A Corpse Flower by Any Other Name

Is euphemism a thing of ephemeral beauty or does it just stink?

Everything that humans do, everything we think and feel is deeply infused with symbolism. Be it street signs or astrology, country flags or company logos, symbolism finds its way into nearly anything we’re involved with, in objects and events both profound and mundane.

It appears on warning labels and designer purses, in blaring sirens and silent stares. From strange designs on a dollar bill to even the idea of money itself, we are constantly surrounded by symbols and symbolic actions. Ceremonies, rituals, celebrations… trophies, icons, medals and mascots… royal seals and riot shields… wedding rings and rites of spring — symbols seem embedded in the very structure of our being. And nowhere is this more evident than in language.

Yet humans are also masters of deception — both of ourselves and of others. And nowhere is this more evident than in our use of euphemism.

What is euphemism?

Stemming from two Greek words together meaning “good speech,” euphemism is an act or end result of substituting an unpleasant or offensive term with something more harmless or agreeable. As such, on some level it borders on the realm of deception, most particularly, that class of untruths called “lies of omission” where, by leaving out critical details, one paints an inaccurate picture of events.

And yet, considering how commonly it’s used, both now and throughout history as well as across cultures, few would consider it a form of lying. Or if they do, they’d confidently place it under that most innocent class of everyday lies we call “politeness.” After all, people lie constantly about inconsequential things in the interest of avoiding hurt feelings.

“Do these jeans make me look fat?” “No! They look great. You look great.”

“Daddy, do you like my drawing?” “Is it a blob monster?” “No, it’s a unicorn!” “Of course it is. I love it!”

In general conversational use, that’s precisely the intention underlying euphemism. More specifically, it usually takes the form of tact, what the philosopher A.C. Grayling defines as “an expression of concern for other’s needs and sensitivities.”

Yet if it were that simple, there would be no point to this essay. For as we’ll see (and in fact, do see on a daily basis), euphemism is often employed far more insidiously.

How is euphemism used?

One of the most common ways we use and encounter euphemism in normal interactions is in the form of prudish, mock swear words. This practice has its roots in primitive and superstitious notions of “word magic,” that is, the belief that words have the ability to manipulate physical reality.

Although there’s a valid basis to this notion in the form of connotation and the power of words to invoke both emotion and subsequent action (e.g. “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”), in its more primitive meaning of casting hexes, curses, and magic spells, it’s nothing but superstitious rubbish. This is precisely why it persists in religious contexts, in keeping with the commandment of not taking the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

As an atheist, I’d argue, “Ah, heck. Can’t we just call the gosh darned thing what it is?” But I digress.

In a similar vein of prudish avoidance behavior, and encompassing the other class of swear words — those pertaining to bodily fluids and functions (what we call “obscenity” as opposed to “profanity”) — we see the same use of euphemism when referring to urine, excrement, genitals, or sex acts. Again, although this is done in the interest of politeness, it seems a case of the cart pushing the horse, for whose feelings are we protecting when, as Adam Sandler mocked in the film Billy Madison, “He called the shit ‘poop!’”?

Lastly, to round out its more innocent applications, there’s the simple matter of avoiding unpleasant realities. Thus your loved one didn’t die, they “passed away.” You weren’t fired from your job, you were “let go.” But at least these cases do actually serve the purpose of protecting feelings (however ineffectually).

Euphemism in politics and business

Where euphemism really begins to show its true colors (as opposed to the fake colors it wears on the outside, by definition) is when money and power are involved. In other words, in politics and in business. And this is where it has its most far-reaching consequences.

There was the famous incident several years back when a documentary revealed the use of what the meatpacking industry refers to as “lean finely textured beef” as a common additive in hamburger. The problem started when this product was instead referred to by the catchy, equally accurate, yet far more evocative and stomach-turning term preferred by activists, “pink slime.” The subsequent lawsuit brought on by the primary producer of pink slime, I mean, finely textured beef, went in their favor, resulting in the largest media defamation suit payout in U.S. history. Take that hippies!

Another glaring (and glaringly absurd) example on recent display for all the world to see is Vladimir Putin’s insistence on calling his brutal, senseless, illegal invasion of neighboring Ukraine a “special military operation,” going so far as to penalize anyone referring to it as a “war” or “invasion” with fifteen years of hard labor. This is despite the tens of thousands of troops and heavy weaponry involved, and the ongoing, well-documented accounts of indiscriminate or intentional shelling of civilian buildings, of summary executions of bound captives or soldiers attempting to surrender, the horrific sex crimes against civilian women and girls, and the forced deportation of captive populations to faraway gulags. But hey, just don’t call it a “war” and it’s all good.

Other such examples in both national and geopolitics abound. There’s the case of Israel preferring to call its illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem “neighborhoods” to make them appear innocuous. Or Donald Trump’s press secretary performing verbal gymnastics in explaining away blatant and objectively verifiable falsehoods as “alternative facts.” And of course there’s the perennial abortion battles in which one side claims the mantle of “pro-life” while their opponents brand them as “anti-choice.”

