Inspired by ongoing controversies around the definition of antisemitism, this “Contested Glossary” offers multiple definitions for a selection of the most important terms we use when we talk about hate and prejudice. These definitions are drawn from a wide array of sources, from dictionaries to blog posts, scholarly articles, nonprofit organizations, and even anti-hate laws themselves. In addition to this diversity of purpose and audience, our entries span several decades and hail from various countries throughout the world.
As many of us know firsthand, it can be extremely difficult to engage in meaningful conversations around such weighty and emotional topics when we cannot even agree on the definitions of our core terminology. Yet as scholars of language we also know that rarely if ever can any word be said to have a static, objective, and universal definition, let alone such words as we use when we study hate. The goal of the Contested Glossary is not to resolve this issue through oversimplified synthesis, but rather to offer a useful cross-section of how these words are being understood in multiple contexts and, in so doing, create opportunities for both research and dialogue.
At the same time, this resource has also been designed to help students and community members hone one of the most important skills of the digital age: information literacy. Modern technology allows anyone to locate vast amounts of information in the blink of an eye, but it cannot teach us how to analyze it critically or use it responsibly. In particular, information collected through internet searches and social media feeds is often completely abstracted from its original source, making it difficult to vet. Because the definitions in our Contested Glossary are organized by source and type, readers are compelled to consider how what is said is shaped by who says it, who they are talking to, and what they are saying it for. We have also built subtle variations into our approaches for different terms, which we hope will compel those who use the Glossary to be conscious of our choices in presenting information and in so doing think more critically about their own choices in communicating what they have learned.
Here are some questions that may help guide you through this resource:
- What differences do you notice in the language used by scholars, journalists, legislators, and advocates? Why might they take different tones and approaches to describing the same thing?
- Which definitions feel the most “authoritative” to you? What elements created that sense of authority or lack thereof?
- How have the definitions of a given term changed over time? How might events and trends have shaped and reshaped the way we talk about these issues?
- What differences do you notice between definitions from similar sources in different countries? For example, what might account for linguistic variations in different countries’ laws regarding hate speech?
- How might the definitions of one term speak to another? For example, how might the entries for dehumanization and xenophobia help you understand those for racism and white supremacy?
- What definitions or explanations are “missing” for you? How might the resources we’ve included here help you find what you’re looking for?
- What additional information would you need to cite this source in your own work?
One crucial component of research and critical analysis is acknowledging the limitations of the sources we collect. This project has several. First, the Glossary is by no means exhaustive. Some of these terms have dozens, if not hundreds, of definitions, which would be impossible to collect within our time constraints. The Glossary is also currently limited to English-language definitions, which inevitably leads to English-speaking countries being overrepresented in our sample. In fact, because the terms themselves are English, they may not even translate grammatically or conceptually into non-Anglophone languages and cultures. Some of these terms are also much older than others; for example, ‘antisemitism’ has been in use since at least 1881, whereas ‘ableism’ entered the lexicon around 1990. More to the point, the practices and prejudices that terms like ableism and antisemitism attempt to capture are of course much, much older than the words themselves. Finally, in the spirit of objectivity, it worth noting that very few of our definitions related to ideologies come from proponents of the ideologies themselves, as efforts to deplatform hate groups have made their websites difficult to access. However, many of the sources we link to in the Glossary quote extensively from these sources as a means of studying them, so if you are interested in that information, it can still be located using this tool.
Despite these limitations, we hope that the Contested Glossary proves to be a valuable tool for those who wish to learn about hate. Such a crucial topic demands ongoing engagement, especially in the circumstances we as a society currently face. In the undeniably long and difficult journey towards understanding, we hope this resource offers a place to start.
Glossary Terms
Click on the terms to learn more: