The Ethics of Using “Bitch” and “Nigger”

Hip-hop lyrics and comedy are replete with words such as “bitch” and “nigger,” which are normally considered pejoratives in U.S. society. And this prompts some critics to deem them morally perverse. Of course hip-hop music and comedy vary profoundly in how they present themselves to us. They don’t always use what Too Short would call “cusswords.” Yet what makes many people in U.S. society uncomfortable about some (often, prejudicially thought to amount to all) hip-hop music and comedy is that some of it involves linguistic usage that is normally considered morally wrong.

Moral philosophy can help us address the ethical issue of whether or not it is morally wrong for hip-hop artists and hip-hop inspired comics to use such words. Our primary concern in this track is to assess the view that the use of “bitch” and “nigger” in hip-hop comedy and music is morally problematic. But first we need a moral criterion for determining whether the use of these words is morally wrong as well as a perspective on what they mean.

The moral objection to using these words typically comes to this: it is morally wrong to include such verbiage in raps or comedy routines because it is harmful. Thus the idea of harm is used as the criterion for moral wrongness. Some hip-hop critics would object that the use of “nigger” is harmful to African Americans and that the use of “bitch” is harmful to women. The term “harm” can be defined in many ways but for now let’s suppose that to harm means to set back a morally legitimate interest. ¹⁷² So, for example, if African Americans are harmed by the use of “nigger,” then a morally legitimate interest of this group is set back. Likewise if women are harmed by the use of “bitch,” then a morally legitimate interest of this group is set back. To fully develop this objection, these so-called morally legitimate interests would have to be identified and their moral legitimacy would have to be established. Moreover, we would have to determine whether these interests trump competing morally legitimate interests that license the use of these terms. For example, one could argue that a comedian’s right to entertain his audience and their right to be entertained are competing morally legitimate interests that justify the use of terms such as “nigger” and “bitch” insofar as some people consider the use of these terms as an especially humorous aspect of hip-hop comedy.

Can this harm-based moral objection to hip hop be defended? If we don’t attend to the meaning of these words—as used by hip-hop comics and artists—we might assign too much weight to this moral objection. And attending to their meaning requires that we become mindful of the use-mention distinction in philosophy of language.¹⁷³ When I use a word or phrase, I intend to refer to a particular person or group. So if I use “bitch” or “nigger” and intend that those words refer to you, then I believe that you are indeed a bitch or a nigger. However, if I merely mention such terms, it is as if I place them in quotation marks, thereby referring to the word within the quotes rather than to the person or group. If I instruct my students to never use “bitch” or “nigger,” I am mentioning the terms so as to encourage them not to use them. This is far different from my using the terms in reference to, say, a particular student by calling him a “nigger.”

Many critics contend that the use of these terms is harmful because they are sexist and racist. African Americans have a morally legitimate interest in not being harmed or stigmatized by the use of “nigger,” which has long been recognized as a way of denigrating them. Likewise women have a morally legitimate interest in not being harmed or stigmatized by the use of “bitch,” which has a similar denigrating effect on them. Typically (though not always), it is use and not mention of pejoratives that is racist or sexist or otherwise morally wrong. But are all uses of “bitch” or “nigger” morally wrong because they are sexist or racist and therefore harmful to women or African Americans? If there is a clear case of uses of these terms that doesn’t constitute sexist or racist usage, then this particular way of developing the harm objection cannot be sustained.¹⁷⁴ And hip-hop fans know that there is at least one such case.

Chappelle’s “Bitches” and “Niggers”

Dave Chappelle does not merely mention the terms “bitch” and “nigger,” he uses them frequently, as when he refers affectionately to audience members as “bitches,” and receives laughter in response. But does he do so wrongfully? Certainly U.S. society has for the most part and out of a dubious sense of “political correctness” reached the point that it rejects the uses of such words as necessarily being cusswords. And of course we recall the great Richard Pryor’s frequent (indeed, incessant!) mention and use of “nigger” throughout most of his career, only in the latter part of his career to retract his use and encourage others to follow suit. But is the “politically correct” view about language use sound? Does the balance of reason support the absolute moral condemnation of such words?

To investigate this matter philosophically we must consider the speaker’s intended meaning. Let’s begin with the use of “bitch.” This term was once used to refer to females perceived to be mean and aggressive in undesirable ways, mostly by males and often by way of a double standard. And this use of “bitch” has been (and still is!) condemned largely because it singles out females in such ways. A male with the same characteristics would be considered an “asshole.” So why are women singled out as “bitches”?

