What do scholars say about reclaiming slurs like "nigger" (academics and dates)?

1. What “reclaiming” means in scholarship

Linguists and social psychologists define reclamation as in-group members re-using a derogatory term to express pride, solidarity, or to subvert oppression; Galinsky and colleagues break this down into reframing (rejecting pejorative meaning) and reappropriation (adopting the term anew), a process that moves from isolated uses to potential societal recognition ^[1]. Contemporary lexical analyses treat reclamation as a form of semantic change—a group-driven resignification—rather than mere slang play ^[5].

2. Varieties and theoretical distinctions scholars use

Philosophers and linguists identify different forms of reclamation. Rebecca Jeshion and others contrast “pride reclamation” (like some uses of queer) with “insular reclamation,” often associated with nigger/nigga, which is more restricted to narrow social circles and rarely transforms into a broadly accepter term ^{[2] [4]}. Cepollaro and López de Sa summarize that reclaimed uses often function as irony or resilience and that “targetism”—the idea that only target-group members can successfully reclaim—is a central but contested claim ^[3].

3. Historical markers scholars cite for the N-word

Historical and cultural scholarship shows public, reclaimed uses of the N-word increased after major civil‑rights milestones; scholars note figures in comedy and music (e.g., Richard Pryor, later rap artists) as visible agents in the word’s changing register, but also emphasize that reclaiming the N-word carries unique weight because of its association with violence and Jim Crow-era vocative abuse ^{[4] [6] [7]}.

4. Empirical findings on effects and limits

Empirical work referenced by scholars finds that reclaimed uses can yield positive social effects within groups—fostering camaraderie or resilience—but also that reclaimed forms can be risky and do not erase historical harm. Studies cited by Cepollaro and colleagues report experimental evidence of some beneficial social effects, while critics point to the difficulty of controlling who uses the term once it circulates ^{[3] [8]}.

5. Who can “rightfully” reclaim? Scholarly debates

Many scholars emphasize the relevance of speaker identity: target-group membership or an “appropriate relationship” with the target group affects whether a reclaimed use is perceived as legitimate ^{[3] [9]}. Some theorists (e.g., Brontsema, discussed in reappropriation surveys) argue that terms like nigger/nigga remain off-limits to outsiders because of historical power imbalances; others note that strict membership rules are contested and that authoritative or “in-group-related” outsiders can sometimes use reclaimed terms without censure ^{[5] [3]}.

6. Semantic mechanisms scholars propose

Philosophical accounts model reclamation in different ways: echoic, pragmatic, and imperative theories attempt to explain how a slur’s force is shifted when used by insiders—either by quoting and defanging the slur or by using irony and resilience strategies to change its illocutionary effect ^{[9] [3]}. These debates map onto disagreements about whether reclamation alters the lexicon or mainly alters social practices of use ^[10].

7. Practical and ethical tensions scholars highlight

Scholars and commentators stress an unresolved tension: reclaiming can be empowering for some but remains painful and unacceptable to others, particularly older generations or those closely attuned to the word’s history; scholars warn reclaiming is risky because a term “takes on a life of its own” beyond intimate contexts ^{[8] [11]}. Academic reviewers therefore urge caution: reclamation is not a neutral linguistic fix but a contested social intervention ^{[1] [4]}.

8. What available sources do not cover

Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, single timeline of academic uses and dates mapping every scholarly intervention about reclaiming the N-word, nor do they list a definitive canon of which scholars first used the term in reclamatory senses in every decade; those specifics are not found in current reporting ^{[4] [2]}.

9. Bottom line for readers

Scholarly consensus is not monolithic: reclamation is recognized as a real linguistic and political practice with demonstrable internal benefits and semantic mechanics ^{[1] [3]}, while philosophers and cultural critics warn of limits tied to history, speaker identity, and social control ^{[2] [8]}. Any claim that reclaiming fully neutralizes the historical harm of the N-word is not supported by the cited literature ^{[1] [8]}.