Recently, I’ve observed a noticeable increase in the use of the word ‘bigot’ in conversations, which raises some alarm. Historically, such terms were primarily confined to social media and rarely surfaced in meetings or general discussions. This shift has prompted me to reflect on the collective anxiety that the term ‘bigot’ represents, signalling deeper societal tensions and the need for more empathetic and constructive dialogue.
The origin of the term ‘bigot‘ is unclear, but there are some possible explanations. It might come from the Old French insulting word ‘bigot’ used for the Normans, perhaps because they often said the Germanic oath ‘bi God’ (by God). This is consistent with the surnames Bigott and Bygott recorded in Normandy and England from the 11th century. It could derive from the French word ‘bigote’ meaning a very pious or hypocritical person, which may have started as a religious taunt. Some linguists propose it may be linked to the Spanish word ‘bigote‘ meaning moustache, but this connection is seen as doubtful.
Another theory associates it with the Albigensian heretics from the town of Albi in southern France, but there is not much evidence for this. The earliest known use of ‘bigot’ in English dates back to the late 16th century, referring to a hypocritical or overly religious person. By the 17th century, it had acquired the broader meaning of an obstinate adherent of a belief or opinion. The sense of intolerance towards those of different beliefs emerged around 1680.
So while ‘bigot’ initially referred to religious hypocrisy, over time it came to denote blind adherence to any belief system coupled with an unwillingness to consider other viewpoints. The sense of intolerance and prejudice against those of different faiths or ideologies is a relatively recent development from the late 1600s.
The use of the word ‘bigot’, however, has become increasingly politicised in recent years, with different groups accusing each other of bigotry to discredit opposing viewpoints. A few key points on how ‘bigot’ has been politicised.
The term ‘bigot’ is frequently used as a weapon by competing identity groups to demonise those they disagree with across the political spectrum. Accusations of bigotry are levelled at opposing identities, whether labelling them as “hateful TERFs, gammon, alt-right or xenophobic” on one side, or “hate-driven snowflakes, misogynists, Remoaners” on the other.
The increasingly subjective definition of what constitutes ‘hate’ or ‘bigotry’ has made the term vulnerable to overuse and trivialisation. With the boundaries being largely in the eye of the victim or reporter, even minor perceived slights can be branded as bigoted.
Campaigns to crack down on ‘hate speech’ have further politicised the term, with some arguing this is being used to narrow viewpoint diversity and silence opponents. Groups like Stop Funding Hate pressure companies to withdraw advertising from media outlets accused of spreading ‘hate and division’.
The debate around proposed hate crime legislation, such as in Scotland where denying trans people bathroom access could be criminalised as a ‘hate crime’, has intensified the political battle over defining bigotry.
Furthermore, while condemning bigotry is seen as a shared value, there are sharp polarising political battles over which views and actions constitute bigotry. Politicians often accuse opponents of being the ‘real bigots’ to deflect such charges.
The increasing use of ‘bigot’ as a political weapon by different groups to denounce each other’s views as hateful and intolerant has made the term a highly politicised accusation in recent discourse.
What was once an exceptional term that was seldomly used to describe a person, has now become increasingly frequent in political discourse. Arguments justifying the use of the term ‘bigot’ include:
- It highlights and condemns prejudiced, intolerant views that go against democratic values of equality and respect for diversity. Calling out bigotry can be a powerful way to marginalise hateful ideologies.
- The word retains moral force in denouncing obstinate adherence to irrational beliefs and unwillingness to consider other perspectives. It underscores the unreasonableness of certain positions.
- Labelling someone a ‘bigot’ can be a justified response to overtly discriminatory speech or actions against protected groups. It signals societal disapproval.
Arguments against using the term ‘bigot’ include:
- The term has become so politically charged and subjective that it is often misused to dismiss legitimate viewpoints and shut down debate. Overuse has caused it to lose meaning.
- Accusations of bigotry tend to increase polarisation rather than promote understanding. They make adversaries out of those with honest disagreements.
- There is lack of consensus on what constitutes ‘bigoted’ beliefs, with different groups accusing each other of bigotry in a circular fashion. This makes the label counterproductive.