In contrast with the historical usage of the term “bitch,” Chappelle uses “bitch” to refer to men as well as women. This consistent gender-neutral use of “bitch” seems to do well in evading the charge of sexism. But why are many people still bothered by Chappelle’s use of the word? Keep in mind that Chappelle also uses “bitch” in reference to men and women as a term of endearment. Thus he has done to “bitch” what many African Americans (typically younger ones like Chappelle himself) have done to “nigger.” Taking the term back and reconstituting its meaning, they have used it in ways such that the connotation would change with the change in intentions, thus losing its original sting (as a pejorative). In fact, Chappelle often uses “nigger” or “nigga” with multiple meanings in the same sentence, a kind of humorous equivocation.

In one skit, Chappelle refers to a white man, saying (with a grin), “Now that’s a nigger who’s one crazy nigger!” drawing laughter from his live audience. The context was Chappelle’s parody of the kind of racism present in a TV program “Real World,” wherein often one black person is sharing a house with several white folk who have serious dysfunctions. When the black person finally snaps because he or she cannot endure the pain of living with such pettiness, then it makes the black person seem anti-social. So Chappelle reverses the situation to what might happen when a white man is placed in a living situation with dysfunctional black folk. Predictably, Chappelle surmises, the white person breaks down. It is yet another lesson in the lengthy history of the morally questionable TV portrayal of blacks in the U.S.

Not much has changed since the beginnings of TV—blacks portrayed and set up as being bad or problematic! But Chappelle takes matters a step further: whether black or white, those in charge of TV programming make folk into niggers one way or another to boost TV ratings. Chappelle not only uses “nigger” in both a pejorative and endearing sense in the same sentence, but he uses the word to refer to anyone who is used as a mere means to an end by the TV business. This is quite a courageous move by someone whose TV program depends on the decisions of such bosses. No small wonder Chappelle begins some of his episodes with expressed surprise that his program remains on the air.

Words that Wound and Mill’s Harm Principle

Chappelle’s comic uses of the terms “bitch” or “nigger” don’t seem to be sexist or racist, in which case not all uses of these terms can be condemned as morally wrong because they are sexist or racist and therefore harmful to women or African Americans. (Of course, it is possible that such words might be harmful in non-racist or non-sexist ways.) It’s hard to see how the mere use of “bitch” in gender inclusive or neutral ways is necessarily harmful to women as a group, just as it is unclear that the use of “nigger” by African Americans necessarily harms blacks as a group.

I am not aware of anyone who morally condemns Jeff Foxworthy (or other “blue-collar” comics), a self-described “redneck,” for his comedy routine “You might be a redneck if . . .” And no Latino of whom I am aware condemns comedians George Lopez or Cheech Marin for their jokes about us Latinos. Perhaps herein lies the key to our understanding of such words and why they are morally wrong when they are. We can distinguish between racial humor and racist humor, and more generally between racial language and racist language. Whenever language is intended by the speaker or writer to be harmful in racist or sexist ways, it is racist or sexist language and wrong because it harms or is intended to harm. Otherwise, it might be racial or gendered language, such as in the cases imagined by the comedians Chappelle, Foxworthy, Lopez and Marin. Perhaps in-group members enjoy a kind of linguistic privilege, though not absolutely, such that use of racial or gendered language such as “bitch,” “nigger,” “redneck,” and “beaner” is not always racist or sexist. Furthermore, out-group members might acquire a kind of linguistic immunity, morally speaking, if their uses of such words are generalized to members of groups to which the terms are not typically applied.

So when Chappelle refers to men and women as “bitches” there seems to be no good reason to condemn it. By parity of reasoning and counterfactually, if an Anglo were to refer to all folk (not only some blacks) as “niggers,” she would seem to be changing the meaning of the term to apply to a particular kind of person, regardless of race. I see no good reason to morally condemn this use of language outright, though the extent of the harmfulness of such usage would be a relevant consideration. But caution is in order, as with every use of words. Even if it’s true that one has a moral right to do something, it is not always the best thing to exercise that right at will, without regard to persons, history, context, and circumstance. Wisdom should guide us in judging when it is better or worse to use such terms, especially when their socially accepted meanings are being changed. Apart from any harm that might result, the person might be morally blameworthy for arrogantly thinking that she can so easily change the meaning of such a powerful, historically complex, and insulting word.

