Hubbry Logo
ReappropriationReappropriationMain
Open search
Reappropriation
Community hub
Reappropriation
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Reappropriation
Reappropriation
Reappropriation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Claude Monet's Impression, soleil levant was ridiculed as "Impression-ist" in 1872, but the term then became the name of the art movement, "impressionism", and painters began to self-identify as "impressionist".

In linguistics, reappropriation, reclamation, or resignification[1] is the cultural process by which a group reclaims words or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group. It is a specific form of a semantic change (i.e., change in a word's meaning). Linguistic reclamation can have wider implications in the fields of discourse and has been described in terms of personal or sociopolitical empowerment.

Characteristics

[edit]

A reclaimed or reappropriated word is a word that was at one time pejorative but has been brought back into acceptable usage, usually starting within its original target, i.e. the communities that were pejoratively described by that word, and later spreading to the general populace as well.[1][2][3] Some of the terms being reclaimed have originated as non-pejorative terms that over time became pejorative. Reclaiming them can be seen as restoring their original intent. This, however, does not apply to all such words as some were used in a derogatory fashion from the very beginning.[1]

In terms of linguistic theory, reappropriation can be seen as a specific case of a type of a semantic change, namely, of amelioration – a process through which a word's meaning becomes more positive over time.[4]

Robin Brontsema suggested that there are at least three mutually exclusive goals of reclamation:[1]

  1. Value reversal
  2. Neutralization
  3. Stigma exploitation

Value reversal refers to changing the meaning from pejorative to positive, while neutralization refers to changing the meaning from pejorative to neutral. Stigma exploitation, finally, refers to retaining the derogatory nature of such terms as a reminder that a given group has been subject to unfair treatment.

Reclamation can be seen as both a psychological, individual process and as a sociological, society-wide process.[5][6] In terms of a personal process, it has been discussed in the context of empowerment that comes from "disarming the power of a dominant group to control one's own and others' views of oneself", and gaining control over the way one is described, and hence, one's self-image, self-control and self-understanding.[6][3] Brontsema wrote that "At the heart of linguistic reclamation is the right of self-definition, of forging and naming one's own existence."[1] Other scholars have connected this concept to that of self-labelling.[3] The empowerment process, and the denial of language as a tool of oppression as abuse of power, has also been stressed by scholars such as Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, the latter who also referred to it as a "reverse discourse".[7]

In terms of the wider socio-political empowerment process, reclamation process has also been credited with promoting social justice,[8] and building group solidarity;[7] activist groups that engage in this process have been argued to be more likely to be seen as representative of their groups and see those groups as raising in power and status in their society.[3] Scholars have argued that those who use such terms to describe themselves in the act of reappropriation "will feel powerful and therefore see his or her group label as less stigmatizing. Observers will infer that the group has power and will therefore see the label as less saturated in negativity".[3]

Although those terms are most often used in the context of language, this concept has also been used in relation to other cultural concepts, for example in the discussion of reappropriation of stereotypes,[9] reappropriation of popular culture (e.g., the reappropriation of science fiction literature into elite, high literature[10]), or reappropriation of traditions.[11]

Controversy and objections

[edit]

Reclaimed words often remain controversial for a time, due to their original pejorative nature. For some terms, even "reclaimed" usage by members of the community concerned is a subject of controversy.[1] Often, not all members of a given community support the idea that a particular slur should be reclaimed at all.[1] In other cases, a word can be seen as acceptable when used by the members of the community that has reclaimed it (in-group usage), but its use by outside parties (out-group usage) can still be seen as derogatory and thus controversial.[7] For example, Brontsema noted in 2003 in his discussion of the reclaimed terms that while "[the term nigger (sometimes nigga)] may be acceptable for black people to use it freely, it is off-limits to whites, whose usage of nigger cannot be the same, given its history and the general history of racial oppression and racial relations in the United States."[1] A similar argument has been made in 2009 for words associated with the LGBT movement like queer or dyke.[12] A related discourse occurred with regards to the Washington Redskins name controversy, with the Native American community divided on whether the term has been reclaimed or not.[7]

