Euphemisms and Public Behavior

My name is Brittany Picker and I am from right here in Boise, ID. I am currently double majoring in Pre Vet and Biology (with an emphasis in zoology). I chose these majors because I find Biology to be the most enjoyable science and, more importantly, I have always had a passion for animals. I also chose these majors to help fulfil my prerequisites for veterinary school, which is where I plan on going after graduation. I have yet to decide what field of veterinary medicine I will go into, but it will most likely be small, domestic animals. Outside of school, I spend most of my time as a volunteer puppy raiser for Guide Dogs for the Blind, which is an organization that trains seeing eye dogs for the visually impaired. In the 5 years I have been a part of the organization, I have raised 3 puppies, one of which has graduated to become a working guide. In addition to that, I enjoy spending time outdoors and doing anything else that will relax my mind, such as reading and listening to music.

Euphemisms and Public Behavior

This article looks at the different ways individuals use euphemisms to affect public behavior. Euphemisms are a powerful tool that can be used to persuade people to believe or do a certain thing or they can be used simply to save face in an awkward situation. They can be purposefully or accidentally misleading based on the speaker’s/writer’s intentions. Through the discussion of what a euphemism is and how it is used, looking at an analysis of the communication that took place during the Penn State scandal, and writing my own analysis of Bill Clinton’s Affirmative Action speech, this essay will show the harmful effects of euphemisms and will encourage readers to dig deeper into the literature they consume as well as be aware of their own use of language.

Introduction

When someone says “my husband passed away,” would you know what they really mean? What about if someone tells you that they were “let go”? Wouldn’t it be easier for them to say “he died” or “I was fired”? These phrases are what we call euphemisms. A euphemism is a word or phrase that is a polite or indirect way of saying something that is considered harsh, uncomfortable, or inappropriate. Euphemisms that people use on a regular basis, like the ones just mentioned, are usually understood by most others, but you can imagine a young child or someone who learned English as a second language being confused by these statements. Why would we choose to use these phrases if there is a chance people won’t understand them or they could get the wrong impression? And what purpose can these kinds of phrases serve?

Why use euphemisms in the first place?

Euphemisms can be an effective tool when trying to make a situation or an individual easier to understand. For example, euphemisms can be used to change the negative connotation that has been developed with some words. Lawrence Lieberman published an article in the Journal of Learning Disabilities that explained how euphemisms were used to try and benefit those with disabilities. He claims that “when the masses gain access to clinical terms, they change them into dirty words” and that when this happens, it is time to find a new word to use. One example he gave involved the word “cripple.” He says that “cripple” tends to “connote being mangled on top of being physically impaired,” and so instead we should, and often do, use the term “physically handicapped” (314). These euphemisms are used to try and reject the stereotypes and stigmatism that revolve around physical and mental disabilities.

Euphemisms can also be used when you are trying to be polite. Steven Pinker explains this in his book The Stuff of Thought by using table manners as an example. If you want some guacamole, but it’s on the other side of the table, you might say “Can you please pass the guacamole?” You have every intention of receiving that guacamole, but instead of demanding it, “Give me that guacamole,” you phrase it as a question in order to seem more polite. Pinker states that linguists refer to this order-as-a-question phrasing as a “whimperative.” Other “whimperative” phrases include “’I was wondering if…’”, “If you could…”, or “’It would be great if you could…’”. Unless you have some kind of authority over the other person, “you can’t just boss people around” and expect them to respect you. This type of euphemisms allows  individuals to convey their intentions but still have a respectful interaction with another person (22-23).

Both “polite euphemisms” and euphemisms used to avoid words with negative connotations can be taken too far. When an individual is trying to avoid an uncomfortable or awkward situation altogether, or if they want to disguise their true intentions, then their use of euphemisms can become manipulative. Manipulative euphemisms are used in a wide variety of places and for almost any reason. Politicians use them to garner support for their agenda. Companies will use them to appeal to the consumer and get them to buy their product. Some organizations may even use them to cover up a scandal. Essentially, euphemisms are used “to tell it like it isn’t” (M.S McGlone et al). As McGlone and others describe, euphemisms are a “substitution strategy” in order to change the appearance of “topics that evoke negative effect” (261). Those who use manipulative euphemisms are trying to cover up their true intentions, whether that is done on purpose or by accident.

