“Linguistic Racism” by Michael Cohn: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Linguistic Racism” by Michael Cohn

“Linguistic Racism” by Michael Cohn, first appeared in the Anthropology Newsletter in October 1997, critiques the use of racial and ethnic classifications in anthropological discourse, arguing that such terminology often reinforces divisive and outdated notions of identity. He challenges terms such as “Euro-American” and “People of Color,” questioning their coherence in a global and linguistic sense, and warning that such categorizations risk reviving dangerous racial essentialism. Drawing from historical examples, he highlights how labeling individuals based on race or ethnicity has often preceded acts of discrimination and violence, from Nazi Germany to ethnic conflicts in the 20th century. Cohn’s essay is significant in literary theory and anthropology as it engages with the politics of language, emphasizing how words shape social perceptions and reinforce hierarchies. His critique aligns with broader debates in linguistic anthropology regarding the construction of identity and the power of language in social classification. By invoking both historical atrocities and contemporary academic discourse, Cohn urges anthropologists to be mindful of the implications of racialized terminology, warning that uncritical usage can undermine the very principles of anthropology—understanding human cultures in their fluid, interconnected, and evolving contexts.

Summary of “Linguistic Racism” by Michael Cohn

• Critique of Racial and Ethnic Terminology in Anthropology
  • Cohn argues that certain terms used by anthropologists, such as Euro-American, People of Color, and Third World Intellectual, reinforce racial essentialism and are reminiscent of divisive racial classifications from the past (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • He criticizes the lack of clarity in defining “Euro-American,” questioning whether it includes Finns, Magyars, or Muslims from the Balkans (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
• Historical and Political Implications of Racial Labels
  • Cohn highlights that the term People of Color was historically used in contexts of oppression, including the era of slavery in the U.S. and Apartheid in South Africa (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • He points out the ambiguity of racial labels, asking whether an American-born child of an Indonesian is considered a person of color and whether the Inuit of Alaska are colorless (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
• Dangers of Group-Based Classification
  • He warns that the misuse of ethnic and quasi-national terminology has historically led to violence, such as ethnic cleansing in Burundi, Bosnia, and the Sudetenland (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • Cohn asserts that reducing individuals to group identities undermines anthropology’s goal of understanding human cultural diversity (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
• Jewish Identity and Misuse of Ethnic Labels
  • He draws from his own work with Jewish communities, noting that labels like Ashkenazi, Sephardi, German Jew, or Eastern Jew often imply cultural superiority and overlook historical intermarriage and migration (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • He expresses personal discomfort with racial classification, having experienced being categorized as a Jew under Nazi Germany (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
• Skepticism Toward “Third World Intellectual”
  • Cohn criticizes the term Third World Intellectual, suggesting it is problematic and reinforces a hierarchical view of global academia (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
• Conclusion: The Need for Precision and Ethical Responsibility in Anthropological Language
  • He argues that anthropology should avoid rigid racial and ethnic classifications and instead focus on cultural fluidity and historical complexity (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • Cohn warns that failing to do so risks repeating past mistakes of scientific racism, drawing a parallel to Nazi racial research (Rassenforschung) (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Linguistic Racism” by Michael Cohn

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition	Application in Cohn’s Argument
Linguistic Racism	The use of language to categorize and hierarchize racial and ethnic groups, reinforcing discrimination.	Cohn argues that terms like Euro-American and People of Color perpetuate outdated racial categorizations and can be misused to essentialize identity (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
Essentialism	The belief that social groups have fixed, inherent characteristics that define them.	Cohn critiques how racial terms assume uniformity within groups, ignoring historical migration, intermarriage, and cultural exchange (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
Ethnic Classification	The process of categorizing individuals based on ethnicity, culture, or nationality.	Cohn warns that classifying people into rigid ethnic categories can lead to exclusion and historical inaccuracies, such as defining all Europeans as “Euro-Americans” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
Historical Linguistics and Identity	The study of how language shapes and reflects identity over time.	Cohn points out that linguistic ancestry (e.g., Finns and Magyars with roots in Central Asia) complicates racial classifications (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
Race as a Social Construct	The idea that race is not a biological fact but a social and political categorization.	Cohn argues that racial labels do not correspond to biological realities and are often politically motivated (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
Scientific Racism	The historical misuse of science to justify racial hierarchies and discrimination.	He warns that anthropologists risk reviving pseudo-scientific racial classifications reminiscent of Rassenforschung in Nazi Germany (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
Cultural Relativism	The principle that cultural practices and beliefs should be understood in their own context rather than judged by external standards.	Cohn emphasizes that group identity is fluid, and imposing rigid racial or ethnic categories ignores cultural variation (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
Postcolonial Critique	The examination of how colonial histories shape modern discourse and classifications.	Cohn critiques terms like Third World Intellectual, suggesting they reinforce hierarchical, colonial-era distinctions (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
Social Categorization Theory	A psychological theory explaining how individuals classify themselves and others into social groups.	Cohn criticizes how identity labels create artificial boundaries, leading to exclusion and social division (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
Ethnolinguistic Identity	The connection between language and group identity.	He argues that linguistic labels often fail to capture the complexities of individual and group identities, such as Jewish communities with diverse backgrounds (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).

