?

    I’m pro-gay-rights, so I certainly understand your point. But that isn’t a one-sided limitation. I do not bother talking with anti-gay-rights people who use words like “abomination,” for the same reason. Or if I do, I’m not practicing one-sided civility.

    You can be angry, or insulting, or insulted, or hurt; you can choose your terms to maximize the effect of your argument in a political sense; you can do what you want. You are by no means required to refrain from calling positions (or people) bigoted. It’s only relevant in the extremely limited sphere of civil discourse, which makes up a very small component of our everyday conversations.

  11. 11
    Silenced is Foo says:

    When I was a kid, being “racist” was the worst thing you could ever possibly be. Same applies to most of the more obvious villains of modern, progressive values – see also abusive, sexually harrassing, whatever.

    The people who commit these acts were portrayed as moustache-twirling monsters in pop-culture.

    The problem is that while it was important to vilify these things that might’ve been tacitly accepted, they also created a climate where somebody who had one of these problems but otherwise considered themselves a good person could never accept that about themselves. If X are monsters, then I can’t be an X because I’m not a monster.

    A guy who took a little too long to back off after his partner said “I need to stop” during sex won’t admit to himself that what he did was rape, because rape is the worst thing ever and he’s a decent guy, and rape isn’t like that – rape is a guy in a mask with a knife on a dark path in the park.

    And so on.

    My dad’s got his prejudices – he constantly grouses about female writers, but then I point to his stack of Ursula K. LeGuin, Nancy Kress and Wilhelmina Baird books and he says “oh, but they’re different”. He talks about how he likes Arizona better than the coasts because their underclass is Mexican and not Black, and the Mexicans have a better work-ethic. He wouldn’t call himself a bigot, but he’ll admit to his prejudices.

    But he’s also a good father, a hard-working immigrant who busted his ass for his family, volunteers, and is firmly left-wing and supports social safety nets that he never used or needed. I have no trouble thinking of him as a great man, despite those comments.

  12. 12
    Peter Hoh says:

    The word got a bit of an airing on Anderson Cooper last night.

    Cooper was interviewing Andrew Shirvell, who has been waging a one-man crusade against Universoty of Michigan student body president, Chris Armstrong.

    Video embedded in this post from which I pulled the following lines:

    Around the 6:10 mark, Cooper asks Shirvell, straight out, “Do you consider yourself a bigot?”

    Cooper went on to read the definition from the dictionary.

    This portion of the interview ended with Shirvell saying, “The real bigot here is Chris Armstrong.”

  13. 13
    Myca says:

    Someone who identifies a statement as “bigoted” is selecting a label that signals–in advance–an unwillingness to accept a counterargument.

    Nonsense. All it indicates is that in order to convince me of it, there is an additional step. That is, I must be convinced it is not bigoted in addition to being convinced of its merits on other terms.

    There’s an interesting slight of hand in these sorts of conversations, where it’s not enough to advance blatantly racist, sexist, or homophobic arguments, no no no, the rest of us have to be veeery careful never to mention that they’re saying racist, sexist, or homophobic things, or all of a sudden, it’s ‘uncivil.’

    Well, I consider telling someone that they ought not posses the same civil rights as other citizens to be uncivil. In fact, it’s fucking rude.

    —Myca

  14. 14
    Thene says:

    gin-and-whiskey – you’re proposing a single end goal to civilised discourse when in reality there may be multiple goals, or none. Personally if I speak with bigots it’s not because I want to convince them of anything, but generally because I either want to understand them or I want them to understand me in such a way that would undermine their bigotry. (Knowing that it’s bigotry partly means letting go of the expectation that they’ll change. No one is going to cease, overnight, thinking that I’m inferior to them and should have different legal rights.)

    Alice – yes yes this a thousand times this.

  15. 15
    Bear says:

    gin-and-whiskey, it most certainly is not “functionally a distinction without much of a difference”. Unless, of course, one assumes that the person taking the bigoted position is not intelligent enough to understand the difference between their position and their person.

    Further, any position that purports to treat homosexual relationships as something lesser than heterosexual ones–and that’s every argument I’ve heard put forth to date–is by definition a bigoted position. If one is offended when that simple fact is pointed out, then the fault is not in the one pointing it out–it’s in the one who feels she should get a pass because the implications of her own position are troublesome to her.

  16. 16
    Phil says:

    I’m just unwilling to debate “does X person feel hate in her heart.” That’s not a debatable subject.

    I agree with this, and it’s one reason I find the rhetoric about “hate” to be so troubling: it’s too ethereal and also unwinnable, to try to tell someone what they are feeling.

    I think we need to bring back “ignorance” as the descriptive term for prejudiced positions. It was popular in the 60s, it seems to have lost ground to “hate” in this century, but I think it’s more accurate. If someone says, “No, I don’t hate you,” there’s no reasonable response. But if someone says, “No, I’m not ignorant,” you can carefully explain the ways in which they, in fact, are.

  17. 17
    Scanlon says:

    In fact, this is one argument that comes up often. I know many people who start with the notion of “everyone has some prejudices” and go from there to “everyone’s racist”.

    But my belief is that not all “prejudices” are created equal. For example, if I’m prejudiced against people who like George W. Bush and voted for John McCain in 2008 that might not be entirely fair and might lead me to judge certain people unfairly.

    But does that belong on the same moral plane as being prejudiced against people for things such as the color of their skin, the place they were born, or their accents?

    Not by a long shot!!

  18. 18
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Bear says:
    9/29/2010 at 7:18 pm
    Further, any position that purports to treat homosexual relationships as something lesser than heterosexual ones–and that’s every argument I’ve heard put forth to date–is by definition a bigoted position

    No, it’s not.

    Unjustified treatment of homosexuals as lesser is bigoted.
    Justified treatment of homosexuals as lesser isn’t bigoted.

    Now, you may think–as do I–that there is no justification for any difference in treatment. But if the justification were to exist, then it would not be bigoted.

    To use the libel example: truth is a defense to an accusation of bigotry.

  19. 19
    DapperDanMan says:

    I guess I just wonder, if you don’t want people to think you’re talking about their intentions when you say “bigotry,” why even say that word? Why not “injustice” or “prejudice?” Much as you try to love the sinner and hate the sin, the word bigotry implies a bigot. It’s like talking about hatred while claiming not to be talking about the haters.