Over the past decade, identity politics has taken center stage in much of the cultural and political discourse in the United States and beyond. Defined by its focus on the specific interests and experiences of marginalized groups, identity politics was initially seen as a way to promote inclusivity and give a voice to those historically overlooked. However, recent events—most notably the latest U.S. elections—have highlighted a significant decline in the influence of identity-based appeals. Even minorities, once considered the core constituency of identity politics, are increasingly rejecting it as an artificial tool disconnected from their actual needs and values.
This rejection has extended to the terminology pushed by identity politics advocates, with many leftist gender-neologisms losing traction. Words like “Latinx,” introduced as an inclusive alternative to “Latino” or “Latina,” are rarely used by the very communities they are meant to represent. Instead, these terms are seen by many as political constructs imposed from above, rather than natural linguistic evolutions.
Identity Politics: A Declining Appeal Among Minorities
For years, identity politics was a central strategy for political parties and activists hoping to mobilize voters based on shared identities such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. Yet, the latest election results suggest that many voters—particularly minorities—are growing tired of this approach.
Polling data and exit surveys reveal that a significant portion of minority voters, including Hispanic, Black, and Asian Americans, are prioritizing issues like the economy, education, and healthcare over identity-driven appeals. These voters view identity politics as overly reductive, ignoring the diversity of thought and experience within their communities.
One major criticism is the tendency of identity politics to create broad, monolithic categories that fail to reflect the nuances of individual lives. For example, the term “Latino” itself encompasses a vast array of cultures, nationalities, and experiences. Introducing new, politically motivated terms like “Latinx” has only added to this disconnect.
The Latinx Debate: A Case Study in Misguided Terminology
The term “Latinx” emerged as an effort to create a gender-neutral alternative to “Latino” or “Latina.” Its proponents argued that the traditional terms were not inclusive of nonbinary or gender-nonconforming individuals. However, the term quickly became a lightning rod for criticism, particularly among the Hispanic community.
Surveys consistently show that the vast majority of Hispanic Americans do not use or even recognize the term “Latinx.” A Pew Research Center study found that only 3% of U.S. Hispanics identify with the term, and many view it as unnecessary or confusing. Critics argue that “Latinx” is a linguistic imposition, devised in academic and activist circles rather than arising organically from within the community.
Organic Neologisms vs. Artificial Constructs
Language evolves organically to meet the needs of its speakers. When new concepts, technologies, or cultural shifts arise, language adapts naturally to fill the gaps. This process often gives rise to neologisms—new words or expressions created to describe something previously unnamed. However, the success of a neologism depends on whether it fulfills a genuine need and resonates with its intended audience.
For example, the word “selfie” emerged in response to the widespread practice of taking self-portraits with smartphones. The term quickly gained global popularity because it filled a specific linguistic gap and was easy to adopt. Another example is “email,” which combines “electronic” and “mail” to succinctly describe a previously nonexistent form of communication. Both terms reflect organic linguistic evolution, driven by utility and widespread adoption.
By contrast, terms like “Latinx” fail to resonate because they address an ideological or theoretical concern rather than a practical linguistic need. Spanish already has gender-neutral terms, such as “personas,” to describe groups of people inclusively. In this context, “Latinx” feels redundant and disconnected from the lived experiences of most Hispanic individuals.
The Role of Satirical Neologisms
Interestingly, the backlash against artificial neologisms like “Latinx” has led to the creation of satirical or ridiculing terms that mock their perceived absurdity. These neologisms, while humorous, highlight the growing frustration with identity politics and the language it promotes.
For instance, terms like “wokelet” (used to describe someone overly obsessed with performative social justice) or “snowflake” (a derogatory term for individuals perceived as overly sensitive) have gained traction in popular discourse. These terms are often used to caricature the excesses of identity politics, creating a paradoxical dystopian linguistic reality where new words emerge not to unite but to divide.
The use of satire in creating these terms underscores a key point: language cannot be forced. When people reject a term like “Latinx,” they may create alternative terms—often humorous or critical—to express their dissent. This dynamic illustrates the organic nature of language, where adoption or rejection occurs at the grassroots level, not through top-down enforcement.
A Relatable Moment: The Conversation About “Latinx”
During a recent discussion with friends, we found ourselves debating the term “Latinx” and its relevance. Among us was a woman of Hispanic background who spoke candidly about how she felt when she first encountered the word.
“Why are people trying to change our language?” she asked. “No one in my family uses this term. We’re proud to be Latinos and Latinas—our gender is a part of who we are. I don’t feel excluded, and I don’t need a new word to make me feel included.”
The group quickly agreed. None of us, regardless of our backgrounds, felt that the term “Latinx” added anything meaningful to the conversation about inclusivity. In fact, we saw it as an example of how language can become overly politicized. Instead of fostering unity, it seemed to create unnecessary division.