The Political Scene

One of the most common areas euphemisms are used is in politics. George Orwell wrote in his article “Politics and the English Language” that political literature is “largely the defense of the indefensible” and that this is done mainly through euphemisms (Orwell). This sort of diverted language allows politicians to discuss things “without calling up mental pictures of them.” For example, if they want to talk about an ongoing war without including the gruesome details, they could say “pacification” instead of describing the bombing and utter destruction of villages, or “transfer of population” instead of the forced relocation of the natives. He goes on to say that since intentions and “thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” (Orwell). The specific language that is chosen can affect how an individual responds to it. If the politician’s discussion of the war is vague and focuses on the positive, then the average citizen might be led to believe that their country is in the right and will remain oblivious to the negative effect the war tactics are having on the foreign country’s civilians. They will continue to support the war and in turn continue to support the destruction of innocent lives. Savo Karam argues that most politicians “do not intend to harm” through their use of euphemisms, but that they only want to avoid disapproval from others as well as avoid admitting any kind of fault (6). They want to prevent any blame being laid on them so if there is a situation that would “threaten their status,” they will resort to euphemistic language. This reasoning doesn’t make their behavior any less wrong; it just goes to show that politicians are not always out to deceive the average citizen. Karam continues to say that while politicians are concerned with saving their own face, they are “expected to be considerate concerning the face of others,” but sadly this rarely happens (7).

Orwell also explains that this language is easy to use and “can spread by tradition and imitation.” Even if a politician does not have the intention of manipulating the public, they may be doing so without realizing it simply because they are copying the writing style and word choice of those who came before them. They too may have been fooled by the euphemisms used in previous speeches so they assume it’s OK to use them in future speeches. Orwell considers these types of politicians to be machines or “some kind of dumm[ies]” who do not think for themselves. They rely solely on familiar phrases so that they sound like they are saying the right things, but in reality they have no clue what they are talking about. This kind of euphemisms use can be more dangerous than if they are used intentionally. Just like in Orwell’s book 1984, this “reduced state of consciousness,” is instrumental in the idea of “political conformity.” The more these phrases are used (“camouflage” euphemisms as McGlone and others refer to them) the more believable and accepted they become and fewer and fewer people question their true meaning.

Cover-up Method: Penn State’s Sexual Assault Scandal

Politicians are not the only ones to take advantage of these powerful euphemisms. In October 2012, the “former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky” was found guilty of sexually abusing 10 young football players and was sentenced to 30-60 years in prison (Lucas and Fyke). For 15 years, Sandusky used his position as a Penn State coach to lure the young boys into the University’s locker room where he “groomed, molested, and raped his victims” (551). Not only was the public upset by Sandusky’s behavior, but they were outraged by the lack of action taken by Penn State in the matter. The University’s top leaders were alerted to Sandusky’s behavior and not only did they ignore it, but they tried to cover it up. Kristen Lucas and Jeremy Fyke assert that the choice of language, especially euphemistic language, when reporting the assault up and down the chain of command was influential in the decision making. Lucas and Fyke poured over “more than 2,500 pages of reports and transcripts,” ranging from emails and handwritten notes to testimonies and court transcripts, in order to fully understand what was being said on this matter. They say that the first discussion of the incident occurred after Michael McQueary, another Penn State assistant football coach, witnessed Jerry Sandusky “sexually assaulting a young boy in the football locker room” (557). He immediately went to Joe Paterno, the head football coach for Penn State, to report what he saw, however he never came right out and described the incident. Instead of explaining exactly what he saw, Sandusky in the showers with his arms wrapped around a young boy’s midsection accompanied by “skin-on-skin smacking sounds,” he kept his account vague by using phrases like “something was going wrong” and “it was way over the lines” (558-559). While those phrases may imply that something sexual was taking place, they could be interpreted in many different ways. When asked why he never referred to the behavior as “anal sex,” or more accurately “sexual assault,” McQueary replied that “he didn’t feel comfortable using those terms [. . .] out of respect and probably my own embarrassment” (559). McQueary was so concerned about avoiding an awkward moment that he downplayed the seriousness of the situation by using ambiguous language. There also seemed to be some relational distance between McQueary and Paterno, which would explain why McQueary didn’t go into detail. When he first called to report what he saw, Paterno tried to ignore him and said “ ‘I don’t have a job for you. And if that’s what it’s about, don’t bother coming over’ “ (559). This statement could have created a negative atmosphere that McQueary did not feel comfortable in. McQueary later said that you “don’t go to Coach Paterno and go into great detail of sexual acts,” meaning Paterno could have been difficult to approach. McQueary might not have had the intention of disguising Sandusky’s sexual assault, but a negative and uncomfortable environment made him feel like he couldn’t fully describe what happened. Again, this doesn’t make his use of euphemisms any less wrong, but it could provide some explanation as to why the hard facts were avoided.