- Calling someone a ‘bigot’ is an ad hominem attack that demonises the person rather than addressing their arguments. It is unproductive name-calling.
- The rhetoric of bigotry can be exploited cynically by political movements to dehumanise opponents and claim moral superiority.
So, while ‘bigot’ retains utility in condemning clear prejudice, its increasing subjectivity and polarising nature in political discourse has led many to argue for more precise, less inflammatory language to discuss disagreements over complex issues.
I find it troubling how often and casually the term ‘bigot’ is thrown around in popular political and social discourse. It seems to imply that the user has no interest in understanding the perspective of the person they are accusing, and that they are simply dismissing them as irredeemable. This undermines the value and validity of the word, which should be reserved for those who hold extreme and unyielding views.
The term ‘bigot’ has become overused and diluted in popular political and social discourse. It is often used as a way of attacking and devaluing the person rather than engaging with their arguments. This shows a lack of respect and empathy for the other’s position, and reduces the power and meaning of the word, which should only be applied to those who are truly intolerant and inflexible.
I am concerned about the frequent and casual use of the word ‘bigot’ in popular political and social discourse. It suggests that the user does not care about the other’s point of view, and that they are simply labelling them as beyond redemption. This weakens the impact and significance of the word, which should be used sparingly and carefully for those who have extreme and intractable views.
There are plenty of alternative words and phrases that can be used to describe someone who is intolerant. Try some of these instead of opting for the nuclear phrase that destroys all in its path:
Synonyms:
- Bigoted
- Narrow-minded
- Small-minded
- Hidebound
- Provincial
- Insular
- Parochial
- Blinkered
- Prejudiced
- Biased
- Xenophobic
- Racist
Phrases:
- Unwilling to consider different views
- Obstinately attached to their beliefs
- Intolerant of differing opinions
- Having an irrational prejudice against others
- Exhibiting blind adherence to their ideology
- Disdainful and unsympathetic towards others
- Contemptuous of different cultures/lifestyles
- Dogmatic and inflexible in their thinking
Bigotry refers to an unreasonable, intolerant adherence to one’s own beliefs and prejudices, with a refusal to consider other perspectives. The synonyms capture this sense of closed-mindedness, discrimination, and stubborn attachment to certain ideologies or groups over others. Words like ‘bigoted’, ‘narrow-minded’, ‘prejudiced’, and phrases highlighting their unwillingness to accept different perspectives, stubborn beliefs, and discriminatory attitudes can be used as alternatives to describe an intolerant person.
What Motivates Narrow-Minded Attitudes?
Rather than labelling someone as a bigot, it might be more productive to try to understand the motivations behind their attitudes and views. This can reveal the complex and often conflicting social factors that shape their beliefs and prejudices, such as education, media, religion, family, and personal experience. By exploring these factors, we might discover that the person’s views are not as fixed or rigid as we assumed, and that they are open to change or dialogue. Calling someone a bigot can shut down the conversation and absolve them of the responsibility to explain or justify their views. It can also reinforce their defensiveness and resistance to alternative perspectives. Therefore, instead of dismissing someone as a bigot, we should seek to understand them as a human being with a unique history and context that influences their worldview.
There are a few potential factors that could contribute to attitudes perceived as bigoted:
- Ignorance: A lack of knowledge or understanding about different cultures, beliefs, and perspectives can breed intolerance and prejudice. Unfamiliarity with diversity can reinforce narrow-mindedness.
- Fear: Xenophobia and fear of the unknown or different can manifest as bigoted views towards those seen as threats or “others.” This irrational fear stems from lack of exposure.
- Indoctrination: Being raised in an insular environment or belief system that demonises certain groups can instil bigoted mindsets from an early age through repetitive messaging.
- Tribalism: An excessive allegiance to one’s own group identity, coupled with distrust and prejudice towards perceived outsider groups, can foster an “us vs them” bigoted mentality.
- Scapegoating: Blaming certain groups for societal problems and using them as convenient targets for broader frustrations can enable bigoted attitudes to take root.
- Cognitive Biases: Flawed human tendencies like in-group favouritism, confirmation bias, and fundamental attribution error can predispose people towards intolerant, bigoted thinking.
