Expurgations (4) Society

   This is a brief note about another word that may be expunged. If you have not been following this series, the previous three were: "Accident", "Illegal Aliens" and "Mistress." "Society" is now a word that is too exclusive for our inclusive times. Since you are unlikely to believe me, I will go directly to the sources.
   "New-York Historical Society Gets a New Name and a New Wing: The museum will now be called the New York Historical and will name a new Wing for American Democracy after two major benefactors, H.M. Agnes Hsu-Tang and Oscar L. Tang," Robin Pogrebin, The New York Times, Oct. 27, 2024.
After 220 years of existence, New-York Historical Society is changing its name to the New York Historical....The name change — which becomes effective on Tuesday — is intended to distinguish the museum from the many other historical societies around the country, but also to be more welcoming, given that “society” in a title “has a bit of a highfalutin’ vibe,” said Ken Weine, the museum’s senior vice president and chief content officer.
Weine acknowledged that “the New York Historical” doesn’t necessarily make grammatical sense, but he likened it to the former Apple marketing campaign, “Think different."
“Brands can take a little bit of license,” Weine said. “We will officially be known as the New York Historical, but the shorthand can be, ‘Hey, I’ll see you at the Historical.’ That could be a name that we fall upon years down the road.”

  For more examples see: "This Go-to Term for Teamwork is Now a No-No For the Snobbery Police: Down With Fancy "Society Names," Mark Lasswell, The Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2025.
"Next month, the Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Society International will unite under a new name, the Humane World for Animals....Granted, “Humane World for Animals” might be strong, memorable, etc., and only a monster would object to the idea itself. But spare a thought for the word “society” as it is abandoned by yet another organization....Nowadays, though, when the faintest hint of exclusionary inclinations must be stamped out, “society” has gotta go....
It is historical societies, though, that seem especially intent on deeming “society” unfit for society. Since the 2000s, they’ve been madly deaccessioning the word — the Chicago Historical Society became the Chicago History Museum; the Colorado Historical Society became History Colorado; the Fairfield Historical Society in Connecticut became the Fairfield Museum and History Center; and the Ohio Historical Society became the Ohio History Connection.
  If you are a bird watcher, you may now have difficulty finding the local branch of the Audubon Society, since both his name and that word are problematic. For more about the new lingo see: Watch Your Mouth! or Out in Left Field.

The Bonus: Brush Up On These Words
 I have focussed enough on words being removed from our vocabulary, so I will now suggest some with which you should become more familiar. Rumour has it that Canada may be annexed and become the 51st state. If that happens the popularity of these words will surely soar on Google's Ngram Viewer: samizdat, weltschmerz and, disappeared, as explained in the OED:

"disappeared"
4.b.1965– transitive. spec. To abduct or arrest (a person), esp. for political reasons, typically killing or imprisoning the individual, without making his or her fate known.Originally and frequently with reference to Latin America.

1965
"One day, without explanation, he ‘was disappeared’ to Czechoslovakia, say reliable Cuban sources."
1987
"Our two Nicaraguan doctors were disappeared, one right after the other."
1990
"Armed men arrive in a village and ‘disappear’ any activists, several of whom have later been found floating in nearby rivers."
2006"It is estimated that some 7,000 people have been disappeared by security forces.

Expurgations (3) Mistress

For reasons that are unclear to me, I have been offering you linguistic warnings so that you will not embarrass yourself. Perhaps I am doing so simply because our language seems to be changing more rapidly and the penalties for violations in usage are increasingly severe. In any case, avoid the word ‘mistress’.

The subject is broached by the very accomplished Paula Broadwell, West Point graduate, Harvard graduate, etc., etc. who you know only as the mistress of General Petraeus, who is generally described only by reference to his professional and military achievements since there is no corresponding male word for ‘mistress’.

The problem was addressed by the public editor of The New York Times in this article: “Is ‘Mistress’ a Word That Has Seen Its Best Days?”, Margaret Sullivan, March 26, 2015. After receiving many comments and complaints she thinks the word should go. Here is a portion of the article:

“I propose just such a shove to hasten the departure of “mistress” from news stories describing a modern-day woman having an extramarital affair.
I asked the standards editor, Philip B. Corbett, about the use of the term in Times stories. He responded:

‘I agree that “mistress” has a somewhat old-fashioned tone to it that isn’t ideal (though I don’t accept the argument that it necessarily implies a financial arrangement; it doesn’t. First definition from American Heritage: “A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with a man who is married to someone else.”)

One problem is that there isn’t really a perfect word here. “Lover” is probably a little better, and we’ve used it fairly often in the Petraeus-Broadwell situation. But “lover” doesn’t necessarily convey the idea that one or both partners is married to someone else. And it, too, has a bit of a romance-novel tone that isn’t perfect in a news story.’
A longer description is probably best, but not always easy or practical in a headline or a lead paragraph: “the woman with whom Mr. Petraeus, who was married, carried on a secret sexual relationship …”?