The previous points concerning words and their intended meanings are directly relevant to how we know the meanings and how we ought to think about their moral statuses. And the law is helpful here. In U.S. law, words that merely offend are simply beyond the purview of the law due to First Amendment protection of freedom of expression. But words that wound (harm) are not protected by law, and may be prohibited. This standard can also be applied to morals. Hip-hop artists deserve the very same First Amendment protections as everyone else. To the extent that certain words wound (and are intended to wound), then they ought to be legally prohibited. If they do not harm but merely offend, then let them be.¹⁷⁵ John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, which guards against legal paternalism, is important. It states that the only time that words ought to be prohibited by law is when they cause harm to others.¹⁷⁶ This principle implies that unless words indeed harm and not simply offend, it would be excessively paternalistic and an unjust limitation of human liberty to prohibit their use. And given that harm amounts to the wrongful setting back of a legitimate interest, we can begin to understand the fuller impact of Mill’s Harm Principle as a legitimate liberty protecting one. Actions, inac-tions, and attempted actions and words that wrongfully harm others are to be legally prohibited but others are to be left alone.

This is all fine and well, one might argue. But what the law says about harmful words is not necessarily what the balance of human reason in ethics would say about harmful or offensive ones. Assuming that a proper understanding of Mill’s Harm Principle is congruent with what the law ought to prohibit insofar as harmful speech is concerned, what about offensive language? As with harms, offenses can set back various kinds of interests. And I would follow the philosopher Joel Feinberg in arguing that to the extent that the use of language sets back a basic or welfare interest of a person, to that extent it would then threaten that person’s right to something fundamental to her life. Under such conditions, the language ought to be prohibited. However, in each case, the particular interest that is set back must be weighed carefully against the language user’s freedom of expression.¹⁷⁷ For example, if the KKK burns a cross outside of a black family’s home (on the public street) leaving a sign in the street reading: “niggers not welcome here!” this will surely serve to violently intimidate not only that black family, but all blacks who know about it, and in doing so it will set back the interests of every black person in being treated as an equal and without violence in a society that purports to guarantee its citizens peace and tranquility. Clearly, the interest of blacks to be treated as equals and without violence outweighs the KKK’s interest in freedom of expression. After all, the KKK does not have a right to set back anyone else’s interest—especially a fundamental interest.

On the other hand, the use of “nigger” in a black comedy club is not likely to threaten any except those overly sensitive to such language. And if it were wrong to express virtually anything that would merely offend others, then it would be wrong to express anything at all given the diversity of U.S. society and the world. If mere offensiveness is sufficient to warrant judgments of morally unjustified speech acts, we would then require an argument as to which person or group would qualify as being offended by certain language use. But then what might constitute morally justified language use in this society is likely to offend some person or some group globally. Even the kindest words uttered in a particular context by X might well offend Y. And it’s absurd to think that such merely offensive speech is wrongful simply because some person is offended. What we would need is an account of the degrees and kinds of offensive speech that would rightfully qualify as being morally wrong. But prima facie, it seems rash to condemn merely offensive words without an account of the kinds and degrees of offensiveness that are morally problematic.¹⁷⁸

Epithets and the Fear of a Black Planet

Perhaps what many people in the U.S. fear is the reality of life often described by hip-hop artists. Whether it is the conditions of cyclical poverty, the emphasis on material possessions, or the sometimes graphic portrayals of everyday life in the “hood,” including the physical abuse of women and children, drug and alcohol abuse, what makes many feel uncomfortable ought in turn to instill in them a sense of moral responsibility that would lead to the dissolution of such conditions. For when folk are not constantly caught up in trying to “get over,” they are then able to focus on higher aspirations and needs. But perhaps many U.S. citizens simply want to ignore such conditions, figuring somehow that they themselves have and want nothing to do with the root causes of the conditions that inspire much of hip-hop music.

Hip-hop comedy deals with conditions of the “hood.” Chappelle frequently addresses issues of racism in his segments “Ask a Black Man” and “Frontline: Black KKK.” In the latter he plays a blind African American Klansman whose loyal followers never know he is black until he removes his hood during his book signing to the total shock and confusion of the all white audience of Klanners. One point Chappelle is making is that racism—though groundless—is so alluring that a blind black man can engage in it as well as those who fail to examine racism beyond its surface. Chappelle exposes racial stereotypes and reduces them to laughable idiocies.