Those opposed to the reclamation of terms have argued that such terms are irredeemable and are forever connected to their derogatory meaning, and their usage will continue to hurt those who remember its original intent[1] and even reinforce the existing stigma.[3] The supporters of reclamation argue, in turn, that many such words had non-derogatory meanings that are simply being restored and that in either case, reclaiming such a word denies it to those who would want to use it to oppress others and represents a form of moral victory for the group that reclaimed it.[1]

In 2017, the US Supreme Court heard arguments for Matal v. Tam. In that case, the US Patent and Trademark Office refused a trademark registration for an Asian American band, The Slants, because it deemed the term disparaging. However, the court ruled unanimously in the band's favor. Washington University in St. Louis conducted an extensive study on reappropriation based on the band name and found that reclaimed words could be an effective tool for neutralizing disparaging words: "Reappropriation does seem to work in the sense of defusing insults, rendering them less disparaging and harmful."[13]

For example the word "queer" in the sense of "homosexual" was originally strongly offensive, echoing the negative connotations of the word's older meanings, included "strange" and "odd". Since the 1980s, this term was reclaimed by some gay people as a self-reference. From nowadays, because of this reason, this term is still considered offensive by some, especially when used by a person whose sexual identity is not queer.[1][7]

Examples

[edit]

Sex and sexuality

[edit]

There are many recent examples of linguistic re-appropriation in the areas of human sexuality, gender roles, sexual orientation, etc. Among these are:

Politics

[edit]

In England, Cavalier was a derogatory nickname reappropriated as self-identification,[18] in contrast to the term Roundhead which, despite being used by the Royalists for the supporters of the Parliamentary cause, remained a derisory word up to the point of it being a punishable offense if used to refer to a soldier of the New Model Army.[19] Tory (originally from the Middle Irish word for 'pursuer' tóraidhe), Whig (from whiggamore; see the Whiggamore Raid) and Suffragette are other British examples.

In the American colonies, British officers used Yankee, a term originated in reference to Dutch settlers, as a derogatory term against the colonists. British officers created the early versions of the song "Yankee Doodle", as a criticism of the uncultured colonists, but during the Revolution, as the colonists began to reappropriate the label Yankee as a point of pride, they likewise reappropriated the song, altering verses, and turning it into a patriotic anthem.[20]

In the 1850s in the United States, a secretive political party was derisively dubbed the Know Nothing party, based on their penchant for saying "I know nothing" when asked for details by outsiders; this became the common name for the party. It eventually became a popular name, sufficiently so that consumer products like tea, candy, and even a freighter were branded with the name.[21]

Anarchism was mostly a derogatory term used by opponents of collectivist forms of socialism, until it was adopted by the anarchist movement in the late 1800s.[22]

During the 2016 United States presidential election, Hillary Clinton referred to some Trump supporters as a "Basket of deplorables". Many Trump supporters endorsed the phrase.[23] Donald Trump also played the song "Do You Hear the People Sing?" from the musical Les Misérables as an introduction to one of his rallies, using a graphic captioned "Les Deplorables".[24][25] Subsequently, Trump called Clinton a "nasty woman" during the final presidential debate, resulting in that expression being described as a "rallying cry" for women.[26] It was soon featured on merchandise and used by Clinton's campaign surrogates.[27][28]

Religion

[edit]

Rafida, an early derogatory term for those who rejected the Caliphate in favor of the Imamate,[29][full citation needed] was reappropriated in Twelver Shiism, via sayings attributed to Shia Imams, that reframe this term favorably as those who reject oppression and injustice. In one such oral tradition, Rafida are identified as a small group among the people of Pharaoh who rejected his rule, undaunted by his threats of punishment. This tradition is a reference to verses 7:120–126 and 20:70–75 of the Quran. According to some Twelver traditions, the term Rafida appeared also in the Tawrat.[30][full citation needed]

