Slurs can both escalate and relieve hostile prejudice toward a group

Evidence

Allport also considered two other aspects of antilocutions – their potential effects on the perpetrator and how others could intervene. Regarding the former issue, the propositions that antilocutions precipitate subsequent hostile prejudice, exclusion, and violence towards the target outgroup suggest that they facilitate further expressions of antipathy. However, Allport also considered the possible cathartic role of the use of antilocutions. He explained that the explosion of feeling that occurs during an act of antilocution “has a quasi-curative effect. It temporarily relieves the tension and may prepare the individual for a change of attitude” (1954/1979, p. 460). Thus, Allport seemed to recognize a paradox in the use of antilocutions: On the one hand, the use of antilocutions may promote subsequent hostile prejudice. On the other hand, the use of antilocutions may serve as a “safety valve” which prevents subsequent hostile prejudice. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1264

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The paradox that expressing prejudice can have a cathartic, quasi-curative effect that may actually reduce subsequent hostility — subversive of the simple view that all bigoted speech escalates.
• QUESTION: Is there empirical evidence distinguishing when antilocution escalates versus cathartically releases? Modern research likely contradicts the catharsis claim.
• SEED: Article angle: the modern debate over hate speech and ‘free speech as safety valve’ has an overlooked intellectual ancestor in Allport’s catharsis hypothesis.
• XREF: Catharsis hypothesis connects to the literature on venting aggression (e.g., the punch-bag studies showing venting does not reduce aggression), suggesting Allport’s speculation may have been empirically overturned.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1264