The N-Word Crisis
Lets say, as a thought experiment, we would want to globally end the usage of the N-Word as an insult. I will explain two strategies and why one is superior to the other.
The first strategy is the one of the lawyer. When a lawyer want‘s to inhibit anyones behavior, he does what lawyers do and bans the behavior by passing a law. The hammer can only see nails. This is the current mainstream approach. It is kind of working, at best.
As a result of this approach, there is a social contract (a shared implicit law) that binds me and all civilized people from using the N-word (I am literally using „the n-word“ instead of „nigger“). The issue that arises, is that the people who agree to obey this contract are the ones that probably would not use the n-word as an insult in the first place. The people who would use „nigger“ as an insult are not bound by this social contract because they want to insult. And because the term has been made artificially scarse and is prohibited under this social contract, „nigger“ packs an extra punch when used. Thus, by trying to eliminate the term, it has gained value as an insult.
Now that we know how the lawyer has attempted to solve the crisis, what is the superior alternative? For this, let’s look at how the economist would go about it.
They key to understanding the solution is to understand that the term is artificially scarse, is socially constructed (as is the nature of any term), and has 0-marginal cost for any usage past the first.
Lets go over it one by one.
We already established, that the scarse nature of the term increases its value to the person using it as an insult. Let’s think of the term „nigger“ as a tool that has value. It’s a tool to anyone that intends to insult a human with dark skin and has value in so far as it is effective in doing so. Other then that, the term is like any other word in our vocabulary - it is a sound made by vocal cords.
The cost associated with breaking the n-word-social-contract is purely a function of the self-perception of the individual committing the transgretion and the reaction of the individuals in the social environment.
The cost of using the n-word is a one time risk, since the actual occurrence of the cost is merely potential, not guaranteed. Saying it twice impeads exponentially less risk then the first usage. So does the third, forth and fifth. Rather quickly the additional cost of uttering another n-word is approaching 0. Which is to say, saying „nigger“ tends towards 0-marginal-cost. If this one time social risk would be invested by enough people, the term would be used inflationary and as a consequence loose its value as a tool to the people who want to say it as an insult.
The nature of the cost would be different, depending on the skin color of the person. If the person is black, the cost would be to swallow whatever insult this person is associating with anyone using the term. The cost to anyone else would be the risk of breaking the social contract and the associated social penalty.
The failure of the lawyer strategy, that tries to police and control the usage of the term will be ineffective as long as it has enough appeal/value to some people.
The economist strategy‘s appeal is that, tho the term itself will be more plentiful, the value derived from it as an insult will diminish. But the strategy requires an understanding that not the term itself is the problem, but the intend of the insulter and the reaction of everybody else.
The hypothesis is, that inflationary usage of the term nigger, would diminish its insulting nature. This is a testable hypothesis.
The question becomes how to construct the circumstance?
One possible way would be, to make this april fools day the global „nigger-bubble-burst-day“.
To participate in this, you need say nigger, or make memes saying nigger, or write about the term nigger. The trick is not to say it as an insult.
I think Murder Mike had it right when he rapped:
Nigga, Nigga, Nigga, Nigga, Nigga, Nigga, Nigga
I'm 200% nigga.