A later example of successful reclaiming is the term Jesuit to refer to members of the Society of Jesus. This was originally a derogatory term referring to people who too readily invoked the name of Jesus in their politics, but that members of the Society adopted over time for themselves, so that the word came to refer exclusively to them, and generally in a positive or neutral sense,[31] even though the term "Jesuitical" is derived from the Society of Jesus and is used to mean things like: manipulative, conspiring, treacherous, capable of intellectually justifying anything by convoluted reasoning.[32][33][34][35]

Other examples can be found in the origins of Methodism; early members were originally mocked for their "methodical" and rule-driven religious devotion, founder John Wesley embraced the term for his movement.[36] Members of the Religious Society of Friends were termed Quakers as an epithet, but took up the term themselves. Similarly, the term Protestant was originally a derogatory term, and more recently the term pagan has been subject to a similar change in meaning.[7]

Race, ethnicity, and nationality

[edit]

To a lesser extent, and more controversially among the groups referred to, many racial, ethnic, and class terms have been reappropriated:

  • Baster, the name is derived from bastaard, the Dutch word for "bastard". They are a Southern African ethnic group descended from White European men and Black African women. The Basters reappropriated it as a "proud name", claiming their ancestry and history.[37]
  • Black, and Negro by African Americans and to a lesser extent nigga, or nigger though the last two are still extremely controversial.[2][38]
  • Curry, used a derogatory term for South Asians (often in conjunction with muncher or slurper), reappropriated by some members of the South Asian expatriate or American-Born Confused Desi community.[39]
  • Jew by the Jewish people (the word used to be seen as pejorative in English).[40][41][42] That process is still not complete in some Slavic languages, where the word Zhyd (Cyrillic: жид) can still be seen as pejorative.[43]
  • Kugel, playful South African English slang for a materialistic young woman, originally was a derogatory term used by the elder generation of South African Jews for a young Jewish woman who forsook traditional Jewish dress values for those of the ostentatiously wealthy and became overly materialistic and over-groomed. The term was then reclaimed by those women.[44]
  • Peckerwood, originally black slang in the Southern United States for poor white people, reclaimed by white prison gangs[45][46][47]
  • Smoggie, originally a derogatory term for people from the North East England town of Middlesbrough, in reference to the town's notorious industrial pollution, now commonly used in self-identification.[48]
  • White trash, a classist slur referring to poor white people, reappropriated by some in the Southern states of the United States of America as a cultural symbol and badge of pride[49][50] - however this re-appropriation has not been as evident in mainstream British English syntax where it is used in a more condescending or sarcastic manner.
  • Wog by Australians of Greek, Italian, Arab or Turkish descent.[51]
  • Ukrop, originally an ethnic slur for Ukrainians. Literally "dill", a pun: Ukrainian = ukrop.[52] The slur was reappropriated by Ukrainians during the war in Donbas[53] and later adopted by the UKROP party.

Disability

[edit]

Art movements

[edit]
  • Impressionists In 1874 during their first independent art show, critic Louis Leroy penned a hostile review of the show in Le Charivari newspaper under the title "The Exhibition of the Impression-ists". In particular he used the painting Impression, soleil levant by Claude Monet to ridicule the painters for their lack of seriousness preferring to paint "fleeting impressions of the moment" rather than allegorical or ultra-realist themes.[55][56]
  • Stuckism is an international art movement founded in 1999; its members produce figurative art. Tracey Emin, one of the Young British Artists known for their conceptual art, accused her then-boyfriend of lack of imagination or reach, of being "stuck". He took on the term.[57]
  • Shoegaze is a genre of music characterized by traits such as heavily distorted guitars. The term "shoegaze" was initially a pejorative label, criticizing performers for tending to stand still and closely watch their effects pedals during concerts; however, critics and artists later began to embrace the name.[58]

Feminism

[edit]

Words some feminist activists have argued should be reclaimed include:

Others

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Reappropriation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Reappropriation, also known as reclamation or resignification, is the sociolinguistic process whereby members of a subordinated or targeted group repurpose a slur or derogatory label—previously employed by dominant out-groups to enforce subordination—for in-group self-identification, , , or ironic , aiming to invert or dilute its original stigmatizing connotations. Theoretically, this practice operates through mechanisms such as self-labeling, which reciprocally bolsters group agency and reframes the term's semantics from external to internal affiliation, potentially fostering resilience against out-group . Historical instances, including the in-group adoption of terms like those targeting ethnic or sexual minorities, illustrate attempts to wrest narrative control from oppressors, though success varies by context and power dynamics. Empirical studies offer limited but suggestive that reappropriation enhances individual and in-group perceptions of power, reduces the emotional sting of the label for claimants, and may promote positive self-evaluations amid acknowledged , mediated by increased over linguistic identity. However, causal impacts on out-group or societal stigma remain understudied, with preliminary data indicating primarily intra-group benefits rather than widespread neutralization of the slur's derogatory potential. Defining controversies center on the inherent ambiguity of reclaimed slurs, which can lead to misinterpretation in intergroup settings—potentially reinforcing harm when out-group members invoke the term pejoratively—and challenges in distinguishing reclamation from perpetuation, as evidenced in legal and pragmatic analyses where intent proves elusive. This duality underscores reappropriation's role as a double-edged : empowering for participants yet precarious in broader discourse, where entrenched power asymmetries may limit its transformative reach.

Definition and Core Concepts

Linguistic and Cultural Definition

Reappropriation, linguistically, denotes the process whereby members of a targeted group adopt a term or slur originally imposed by out-groups, repurposing it for in-group communication to diminish its derogatory force or invest it with empowering or neutral connotations. This reclamation, sometimes termed resignification, hinges on voluntary self-application by the affected , which can alter semantic associations over time through repeated in-group usage, though empirical linguistic shifts vary by term and context. For instance, slurs like those targeting ethnic or sexual minorities may evolve via mechanisms such as irony or solidarity signaling, but success in fully decoupling original stigma remains context-dependent and not universally achieved. Culturally, reappropriation extends beyond lexicon to encompass the reclamation of symbols, artifacts, or practices historically weaponized for , enabling the originating group to redefine their intrinsic value and resist external stigmatization. This process often intersects with , where subordinated communities assert agency by integrating demeaned elements into affirmative narratives, as observed in movements traditional attire or motifs stripped of context by dominant cultures. Unlike appropriation by out-groups, which typically reinforces power asymmetries without consent, cultural reappropriation prioritizes endogenous control, though its efficacy in altering broader societal perceptions is debated, with some analyses indicating persistent external derogation despite in-group adoption. Such dynamics underscore reappropriation's role as a strategic response to historical marginalization, grounded in group-level semantic and symbolic renegotiation rather than passive acceptance of imposed meanings.

Mechanisms of Reclamation

Reappropriation, or reclamation, of derogatory terms typically occurs through a combination of linguistic, psychological, and social processes that aim to alter the term's valence within the targeted group. Linguistically, one primary mechanism is semantic reclamation, where repeated in-group usage introduces or , allowing the term to develop a non-pejorative alongside its original derogatory one. This relies on contextual cues to disambiguate meanings, such that the reclaimed activates primarily in supportive in-group settings, as evidenced by experimental studies showing differential cognitive of reclaimed slurs compared to unreclaimed ones. Pragmatically, reclamation often employs irony or echoic uses, where the slur is uttered with subversive intent to mock its oppressive history, fostering resilience by reframing the term as a of endurance rather than submission. Psychologically, self-labeling with a stigmatizing term activates reframing, whereby individuals reject the imposed negative connotations and attribute positive attributes—like or defiance—to the label, thereby reducing its emotional impact and enhancing perceived personal power. demonstrates that such self-application correlates with diminished stigma perception and increased self-assurance, particularly when the term is used in ingroup contexts, as low-power groups experimentally gain a of through deliberate adoption. This mechanism operates via reciprocal dynamics: initial self-labeling boosts subjective power, which in turn sustains the label's positive reinterpretation. Socially, reclamation functions through ingroup boundary enforcement, where the term's use signals affiliation and excludes outgroup appropriation, thereby subverting the original power imbalance by denying oppressors control over the . Studies indicate that ingroup reclamation increases and reduces the term's offensive potency within the group, though outgroup observers often perceive it as less acceptable, highlighting context-dependence. However, causal suggests limited spillover: while ingroup desensitization occurs, the term retains derogatory force for external audiences, underscoring that reclamation does not universally neutralize harm but rather partitions usage pragmatically.