Political correctness: its goals and effectiveness

Over the past several decades in the U.S. and across Europe, euphemism has taken center stage in political and societal discourse through the cultural imposition of “political correctness” (a.k.a. censorship).

If you were to ask its proponents, they’d tell you its intention is not to inhibit thoughtcrime, but rather to create a kinder, gentler, more just and inclusive society. Put that way, it’s hard to see a downside. But the problems it presents are twofold.

First there’s the matter of the term “political correctness” itself being a euphemism. If I had to give it a more neutral-connotation label, the best term would probably be “language policing” — for that’s what it amounts to. Previously common terminology suddenly becomes taboo, and those who either didn’t get the memo or refuse to abide by it suddenly find themselves shamed, ostracized, or increasingly, outright canceled from society.

I don’t recall people being similarly punished for “impolite” behavior such as belching at the dinner table or eating their salad with their dessert fork. The closest historical example would be the extreme punishments imposed upon “heretics,” “blasphemers,” and “infidels” during the Inquisition. So it’s rather disingenuous to pretend it’s a simple matter of politeness.

The other problem, and perhaps the more damning one, is the matter of its effectiveness (or total lack thereof). The posterchild example was the famous birdwatching incident in Central Park during the Summer of Floyd. Here we had a woman doing the most obscenely racist thing imaginable in attempting to have an innocent Black man executed by the NYPD for the crime of minding-his-own-business-while-Black, all the while assiduously referring to him throughout the encounter as “African American.”

For all the wicked presumptuousness and callous indifference she displayed, she might as well have just used the N-word. But no. She was a dutiful adherent to the standards of political correctness. All of which shows just how useless the concept is. It can police the language but it’s powerless to win hearts and minds.

In fact, as often as not, the patronizing tone in which political correctness has always been imposed upon the untutored reprobates it hopes to improve has only bred further resentment, which, through the psychological concept of motivated reasoning, only causes those feeling resentful to double down on their previously held beliefs, thus completely backfiring on its proponents.

A rose by any other name

As Shakespeare famously opined in Romeo and Juliet, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

While this is technically true in a literal, physical sense, that’s not actually how human psychology and neural functioning work. Imagine if roses were instead known as “corpse flowers.” (Which would make a certain amount of sense, being as they’re often tossed onto coffins just before burial.) How would that influence our perception of them? Would they lose their romantic connotations?

Compare this to the actual corpse flower, Amorphophallus titanum. What if it were called a “rose” instead? Would that make it smell any less like rotting flesh? Of course not!

The fact of the matter is, calling something by a different name does absolutely nothing to change its actual, physical nature. To put it crassly (and yes, highly offensively), does calling someone who’s mentally retarded “developmentally disabled” make them any less retarded? Surely not. Surely their underlying condition is utterly unaffected by how it’s referred to. So surely that’s not the point. What then, is the point?

Once again, defenders of the practice of using euphemism in such cases would argue that it’s about altering perceptions. That by using a new word, free of the baggage of its predecessor word and the cruel, negative connotations attached to it, that they’re able to reframe people’s approach. Instead of dismissing someone with Down Syndrome as being somehow subhuman, you’re instead forced to reckon with their full humanity and all the rights and dignity that entails.

And perhaps that’s true. Then again, I’m not sure it is. Because those who readily adopt the newly approved words bequeathed upon them from who-knows-which ivory tower tend to already possess the underlying attributes of kindness and compassion the new terms strive to embody. Which would predispose them to already honoring the values and intentions conveyed by the sanctified replacement word. In other words, those who switch over to “developmentally disabled” most likely were already kind and caring to those it describes — regardless of the label.

Or, as in the case of the woman in Central Park, they’re just faking it for the sake of appearances. What good does that do?

And on the flip side, some people, while wishing no ill will or offense whatsoever to those with developmental disabilities, may continue to use the word “retard” on purpose just as a contrarian act of defiance against being treated like a toddler — against being told what to do and what they’re allowed to say. If only the political Left could come to understand this, there might be far less polarization than there is.

As for the rest who revel in the old term in all its disparaging glory, they’re just assholes, and getting them to use different terminology isn’t going to change a thing other than to make them further despise those attempting to reprimand them. (Just as I could choose to call such people “deplorables,” but I prefer “assholes.”)

As the Taoist sage Lao Tzu said over two thousand years ago:

Wherever there is a substance and men give it a name, it would do well to accept that name; for it will in any case be subject to the prejudice that attaches to the name.

We would all do better to accept the names that are given to things. For it’s at best, misguided energy, and at worst, a form of dishonesty to focus on changing the name and not on changing that which it represents. If you alter perceptions alone while leaving the underlying reality untouched, how is that any different than delusion?

Colby Hess is a freelance writer and photographer from Seattle, and author of the freethinker children’s book The Stranger of Wigglesworth.

If you enjoy my writing and would like to receive stories by email whenever I publish, please click here.