McQueary wasn’t the only one trying to avoid an awkward conversation. When Paterno relayed to Tim Curley, the athletic director, and Gary Schultz, the vice-president, what McQueary had told him, he used even less accurate language than McQueary. He stated that “someone observed some behavior in the football locker room that was disturbing” and only said that the behavior was between “two people in the showers.” At this point, any implication of an assault has been removed from the scenario. Eventually, a final statement was written by Penn State President Graham Spanier which stated that “Jerry Sandusky was seen in an athletic locker room facility showering with one of his Second Mile youth, after a workout, and that they were ‘horsing around’ ” (560). Even though the idea of a grown man in the showers with “one of his Second Mile youth” could be taken as sexual in it of itself, referring to his behavior as “horsing around” detracts from the severe nature of the incident. Schultz in particular missed the sexual implication of the term and he stated that “Jerry was the kind of guy that he regularly kind of like physically wrestled people,” as he would “punch you in the arm” or “get you in a headlock” (561). None of this behavior would be a particular cause of concern, which could be part of the reason the University’s leaders didn’t take the claims more seriously. When Schultz and Curley talked to McQueary a few weeks after the initial incident, Curley said that McQueary never once mentioned any sort of sexual contact and instead said that “they were playful” and just “horsing around” (560-561). No one bothered to delve deeper into the subject to try and learn exactly what happened. Everyone just “agreed that euphemistic language ruled the encounter” and let it go (561).

Now that the “sexual assault” was reported, the Penn State leaders had to decide how to act on this information. They decided that the best response would be to explain to Sandusky what “appropriate use of the University facility” is and to inform him and the Second Mile president that the youth were no longer “to be in the showers” (262). Not once did they address Sandusky’s extremely inappropriate behavior and they continued to use euphemistic phrasing to avoid any awkward or uncomfortable conversations. They completely shifted the focus “from Sandusky assaulting young children [. . .] to improper use of university facilities” (262). Whether they meant to or not, the Penn State leaders nullified any chance the “young boy” had at receiving help and instead painted themselves as the victims since their facilities were being taken advantage of by non-authorized users, and it was all thanks to a few simple, ambiguous phrases.

Analysis of President Bill Clinton’s Affirmative Action Speech

Based on the information I learned about euphemisms and using Lucas and Fyke’s Penn State analysis as an example, I decided to analyze a speech given by Bill Clinton on Affirmative Action. This is a perfect example of how a politician uses euphemisms to garner support for a certain agenda they want passed. Clinton expressed his opinion of Affirmative Action policies on July 19, 1995 to try and address the wide range of favor and opposition towards them. Affirmative Action is supposed to “break down barriers, both visible and invisible, to level the playing field, and to make sure everyone is [. . .] fairly represented in the nation’s work force and educational institutions.” Clinton explains that his passion for Affirmative Action comes from him growing up in the South in a time where discrimination was still rampant and “you didn’t see many people of color or women making their way to work in the morning in business clothes or serving in substantial numbers in powerful positions in Congress or at the White House or making executive decisions every day in businesses,” and those are only a few of the position he listed. He goes on to discuss how a lot of hard work went into desegregating America and how America is now better for it today. He believes that Affirmative Action gives “our Nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion” of the minorities once and for all.

According to John Harris of the Washington Post, Bill Clinton signed an Executive order on the same day as his speech that told “Cabinet secretaries and agency officials to review all affirmative action programs” and eliminate or reform any that “ ‘create a quota, create preferences for unqualified individuals, create reverse discrimination, [and/or] continue even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved.’ ” Now Clinton does not only have to defend affirmative action itself, but he has to explain his reasons for giving an executive order, a law that does not have to go through Congress.

Some people believe that this policy is an effective way to provide “unavailable opportunities in education, employment, and business” to minorities that might otherwise be denied due to some kind of racial bias or physical barrier such as income level (“Affirmative Action”). Others believe that Affirmative action is a “type of reverse prejudice” where minorities are now given “unequal benefits” based on their skin color or nationality. They also see it as demeaning to the minorities because they are being accepted into schools and jobs based solely on their skin color and not because of their “persistence and hard work” (“Affirmative Action Pros and Cons”). President Clinton had to expect these arguments when he gave his speech on the subject, which is why he used euphemisms to try and persuade the American citizens.

In the opening paragraph, Clinton is discussing the fate of the American people and how the world we live in is changing. He concludes the paragraph by saying “we must reach beyond our fears and our divisions to a new time of great and common purpose.” He uses the phrase “we must reach beyond our fears” instead of something like “we need to prepare for something different” or “we have to change and do something we aren’t used to,” because the idea of change can be scary for some people and there is chance they will tune him out if that’s what he immediately calls them to do. If we “reach beyond our fears,” it sounds as if we are being courageous and brave and doing something good.