Historical Development

Early Historical Instances

The term "Christian" originated as an external label applied to followers of in Antioch around 40 AD, derived from Greek Christianos ("follower of Christ"), likely with mocking intent akin to "little Christ" to deride their devotion. Early believers initially identified as disciples or by locality (e.g., "of the Way"), but by the late 2nd century, figures like embraced the term in self-reference, transforming it into a positive identifier amid persecution. In 1650, English judge Gervase Bennet derogatorily nicknamed George Fox's followers "Quakers" after Fox urged him to "tremble at the word of God," referencing their ecstatic shaking during worship. The group, formally the Religious Society of Friends, adopted the epithet despite preferring their internal name, using it defiantly in legal defenses and publications to assert identity against mockery and imprisonment. During the mid-18th century, British forces applied ""—possibly from Dutch "Janke" ( of Jan, used mockingly for )—as a slur against American colonists, notably in military contexts like James Wolfe's 1758 taunts. By the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), colonists reappropriated it as a symbol of defiance, evident in songs like "" (adapted from British ridicule to patriotic anthem in 1775), signaling in-group pride over out-group disdain.

Modern Evolution in Identity Politics

In the mid-20th century, reappropriation emerged as a strategic tool in during the U.S. and the subsequent Black Power era of the 1960s and 1970s. Activists deliberately shifted from terms like "Negro," which carried connotations of imposed by dominant , to "Black" as a marker of and cultural pride, exemplified by organizations such as the founded in 1966. This linguistic pivot aimed to neutralize external derogation by internalizing and revaluing the term, fostering group cohesion amid systemic oppression, though it did not eliminate out-group hostility toward the label. The LGBTQ rights movement paralleled this development, accelerating after the on June 28, 1969, which catalyzed widespread activism. Early reclamation focused on "gay," repurposed from a slur implying deviance to a positive self-identifier by groups like the established in 1969, emphasizing visibility and resistance. By the 1980s, amid the AIDS crisis and academic queer theory's rise—pioneered by scholars like in works from 1990—"" was reappropriated as a broad, defiant term rejecting assimilationist norms, though intra-community debates persisted over its universal acceptability. Extending into intersectional from the onward, reappropriation incorporated multiple axes of marginalization, such as in feminist reclamation of "bitch" to subvert misogynistic control, as analyzed in historical linguistic studies tracing its evolution from medieval insults to modern . advocates similarly repurposed terms like "crip" in the through groups like the Disabled People's International, founded in 1981, to challenge medicalized stigma. , including experiments on self-labeling, shows reappropriation can enhance perceived in-group power and reduce internalized negativity, with one 2009 study finding stigmatized groups reporting higher after adopting reclaimed labels in controlled scenarios. However, the same evidence reveals limited diffusion to out-groups, often provoking backlash or reinforcing divisions rather than broader neutralization.