In essence, ignorance, fear, indoctrination, tribalism, scapegoating, and inherent cognitive biases may underlie many supposedly bigoted perspectives that lack empathy and openness to differing cultures and beliefs.
If one’s aim is to promotes inclusivity and diversity, there are better ways to do this than simply denouncing others for their intolerance, when this might be a mischaracterisation of people who hold entirely legitimate and rightful concerns when held under scrutiny. The virtues of being open-minded include:
Open-minded people are more respectful, tolerant, and empathetic towards people from different backgrounds, cultures, and identities. Open-minded people are believed to be more willing to consider alternative viewpoints, evaluate evidence objectively, and revise their opinions when necessary. However, being open-minded does not mean being indifferent or passive to other people’s opinions or actions. It means being able to propose open-ended ideas that benefit a wide range of people, rather than falling into zero-sum thinking, in which one person projects that they will lose if they change their worldview and their understanding of other people. Being open-minded requires critical thinking, curiosity, and courage to challenge one’s own assumptions and biases, as well as those of others.
Being open-minded offers several key benefits in society:
- Fosters Innovation and Creativity: Open-minded people are more receptive to new ideas, different perspectives, and unconventional solutions. This receptivity breeds creativity and allows groundbreaking products/services to emerge. Questioning assumptions and exploring uncharted territories drives innovation
- Enhances Problem-Solving Abilities: Open-mindedness prevents getting stuck in rigid thought patterns. Willingness to consider diverse viewpoints and alternative approaches to challenges. Allows teams to brainstorm, experiment and adapt until finding the best solution
- Increases Adaptability to Change: Open-minded individuals are more willing to learn, unlearn and relearn. This adaptability is crucial for staying competitive in rapidly evolving business environments. Helps people cope better with new work environments, co-workers and job responsibilities.
- Promotes Inclusivity and Diversity: Openness to different perspectives, backgrounds and experiences creates an inclusive culture. Diversity of thought leads to better decision-making. Allows people to understand and respect differences.
- Improves Teamwork and Cooperation: Open-mindedness facilitates listening, learning and growing together in teams. Helps work through interpersonal conflicts that arise. Enables teams to find greater solutions through collaboration.
- Increases Opportunities and Flexibility: Open-minded people are seen as more capable of multitasking and taking on diverse projects. Employers are more likely to consider job changes that better fit talents/passions
In essence, being open-minded allows individuals and organisations to embrace new ideas, diverse perspectives, continuous learning and positive change – key drivers of success in today’s workplace.
Zero-Sum Thinking
A zero-sum game is a situation where one participant’s gain is exactly balanced by the other participant’s loss, resulting in a net change of zero. It is a mathematical representation in game theory and economic theory involving two sides, where the total gains of one side are offset by the total losses of the other side. Some key points about zero-sum games:
- One player’s gain is equivalent to the other player’s loss, so the net benefit is zero when gains and losses are added up.
- Examples include games like chess, poker, and betting, where one player wins at the direct expense of the other player.
- In financial markets, futures contracts and options are considered zero-sum games before transaction costs, as the gain of one party is offset by the loss of the counterparty.
- Sero-sum games are contrasted with non-zero-sum games, where the interacting parties’ aggregate gains and losses can be less than or more than zero, allowing for mutually beneficial outcomes.
- The zero-sum property means any result is Pareto optimal, as one party cannot gain without the other losing.
- Game theory concepts like the minimax theorem and Nash equilibrium are used to analyse optimal strategies in zero-sum games.
A zero-sum game represents a strictly competitive situation where players are directly opposed, and any gain by one side equates to an equivalent loss by the other side, resulting in a net change of zero overall.
One implication of this view is that brandishing the term ‘bigot’ is equivalent to insisting that social attitudes and beliefs are fixed within a zero-sum game, where there is a competition for limited social virtue and status associated with ideas and being able to police language. By labelling someone as a bigot, one attempts to gain an advantage over them and diminish their position in the social hierarchy, without engaging with their arguments or perspectives. This creates a hostile and divisive environment, where people are more concerned with winning or losing than with understanding or learning from each other.