Contribution of “Linguistic Racism” by Michael Cohn to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critical Race Theory (CRT)
  • Cohn challenges the reification of racial categories in anthropological discourse, aligning with CRT’s argument that race is a social construct rather than a biological reality (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • He critiques how terms like People of Color and Euro-American impose rigid racial classifications, which CRT scholars argue perpetuate systemic discrimination (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • His discussion of linguistic categorization reflects CRT’s concern with how language reinforces power hierarchies and racial biases.
• Postcolonial Theory
  • Cohn critiques the term Third World Intellectual, arguing that it implies a colonial hierarchy in knowledge production (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • His work aligns with postcolonial theorists like Edward Said, who argue that Western discourse often “others” non-Western identities through language (Said, Orientalism, 1978).
  • Cohn highlights how colonial-era racial terminologies persist in modern academic and political discourse, mirroring the postcolonial critique of neocolonial structures in language (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
• Linguistic Anthropology and Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
  • His argument that racial categories shape social perception aligns with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which suggests that language structures thought (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • He critiques the assumed fixed meanings of ethnic and racial terms, reflecting the linguistic anthropology perspective that language is dynamic and socially constructed (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
• Structuralism and Semiotics (Saussurean Linguistics)
  • Cohn’s critique of racial terminology resonates with Ferdinand de Saussure’s view that meaning is relational and arbitrary (Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, 1916).
  • He challenges the fixed meaning of terms like Euro-American, arguing that linguistic signs should be understood within shifting historical and social contexts (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
• Discourse Analysis (Michel Foucault)
  • Cohn’s argument reflects Foucault’s view that language is a tool of power and social control (The Archaeology of Knowledge, 1969).
  • He warns that racial classifications in anthropology function as discursive practices that reinforce social hierarchies, similar to how Foucault describes knowledge-power dynamics (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
• Identity and Representation in Cultural Studies
  • His critique of Jewish identity labels (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, German Jew, etc.) aligns with Stuart Hall’s theory that identity is fluid and constructed through discourse (Cultural Identity and Diaspora, 1990).
  • He argues that essentialist labels ignore cultural hybridity and historical migration, a key theme in contemporary identity politics (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).

Examples of Critiques Through “Linguistic Racism” by Michael Cohn

Literary Work	Critique Through “Linguistic Racism”	Key Themes from Cohn’s Argument
Joseph Conrad – Heart of Darkness (1899)	The novel reinforces racial binaries by depicting Africans as the Other through dehumanizing language, reducing them to racial stereotypes rather than individual identities. Conrad’s language constructs rigid racial hierarchies that mirror colonial discourses (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).	Aligns with Cohn’s critique of racial essentialism, where language is used to define entire populations in simplistic, hierarchical terms (People of Color, Third World Intellectuals).
Harper Lee – To Kill a Mockingbird (1960)	While the novel critiques racism, it also reinforces problematic linguistic hierarchies, particularly in how Black characters like Tom Robinson and Calpurnia are depicted. The term “boy” used for African American men reflects linguistic subordination (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).	Connects to Cohn’s analysis of racial terminology, where language constructs racial identities in ways that uphold social power dynamics.
Toni Morrison – Beloved (1987)	Morrison exposes how linguistic classification under slavery dehumanized Black individuals (e.g., referring to them as property). This aligns with Cohn’s argument that racial terms historically used in oppression (such as People of Color) carry harmful legacies (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).	Reflects Cohn’s critique of the historical misuse of racial categories, showing how language has been central to racial discrimination.
Chinua Achebe – Things Fall Apart (1958)	Achebe critiques colonial linguistic frameworks that define African identity from a Eurocentric perspective. The British use of terms like primitive and savage mirrors Cohn’s concerns about imposed linguistic classifications (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).	Supports Cohn’s argument that rigid ethnic and racial labels erase cultural fluidity and reduce people to essentialized categories (Euro-American as a broad and inaccurate label).

