Group self-names mean ‘real humans’ while outgroup slurs mean ‘beast’

Evidence

With respect to social categorization, in traditional cultures, the ethnonyms an ingroup gives itself often derive from native words for “real humans” or “the people,” whereas the ethnophaulisms given to outgroups often derive from native words for “beast” or “animal” (Fried, 1975). This parallels the recent finding that ingroup members are attributed complex “uniquely human” emotions, whereas outgroups are assumed to exhibit more simple and primary animal-like emotions (Leyens et al., 2001). The interplay between ethnonyms and ethnophaulisms across social categories is poignantly captured by the pairings of “Christian” vs. “heathen,” “Muslim” vs. “infidel,” and “Jew” vs. “goyim” (Cardona, 1989). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1268

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s theme of small acts of decorum/status signaling toward ingroups vs outgroups — the humanness-vs-animal dichotomy is a status hierarchy encoded in language.
• CANDY: The ‘Christian vs heathen, Muslim vs infidel, Jew vs goyim’ pairing is a compact, memorable trivia nugget for a dinner conversation.
• SHARE: Worth sending to someone who works on linguistics or intergroup relations — the language-structure-to-dehumanization mapping is a precise, citable finding.