In another skit entitled “Reparations 2003” Chappelle plays an Anglo newscaster who announces that “reparations day” has come for African Americans. Fear and confusion is evident on the face of the white folk portrayed in the skit, and many blacks are portrayed as frivolous and irresponsible in their receipt of such reparations, which take the form of cash settlements. A controversial skit, it seeks to demonstrate both white and black attitudes (generally) toward the issue. One point in particular is that African Americans deserve reparations but cash settlements are likely to lead to frivolity and irresponsibility by many blacks receiving them. There is, of course, no portrayal of the millions of African Americans who would indeed receive and utilize the reparations “responsibly.” But the skit doesn’t deny this. In any case, Chappelle’s courageous skit brings to the fore one of the most morally, politically, and economically important issues of our time. Knowing the meanings of his uses of “nigger” and “bitch,” in the contexts of Chappelle’s skits, enables us to appreciate his complex uses of such terms in trying to educate the public about the realities of racism and related problems.

Does the use of words like “nigger” or “bitch” really harm (wrongfully set back a morally legitimate interest) when used by in-group members? Or does it merely offend some folk? And if these words merely offend, is this a proper occasion for censorship, or is it rather a prime opportunity for each of us to learn from such artists, at least some of them, what is going on outside of our sheltered worlds and how we might be contributing to certain forms of immiseration?

Final Skit: Paris’s Field Nigga Boogie

My conclusion that uses of terms like “bitch” and “nigger” in hip-hop comedy such as Chappelle’s, which aims to educate the public about racism, sexism, and other social ills, are not immoral can easily be extended to at least some hip-hop music as well. To be sure, rappers produce videos depicting scantily clad young women gyrating to the beat of lip-syncing, gold-chain wearing young men rapping lyrics the meanings of which typically pertain to “fucking hos,” “bustin’ caps in the asses” of other “hood rats,” beating “bitches” and so forth. And this materialism and violence, sexual or otherwise, is what many people in American society tend to think of when they think of hip-hop music. But we must guard against premature moral condemnation of hip-hop lyrics before discerning their real meanings.

As with comedy, the moral status of hip-hop lyrics depends largely on whether or not such artists are using or mentioning the lyrics they employ. If they are simply mentioning most or all of their words, then they would be communicating to others how life is for many urban blacks and other urbanites who are part of the U.S. working (or non-working) poor. For example, when we consider Paris and other socially conscious rappers we discern that the deeper meaning of their music is politically progressive.¹⁷⁹ Paris challenges his listeners to consider a different way of understanding the world. Although his message is communicated in the language of rap, cusswords and all, the message is clearly progressive. One refrain in his song “Field Nigga Boogie” is “Unless you wanna live on your knees, then throw down!” This implies that those who do not exercise their right to change their government are in fact self-esteem-lacking, self-hating, free-riders who are content to reap the ben-efits of U.S. society without working politically to make justice work for all.

Furthermore, in his cut “What Would You Do?” he offers a moral challenge to all U.S. citizens to place the government on notice that we will no longer allow it to commit evils around the world for any reason, much less for the benefit of a few wealthy individuals. Paris would charge that we are all “niggaz” for sitting back and being duped by such evildoers. An example of this, Paris urges in his track “AWOL,” is how the U.S. uses the hope of a proud military career and its educational benefits to attract young and uncritical folk to fight a morally unjust war—and no “niggaz” even so much as wonder what the reasons are for fighting the war! Paris’s challenge is reminiscent of Malcolm X’s words about the Vietnam War (a clearly morally wrong war from the perspective of U.S. involvement); namely, his wonderment as to why he and other blacks ought to fight in it as no North Vietnamese ever wronged them.

In condemning the U.S. on moral grounds, Paris is urging us to make an epistemic paradigmatic shift in how we perceive the world. In this regard, his lyrics are much like Chappelle’s comedy skits in that they enable us to perceive the world differently and more deeply than we otherwise would, which leads to moral perceptions that are critical to seeing reality for what it is. Moreover, these artists show us that at least some hip-hop comedy and music offer us important opportunities for moral and philosophical reflection.¹⁸⁰