In a more recent article about the issue  in the Times the author concludes:
“As a student of language, I was sympathetic to her [Broadwell’s] cause. As I am a feminist, the double standard apparent in the way she was characterized was clear: He was the revered general who made a grave mistake; she was a psycho homewrecker who, as many often reminded her, had “brought the general down.” “Why Do People Still Use the Word ‘Mistress’? A Reporter Reflects, Jessica Bennett, June 7, 2016

I was able to find an earlier article about another ‘affair’ which also raised the issue of the word ‘mistress’ and here it is:

“A “Mistress” by Any Other Name: Can't We Find a Better Word to Refer to Maria Belen Chapur?” Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon, July 1, 2009.

“As we sift through the wreckage of the Mark Sanford [remember him? - the former Governor of South Carolina who supposedly was out hiking] media circus, one thing that’s become clear is that the English language is sadly lacking for nomenclature. Specifically — shouldn’t we have a better word for a professional woman who’s had a husband and a family and career of her own than “mistress”?

The word, after all, carries old fashioned associations with a “kept woman,” and it certainly has no satisfying male counterpart. If Maria Belen Chapur was a mistress to Sanford, what, after all, was he to her?”

The Associated Press now deal with the issue in the latest AP Stylebook: “The AP now suggest avoiding the word mistress because there is no male equivalent. Instead they recommend using friend, companion, or lover. The new entry reads: “Whenever possible, phrasing that acknowledges both people in the relationship is preferred: ‘The two were romantically (or sexually) involved.” “The Signified and the Signifier: AP Stylebook Rejects Your Misogyny, Says No More Mistress,” Eve Peyser, New York Magazine, April 4, 2016.

As you might imagine, readers of some of these articles came up with suggestions for a good male term. For example, General Petraeus could have been referred to as Broadwell’s “Main Squeeze”,  or “misteress” or “cicisbeo” could be used.

I gave this topic some thought since it is highly likely that “mistresses” will be discussed more often than, say NAFTA, as the U.S. presidential campaign enters even more ruthless territory. But, I realized that the issue is far too complicated for me - as most of these topics are, once I start trying to think about them. For example, if one does come up with a new word to describe the randy husband, will it be usable when the couple come from the same sex and one of them fools around with an option from one of the growing number of other genders? And what about related concepts? If someone is fortunate enough to turn Trump into a “cuckold”, how do we refer to his wife - as the “cuckquean”? You see what I mean.

Before I abandoned this project I did have a look at the OED. It is interesting that the first few definitions of “mistress” are positive as in - “A woman who has charge of a child or young person; a governess”. It is only when you get to number seven that you find - “Mistress -  A woman other than his wife with whom a man has a long-lasting sexual relationship. In early use: †a woman notorious for some act.”

I did, however, learn one thing when I looked at some of the early uses of the word and that is that Men have always been, and will likely continue to be, Cads. See below:

1675   W. Wycherley Country-Wife i. i. 5   And next, to the pleasure of making a New Mistriss, is that of being rid of an old One.

Expurgations (2) Illegal Aliens

Undocumented Immigrants

Under discussion here is the phrase “illegal alien”, not any policy issues relating to that subject. Actually the subject of “illegal alien” is likely to disappear even if the phrase does not. Let me explain.

In my attempt to keep you au courant about language issues I indicated to you a few weeks ago that the phrase “automobile accident” is now generally frowned upon and should be avoided. That is now the case with “illegal alien” which is to be replaced  in polite circles with “undocumented immigrant”. The story begins on campus as many language stories do, this time at Dartmouth. A student being assisted by a librarian was apparently looking for material related to immigration matters and noticed that they were typically led to the subject heading “illegal aliens” which, as a formerly “undocumented immigrant”,  she found offensive.

She took the issue to the Dartmouth student group, CoFIRED (Coalition For Immigration Reform, Equality and DREAMers) which is also concerned with such tenets as “intersectionality” and “inter-community.” They then asked the Dartmouth library people to change the heading, only to realize that they were not in a position to do so since such terms are determined by the Library of Congress. The phrase ultimately found its way to the American Library Association where it was decided that it had to go. The resolution to replace the term with “undocumented immigrants” which  was sent to the Library of Congress contains about a dozen Wheras’s and here are a few samples:

“Whereas the terms "illegal" and "alien," when used in reference to people, have undergone pejoration and acquired derogatory connotations, becoming increasingly associated with nativist and racist sentiments;”

“Whereas referring to undocumented immigrants as "illegal" is increasingly viewed as dehumanizing, offensive, inflammatory, and even a racial slur;”

“Whereas college students have petitioned the Library of Congress to retire the subject heading Illegal aliens;

Etc.

The Library of Congress ultimately agreed to move to more neutral subject headings such as “non-citizens” and “unauthorized immigration”.

