Push for Terminology Change: Phobia
Image Source: Pixabay
When I was researching for my ethnic cleansing post, I found this issue with the use of “phobia” that was raised by the Associated Press (AP).
Definition
Phobia is defined as “an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical, fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation” in Merriam-Webster, in addition to being defined as an anxiety disorder by various medical and psychiatric authorities.
The Problem
In 2012, the AP decided to ban the use of “-phobia” to describe a hatred of a certain group of people in the AP Stylebook, so this means abstaining from the use of homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc. in contexts outside of psychiatry. Their reasoning is that the use of phobia attributes “a mental disability to someone and suggests a knowledge that we don’t have.” Most of the debate is concentrated on “homophobia” but can apply to other terms like Islamophobia or xenophobia, so this discussion will mainly mention “homophobia.”
The use of “phobia” to describe an intolerance started when Dr. George Weinberg coined the term “homophobia” to describe individuals who harbored an irrational hatred towards gay people. This was at a time when “homosexuality was classified as a ‘sociopathic personality disturbance’ often ‘treated’ with sadistic group therapies and electric shocks.” However, “the American Psychiatric Association ceased classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1974,” so the focus of the gay rights movement shifted from medical institutions to the government and civil society institutions. The AP feels that it is important to use more neutral terms when it comes to political and social matters rather than using one that’s traditionally used in medicine.
Many argue that labeling discrimination against a group of people as a phobia, an anxiety disorder, gives bigots an out. As Daragh Fleming states, “It’s an out because by definition, a phobia is out of individual control, and so the person who discriminates can deny bigotry on the technicality of definition.” For example, in 1995, Johnathan Schmitz murdered Scott Amedure because Amedure made advances toward him on live TV and in private, and then used the “gay panic defense” at his trial. Unfortunately, these gay panic defenses have still been used in the past few years, but they have also been banned in some states.
George Herek at UC Davis stated, “Coding anti-gay behavior as a personal problem obscures the religious and political beliefs that are spurring anti-gay attitudes.” Others also make the same argument: that “phobia” doesn’t include the cultural factors that shape these intolerant beliefs and hate crimes. Daniel Nguyen makes the salient point that: “Phobias are also often disadvantageous to their possessors, while queer prejudice can often be maintained and even allow those who exhibit anti-queer behavior to prosper.” Robert Epstein also made a valid point when he said, “Violence against gays is a hate crime, after all; it would be absurd to call it a fear crime. Suggesting that gays are in any sense objects of fear was ludicrous from the beginning, in my view.”
There is pushback though. First, many argue, and I would have to agree, that getting rid of “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” “xenophobia,” etc. leaves a void, that there’s no good alternative that rolls off the tongue like these terms do. Some who have suffered from prejudice and violent hate assert that these types of intolerance and hate are partly fueled by fear. Similarly, some argue that those who are intolerant or hate a certain group of people are in denial about fearing those they hate, as well as denying their beliefs are irrational. Another argument is that there is no neutral term for these hateful beliefs and that using alternatives to established terms will muddy the water so to speak. And finally, many point out that many of those who support the ban on using phobias in political and social contexts are the very people who would be labeled as a *****phobe.
Possible Alternatives
As translators (and interpreters), we are sometimes bound by guidelines or client requirements to use certain terms, that’s just a fact of our profession. Yet we also have the power to change the way we discuss an issue in our target language. We can advise or suggest, or even insist, our clients use terms that better reflect the feelings, representation, or cause involved. This blog series isn’t meant to disparage the usage of a certain term; it’s meant to present terms that (many) people find problematic and some potential alternatives.
As for “phobia” in political and social contexts, there are multiple alternatives that are being used and that have been proposed:
“anti-***”: the AP has prescribed the usage of “anti” instead of “phobia” in its stylebook, so “homophobia” becomes “anti-gay” and “Islamophobia” becomes “anti-Muslim.” This is more specific, but it’s not as versatile as the phobia terms: “homophobia” (a concept/noun) can be transformed into “homophobic” (adjective), “homophobe” (person), etc.
“-misia”: there has been a concerted push to use the Greek suffix for “hatred.” So “homophobia” becomes “homomisia” and “xenophobia” becomes “xenomisia.” This construct is just as versatile as the phobia constructs as well
Specifically for “homophobia,” there has been a rise in the usage of “gaycism,” which mirrors racism, sexism, etc. However, not all terms can mirror this: “Islamophobia” cannot become “Islamism” because that term already means “a political ideology which posits that modern states should be reconstituted constitutionally, economically, and judicially in accordance with what is held as a return to authentic Islamic practice.”