This moment highlighted a broader truth: inclusivity doesn’t require inventing new terms that feel artificial or imposed. Language should reflect the genuine needs and preferences of the people it describes, not serve as a vehicle for political signaling.
The Decline of Leftist Gender-Neologisms
Beyond “Latinx,” many leftist gender-neologisms introduced in recent years have similarly failed to gain widespread acceptance. Terms like “ze,” “zir,” and other nonbinary pronouns were meant to provide alternatives to “he” and “she.” Yet, they remain confined to niche circles and have not been adopted by the general public.
One reason for this is practicality. Most people find these terms cumbersome and unfamiliar, making them difficult to integrate into everyday language. Additionally, the proliferation of new pronouns has created confusion, rather than clarity, about how to address others respectfully.
Why Organic Language Matters
The failure of terms like “Latinx” and “ze” underscores the importance of organic language evolution. Neologisms that arise naturally, in response to genuine needs, are far more likely to succeed. They are adopted not because they are mandated but because they resonate with the people who use them.
When language is politicized or imposed, it risks alienating the very groups it seeks to support. The rejection of artificial terms like “Latinx” is not a rejection of inclusivity but a demand for authenticity.
Conclusion
The decline of identity politics and leftist gender-neologisms reflects a broader shift in societal attitudes toward language and inclusion. Minorities and marginalized groups are increasingly rejecting artificial constructs, favoring organic linguistic evolution that aligns with their lived experiences.
Ultimately, language is a tool for connection, not division. By focusing on genuine needs and organic development, we can create a more inclusive and authentic linguistic landscape.
The Rise of Center and Right-Wing Neologisms
As the political landscape shifts toward the center and right, it is natural to expect the emergence of neologisms that reflect the values and priorities of these ideologies. Unlike the ideologically charged terminology of identity politics, which often aims to influence perceptions and behaviors through top-down imposition, the neologisms from these parties are likely to arise organically in response to new societal needs.
Historically, political and cultural shifts have always influenced language. However, the effectiveness and longevity of any neologism depend on its ability to resonate with the public and fulfill a practical or descriptive purpose. As such, the future of language shaped by center and right-leaning ideologies is likely to focus on terms that describe emerging realities rather than promoting ideological conformity.
Organic Neologisms vs. Ideological Constructs
Neologisms from the political right or center are likely to mirror the principles these movements prioritize: pragmatism, tradition, and functionality. For example, during the rise of globalization, terms like “sovereigntist” emerged to describe those advocating for national sovereignty in the face of supranational governance. The term gained traction because it articulated a specific stance in a way that existing language did not.
Similarly, recent technological advancements and social shifts have given rise to terms like “gig economy” to describe the rise of short-term, freelance work arrangements enabled by platforms like Uber and Fiverr. This term arose out of necessity, providing a concise way to describe a significant economic and cultural phenomenon.
These examples demonstrate that successful neologisms from any political perspective must address real, observable changes in society. By contrast, artificial neologisms created with the intent of shaping ideology, rather than reflecting reality, often face significant resistance.
Pushback Against Artificial Neologisms
Just as leftist neologisms like “Latinx” and “ze” have faced widespread criticism for being out of touch with public sentiment, artificial terms from center or right-leaning ideologies would likely encounter similar skepticism. Language policing and forced adoption of terminology, regardless of its ideological origin, tend to provoke backlash from those who value authenticity and practicality in communication.
For instance, attempts to coin terms that overly simplify complex issues—such as labeling all environmental policies as “eco-nationalism” or framing digital regulation as “tech freedom suppression”—might fail to gain acceptance if they do not accurately capture the nuances of these topics. Audiences today are increasingly wary of buzzwords designed to manipulate opinions rather than convey useful information.
Furthermore, any efforts to introduce ideologically motivated language through legislation, education, or media campaigns would likely be met with resistance. People are more inclined to adopt terms that feel natural and descriptive, rather than prescriptive and ideological.
The Importance of Reflecting New Realities
Center and right-wing parties are likely to succeed in shaping language only if their neologisms reflect genuine societal changes or address gaps in existing vocabulary. For example, as discussions around globalization evolve, terms like “reshoring” (the process of bringing manufacturing back to domestic markets) have gained prominence. This term resonates because it reflects a tangible economic trend and serves a practical communicative purpose.
Similarly, debates over free speech and online regulation might give rise to new terms that describe the balance between censorship and accountability in the digital age. However, these terms would need to emerge from public discourse and practical usage rather than ideological imposition to gain widespread acceptance.
Conclusion
As political momentum shifts toward the center and right, the evolution of language will undoubtedly reflect these changes. However, the success of future neologisms will depend on their ability to address real needs and describe new realities. Artificial or ideologically driven terms, regardless of their origin, are unlikely to resonate with the public. Instead, the organic development of language will continue to be the most effective way to capture and communicate the complexities of modern life.
This natural, pragmatic approach to language ensures that it remains a tool for understanding and connection, rather than division and manipulation.
Leave a Reply