Although Library of Congress subject headings do change over time, there has been some opposition to this one since it was viewed as being motivated more by political than linguistic correctness.  Representative Diane Black (Republican TN) released the following statement:

“This needless policy change by the Library of Congress embodies so much of what taxpayers find enraging about Washington. By trading common-sense language for sanitized political-speak, they are caving to the whims of left-wing special interests and attempting to mask the grave threat that illegal immigration poses to our economy, our national security, and our sovereignty. My constituents know that illegal immigration by any other name is still illegal, and we should identify it as such. That is why my bill directs the Library of Congress to continue using the term ‘illegal alien’ just as they were previously. Hopefully this bill will give Washington the push needed to stop thinking up the most politically correct ways to describe illegal immigration and start thinking about solutions to address it,”

Soon after in May, four Senators (Ted Cruz being one) wrote a letter accusing the Library of being on an “Orwellian trajectory” and concluded with this statement:
“There is no other way to put this: the Library has bowed to the political pressure of the moment.”

Representative Brown has introduced a bill called the Stopping Partisan Policy at the Library of Congress Act which demands that “illegal aliens” be kept as a subject heading.

I confess that I was not sufficiently sensitive. I assumed that perhaps those included under such a description were mainly objecting to “alien” which can be related to rather scary characters in Japanese sci-fi movies. The term “alien” legally has a long history and refers basically to any foreigner or outsider. “Illegal” as a word also has a long history, but it is now argued that it should not be applied to a person.

In any case, we seem to have come a fair distance. When looking for instances of the phrase historically one often comes up with headlines such as this: “Plans Set to Round Up Wetbacks…” Los Angeles TImes, June 13, 1954.

For sources see:

“The Library of Congress Will Ditch the Subject Heading “Illegal Aliens”, Erin Blakemore, Smithsonian.com, March 29, 2016.
“Another Word for ‘Illegal Alien’ at the Library of Congress: Contentious,” Jasmine Aguilera, The New York Times, July 22, 2016.

“Library of Congress to Stop Using Term “Illegal Alien,” Steve Padilla & Selene Rivera, Los Angeles Times, April 3, 2016.

Expurgations (1) Accident

Although it seems to me that there is an increase in crassness, there is also evidence of a growing sensitivity among us. As an index of such sensitivity one can use the number of pleas made for us to stop using words that are offensive and chart the disappearance of such words. I have noticed recently that many words are simply gone and some are about to go and I thought I should keep you on alert since they do not yet show up in a Dictionary of Archaic and Obsolete Words. Hence Expurgations, which will inform you of the activities of the Bowdlerizers.

By ‘offensive’ words you are probably thinking of ‘naughty’ ones, which used to comprise the largest category, or blasphemous ones which ranked pretty high or, now, any term that remotely relates to race or ethnicity - such as some that are found linked to the names of sports teams. I should add, by the way, that I will tread lightly about this subject, since up here in Canada we have “Hate Laws” and “Human Rights Tribunals” so any offensive word applied to a person is viewed rather harshly. For example, if in a heated moment I exhibited hate by calling you a “Twerp”, I would be sent to prison; if I called you a “Plump Twerp” I would be put to death since a hate crime of that magnitude is a the only one for which there is still a death penalty.

It seems fitting to begin with the letter A, so the soon-to-be-obsolete word-of-the week is ACCIDENT, particularly if used adjacent to “Automobile.”

I kind of expected this one since I have noticed on TV news that no matter how ‘accidental’ a catastrophic incident looks to me,  the focus of the reporter is always on finding out who the culprit was that caused it.

The fact that many are calling for the elimination of the term ‘automobile accidents’ was called to my attention by this article: “It’s No Accident: Advocates Want to Speak of Car ‘Crashes’ Instead,” by Matt Richtel, May 22, 2016, New York Times.

If most car crashes are caused by drunkenness, or texting or driver error or plain stupidity, then it’s not like “God made it happen.” The bureaucrats have become involved (generally not a good thing for language) and those in Nevada just suggested that the a-word be changed to ‘crash’ in such things as police reports. In New York city the Vision Zero Action Plan [?] states that “The City of New York must no longer regard traffic crashes as mere “accidents,” but rather as preventable incidents that can be systematically addressed.” While the Times has not figured out how it will address the problem, the Associated Press already has: “accident, crash – Generally acceptable for automobile and other collisions and wrecks. However, when negligence is claimed or proven, avoid accident, which can be read by some as a term exonerating the person responsible. In such cases, use crash, collision or other terms. See collide, collision.”

As you will see from the use of the word “negligence” above, lawyers are likely to be involved, and linguists, semanticists and philosophers needed. I will leave you here since I am simply alerting you, not attempting to explain to you. About many accidents, my position would not be a particularly sophisticated one and can be summarized in a phrase I would put in Latin, if I could:: S*** Happens.

By the way, there is a new book about the subject of words and it has a very clever title: Accidence Will Happen: The Non-Pedantic Guide to English Usage by Oliver Kamm.