What reclaiming words can tell us about how we see social justice

Reclaiming words can be a way to use language to fight for social justice and highlight discrimation. It refers to when marginalised groups or individuals take back words that were once used to oppress them.

For some people, reclaiming words is an act of resistance and power. Others may not want to reclaim words used as tools in their oppression. And it might depend on the word — some may feel that certain words were used so violently they could never be taken back. Both choosing to reclaim and not to reclaim words can be ways to take a stand for social justice.

One well-cited example is how some LGBT+ individuals have taken back the word ‘queer’ which, whilst once used as a slur, is now often reframed as the celebration of non-normative identities and the rejection of heteronormative structures. But others may not want to reclaim the word, for reasons such as it encompasses a history of oppression and segregation of identities.

Another example might be the SlutWalk movement — a protest to highlight problems like rape culture and victim-blaming. Reclaiming words like ‘slut’ can do a few different things, depending on the word itself. It can highlight discrimination and oppression. It can take the power away from the oppressor, and make it harder for them to use the word negatively. It can empower marginalised groups, and create solidarity in their identities.

I’ve always been struck by how powerful and controversial reclaiming words can be, but it was only in my recent class on identity politics that I started to understand more deeply why that is. When we’re talking about reclaiming words or not, we’re talking about how we should fight for social justice. And importantly, we’re talking about whether we can all fight for social justice in different ways.

There are two common ways to see social justice: through the lens of equality, and through the lens of equity. The first aims to give everyone, regardless of who they are, equal opportunity. Everyone being treated the same is seen as social justice. The second aims to acknowledge that different groups of people, because of their histories and identities, may need different opportunities and leverages. Difference being celebrated and acknowledged is seen as social justice. This is often what people mean when we talk about identity politics. (A helpful read for this is Young’s 1990 Justice and the Politics of Difference).

So if an individual or group decides to reclaim a word, one could view this as the latter conception of social justice. It asserts the fact that the group is different, that the difference is positive, and that they should thus receive equitable treatment. If an individual or a group decides not to reclaim a word, one could view this as the former conception of social justice. It asserts the need for equal treatment and a lesser negative focus on differences between people.

What this means is that two people can be fighting for the same cause and go about it in completely different ways. Some people may find their power through reclaiming words and some might not. That’s not to say necessarily that one is right and the other is wrong, but that both have different merits. Moreover, we might decide to reclaim some words but not others. This shows that we don’t have to stick to one method of fighting for social justice, but that a holistic, nuanced, and context-dependent approach can be effective too.

Something I’ve always liked about reclaiming words is that it can recognise an oppressive and traumatic history whilst simultaneously connecting it to future empowerment and change. But the main reason I wanted to write about it is because it shows clearly the importance of language. Language use is personal and political. Language use is inherently a part of the fight for social justice. And most importantly, we circle back to the point that I make again and again:

Language matters.