A Rhetorical Analysis Of 'Slurring Perspectives' By Elisabeth Camp

In “Slurring Perspectives,” Elisabeth Camp begins with the argument that slurs are “powerful” and “insidious” precisely because they “present contents from a certain perspective, which is difficult to dislodge despite the fact that it is precisely what a nonbigoted hearer most wants to resist.” It is this reason why slurs are considered more offensive than “pure expressives” like “damn,” because they denote certain negative properties which are meant to contain harmful, “truth-conditionally robust properties” (Camp 330). Camp then goes on to say that slurs “conventionally signal a speaker’s allegiance to a derogating perspective on the group identified by the slur’s extension-determining core” (Camp 331). It is this derogating perspective

Accordingly, this relates to Camp’s statement that “slurs are so rhetorically powerful because they signal allegiance to a perspective” (Camp 335). Even if the person using the slur does not adhere to this perspective when using it, that perspective appears to be present in the word itself. Camp also explains that the negative perspective of slurs is especially powerful because they are used to describe entire groups of people, not just individuals. I agree with Camp’s emphasis on perspectivism as it concerns slurs, and I am especially moved by her discussion of the issue of social complicity. Camp states

However, Jeshion maintains that “Upon learning why the speakers made the utterance (of a slur), a hearer may well, and indeed perhaps ought to have a less intense response than if the utterance was made by a bigot whose aim it was to express his bigoted attitudes.” While his example of a child not understanding the offensiveness of a term is understandable in this context, I am wary of the example of “a user (who) may entirely lack contempt for the group and understand that the word is conventionally used to convey attempt but use it nevertheless” (Jeshion 249). While this may be acceptable in the case of authors writing on the subject of slurs, I am not sure that it is acceptable generally speaking. I have to wonder if using the slurring term, even without contempt, is still perpetuating the usage of the word. It is here that camp’s explanation of slurs containing derogatory perspectives is relevant: if a slurring term contains a derogatory perspective, that perspective is there and expressed regardless of the speaker’s intent. I find it impossible to separate the perspective from the term, and because of this I find it difficult to justify the usage of a slur outside the contexts of an unknowing speaker or needing to describe to someone what a slur means and why it is offensive. In order to prove his point, I think Jeshion’s argument would benefit from more examples.