Criticism Against “Linguistic Racism” by Michael Cohn

• Overgeneralization of Racial Terminology Issues
  • Cohn argues that terms like People of Color and Euro-American are either meaningless or pejorative, but critics may contend that these terms serve important sociopolitical functions, particularly in identity politics and anti-racist movements (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • The use of racial terminology is often strategic and self-affirming, helping marginalized groups assert agency rather than reinforcing oppression.
• Lack of Nuance in Addressing Identity Politics
  • While Cohn criticizes racial labels for being imprecise, he does not fully engage with the ways marginalized communities reclaim and redefine these terms for empowerment.
  • Scholars in critical race theory argue that terms like African American serve as political identifiers that challenge exclusion rather than reinforce racial essentialism (Kimberlé Crenshaw, 1991).
• Comparison to Nazi Racial Science is Overstated
  • Cohn likens the use of racial classifications in anthropology to Rassenforschung (racial science) in Nazi Germany (Cohn, 1997, p. 4), which some critics may find an extreme and inappropriate comparison.
  • Modern racial terminology is not used to justify genocide but rather to acknowledge historical injustices and promote inclusivity.
• Fails to Address Structural Racism in Language
  • Cohn focuses on the dangers of racial categorization but does not sufficiently explore how language also perpetuates systemic racism.
  • Scholars like Marcyliena Morgan (1997) argue that linguistic hierarchies uphold power structures, and eliminating racial labels does not necessarily eliminate racial discrimination.
• Dismissal of Postcolonial Perspectives
  • His critique of Third World Intellectual as a problematic term ignores the ways in which postcolonial scholars use it to reclaim intellectual space for non-Western thinkers (Cohn, 1997, p. 4).
  • Postcolonial theorists like Edward Said and Homi Bhabha emphasize that language is a site of resistance as much as oppression.
• Ignores the Role of Self-Identification
  • While Cohn critiques racial labels imposed by others, he does not adequately address how individuals and communities choose to identify themselves.
  • Terms like Latinx, Black, and Indigenous have evolved through community discourse, reflecting self-determined identities rather than externally imposed classifications.

Representative Quotations from “Linguistic Racism” by Michael Cohn with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Judging by some of the recent Anthropology Newsletters some anthropologists are now using ethnic and racial terms in ways that would be fully acceptable in Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich.” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4)	Cohn makes a strong comparison between contemporary racial terminology and the racial science (Rassenforschung) of Nazi Germany. He argues that uncritical usage of racial classifications risks legitimizing harmful essentialist ideas about identity.
“Geographically, the term ‘Euro’ may have some coherence, but linguistically, culturally, and even genetically it certainly does not.” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4)	This critique highlights the imprecision of the term Euro-American. Cohn argues that such racial classifications ignore the diversity of European cultures and languages, reinforcing artificial boundaries.
“The term ‘people of color’ was common usage among slave dealers prior to 1860 and was also used in the Apartheid period in South Africa.” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4)	By tracing the historical roots of the term People of Color, Cohn suggests that its contemporary use carries problematic connotations, potentially reducing individuals to racial categories with oppressive histories.
“Is the American-born child of an Indonesian a ‘person of color,’ and are the Inuit of Alaska ‘colorless’?” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4)	Here, Cohn points out the ambiguity and contradictions inherent in racial terminology. He questions whether such classifications have any objective meaning or are merely subjective social constructs.
“The misuse of ethnic or quasi-national terminology is dangerous, as we have learned to our sorrow in the 20th century.” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4)	This statement underscores his broader concern: that language has historically been used to justify exclusion, violence, and genocide. He warns that careless application of racial terms can contribute to similar patterns of division.
“If we anthropologists act as if all groups have unique experiences and exist in concrete borders, that all individuals share in these cultural and biological characteristics, then we deny all anthropological experience and the function of anthropology itself.” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4)	Cohn critiques essentialist views of culture and race, arguing that anthropology should recognize cultural fluidity rather than reinforcing rigid group identities.
“As a Jew who left Germany after Hitler’s rise to power I have no desire to repeat the experience of being classified by ‘race,’ ‘ethnic identity’ or even gender.” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4)	This personal statement emphasizes his concern with racial labeling, drawing on his own experience of persecution under Nazi Germany to highlight the dangers of racial classification.
“The term ‘Third World Intellectual’ is equally suspect. It seems to imply that academics from these regions are inherently different from those in the West.” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4)	Cohn critiques the term Third World Intellectual, suggesting that it reinforces a colonial hierarchy in knowledge production, positioning scholars from non-Western nations as fundamentally separate from their Western counterparts.
“Hindu scientists from Bombay have more in common with a scientist from Bogota, Colombia, than with a Hindu scientist born in London.” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4)	He uses this example to challenge the assumption that race or ethnicity determines shared experiences. Instead, he emphasizes commonalities based on profession, education, and intellectual background rather than race or national identity.
“That way lies scientific disaster and Hitler’s ‘Rassenforschung.'” (Cohn, 1997, p. 4)	By referencing Rassenforschung (Nazi racial science), Cohn warns that classifying people into rigid racial and ethnic categories can lead to dangerous and pseudoscientific conclusions, undermining both ethical and academic integrity.

Suggested Readings: “Linguistic Racism” by Michael Cohn

1. Cohn, Michael. “Linguistic Racism.” Anthropology News 38.7 (1997): 11-11.
2. Friedrich, Patricia. “Anti-Racist Linguistics.” The Anti-Racism Linguist: A Book of Readings, edited by Patricia Friedrich, Multilingual Matters & Channel View Publications, 2023, pp. 1–25. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.22679667.4. Accessed 12 Mar. 2025.
3. Berk-Seligson, Susan. Language in Society, vol. 41, no. 1, 2012, pp. 123–26. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41329698. Accessed 12 Mar. 2025.
4. Comas, Juan. “‘Scientific’ Racism Again?” Current Anthropology, vol. 2, no. 4, 1961, pp. 303–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2739858. Accessed 12 Mar. 2025.