Towards the beginning of the speech, Clinton discusses how the Declaration of Independence stated that “all men are created equal” but there has been a major gap between “the plain meaning of our creed and the meaner reality of our daily lives.” The phrase “meaner reality” is softer, informal way of describing the way our nation has treated minorities in the past. Although Clinton goes on to list some of the ways we have not been equal (voting laws, slavery, treatment of Native Americans), he makes these situations sound like they are nothing more than inconsistencies to the equal rights claim as opposed to actual problems with the ideology. He doesn’t want to put himself in an accusatory position because that could push away individuals that would think he is hating on America. While this may seem like a smart move on Clinton’s part, it also downplays the possible urgency and necessity of his policy which could backfire on his goals of getting Affirmative Action passed.

Clinton finally brings up his Executive order in the middle of his speech. He states that this review is intended to “to look at the facts, not the politics, of affirmative action.” He explains that the main reason for this review is that there are “those who raise legitimate questions about the way affirmative action works or who raise the larger question about the genuine problems and anxieties of all the American people and their sense of being left behind and treated unfairly” and they deserve to have their questions answered. The phrase “of all the American people” is a euphemisms because he is avoiding stating exactly what kinds of people are bringing up these questions. He doesn’t want to single out any group of individuals so he makes it sound as if society as a whole is questioning affirmative action. Not only does this keep one particular group from becoming offended, it also makes it sound Clinton sound like he is caring about the concerns of every American citizen and he wants to make things better for everyone.

You can even consider the phrase “affirmative action” to be a euphemism. According to dictionary.com, affirmative means “expressing agreement or consent” (Affirmative) and action is defined as “something done or performed” (Action), so “affirmative action” literally means “agreeing to do something.” Just based on the title, it is unclear what exactly the policy is but it sounds like a positive idea that already has effort being put forward to accomplish it. Clinton’s use of vague terms will keep people from making a negative snap judgement about the policy and forces them to read into it in order to learn more, which he expects most people will not do.

Conclusion

Euphemisms are a powerful tool that can affect the way an individual thinks, believes, and acts. While there are some positive effects of euphemisms, we must tread that ground carefully as the original intentions of the words can quickly become blurred. We are not helpless when it comes to protecting ourselves against manipulation however. The most important thing we can do is to not be afraid to ask questions. The biggest and most costly fault in the Penn State scandal was the fact that no one bothered to ask for clarification on what the other was saying. By not questioning the words we are being given, we give both them and the speaker incredible power over our own thoughts. Digging deeper would not only help you to understand what is being said, but it could stop any kind of manipulation that may be taking place from continuing. Not only do you need to be careful about what others say to you, but you need to be careful about what you say to others. You don’t have to be blunt in every situation, but make sure everyone understands your meanings and intentions. Make sure you are not the one misrepresenting the truth and leading others astray. Euphemisms do not need to be removed from all communication, we just need to be aware of the intentions surrounding their use. Remember, as the wise Benjamin Parker once said, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Works Cited

“Action.” Dictionary.com. 2015. 20 November 2015

“Affirmative.” Dictionary.com. 2015. 20 November 2015

“Affirmative Action.” Civil Rights History. The Leadership Conference. Web. 18 November 2015.

“Affirmative Action Pros and Cons.” Asia-Pacific Economics Blog. Asia-Pacific Economics Blog, 5 March 2014. Web. 18 November 2015

Clinton, Bill. “Address on Affirmative Action.” Miller Center. University of Virginia. Web. 18 November 2015.

Harris, John F. “Clinton Avows Support for Affirmative Action.” Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post Company, 20 July 1995. Web. 9 December 2015.

Karam, Savo. “Truths And Euphemisms: How Euphemisms Are Used In The Political Arena.” 3L: Southeast Asian Journal Of English Language Studies 17.1 (2011): 5- 17. Education Research Complete. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

Lieberman, Lawrence M. “Euphemisms.” Journal Of Learning Disabilities 17.5 (1984): Professional Development Collection. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

Lucas, Kristen, and Jeremy P. Fyke. “Euphemisms and Ethics: A Language-Centered Analysis of Penn State’s Sexual Abuse Scandal.” Journal of Business Ethics 122.4 (2014): 551- 69. ProQuest. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

McGlone, Matthew S., Gary Beck, and Abigail Pfiester. “Contamination And Camouflage In Euphemisms. “Communication Monographs 73.3 (2006): 261-282. Communication Source. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” George Orwell. George Orwell Web Ring. Web. 9 November 2015.

Pinker, Steven. The Stuff of Thought. New York: Viking Penguin, 2007. Print