Theoretical Frameworks

Social Identity and Empowerment Theories

(SIT), developed by and in the , posits that individuals derive part of their from group memberships, leading to and efforts to achieve positive distinctiveness. In the context of reappropriation, SIT frames the practice as a mechanism for stigmatized groups to redefine slurs, converting external derogations into internal symbols that bolster group cohesion and . By in-group usage, the term's indexical meaning—its interpretation tied to the speaker's social identity—shifts from to affiliative, reducing its harmful potency when deployed by out-groups while reinforcing solidarity among members. Empowerment theories complement SIT by emphasizing reappropriation's role in psychological and social agency reclamation. These frameworks argue that self-labeling with formerly oppressive terms disrupts power imbalances, as marginalized groups seize narrative control, transforming stigma into a source of pride and resilience. For instance, a reciprocal model links self-labeling to elevated perceived power: initial acts of reclamation signal internal strength, which in turn facilitates broader adoption and norm challenges, as evidenced in experimental findings where participants using reclaimed labels reported higher group status. Drawing on theory, via reappropriation alters the felicity conditions of slurs—prerequisites for their derogatory force—allowing in-group speakers to perform assertive, non-subordinating uses that foster identity reconstruction. This process, observed in movements since the , requires underlying group power to propagate from individual to collective levels, ultimately aiming to reshape out-group perceptions. However, theories acknowledge complexities, such as risks of misinterpretation or incomplete semantic shifts, underscoring reappropriation's context-dependent efficacy.

Linguistic and Causal Realist Critiques

Linguists and philosophers of contend that slurs possess a robust derogatory semantics or that reappropriation fails to fully expunge, as the terms conventionally presuppose negative stereotypes about the target group, independent of speaker intent or context. Under presuppositional theories, slurs like "" for trigger a non-cancellable inference of group-based despicability (e.g., " are despicable because of being Italian"), which projects even under or , rendering reclamation—typically limited to in-group ironic or uses—ineffective at altering the term's core linguistic force in broader discourse. This persistence arises because presuppositions operate as background assumptions required for felicitous utterance, not merely as cancellable implicatures, so subgroup redefinition does not overwrite communal conventions. Such accounts highlight reclamation's contextual fragility: while in-group uses may subvert via irony or identity signaling, the slur's expressive profile retains potential for reactivation by out-group speakers, perpetuating and risk of . Philosophers further argue that even non- or reclaimed deployments endorse defective attitudes toward the group, such as rooted in historical subordination, making the act pro tanto wrong irrespective of observable harms or psychological effects on hearers. This effect-independent moral defect stems from the slur's role in manifesting speaker endorsement of ideologies, not just descriptive reference, undermining claims that reappropriation neutralizes inherent offensiveness. From a causal realist standpoint, reappropriation overlooks the entrenched causal pathways linking slurs to tangible social harms, as the terms' potency derives from historical patterns of —such as enforced subordination or —rather than mutable linguistic conventions alone. Symbolic reclamation does not interrupt these causal chains, which operate through reinforced and power asymmetries persisting beyond verbal resignification. Empirical investigations into cognitive processing of reclaimed slurs, including LGBTQ+ terms, reveal no consistent reduction in status or neural activation patterns associated with offense, suggesting limited causal efficacy in diminishing discriminatory impacts. Critics note the absence of rigorous longitudinal data demonstrating that in-group adoption causally lowers out-group aggression or , positing instead that it may inadvertently sustain the slur's cultural salience, facilitating inadvertent or opportunistic harmful uses without addressing root causal factors like institutional inequities. This view prioritizes interventions targeting verifiable causal mechanisms—economic, legal, or behavioral—over performative linguistic shifts that risk performative failure without structural alteration.

Empirical Evidence

In-Group Solidarity and Psychological Effects

Reappropriation of slurs by targeted in-groups has been empirically linked to enhanced perceptions of personal power and reduced negativity toward the label itself. A 2023 study replicating and extending Galinsky et al.'s (2013) model examined self-labeling and in-group labeling of homophobic epithets among across two experiments (N=158 in Study 1; N=99 in Study 2). Both self- and in-group uses increased participants' sense of self-power and diminished the perceived negativity of the compared to out-group uses, suggesting reappropriation serves as a strategy to counteract stigmatization and foster . Similar dynamics appear in racial contexts, where in-group reappropriation of slurs or jokes promotes intra-group and elevates positive ingroup affect. For instance, minority groups' humorous intra-group use of racial slurs has been shown to strengthen bonds and emotional ties within the group, aligning with broader patterns of through linguistic control. However, empirical support is not uniform. A 2021 dissertation study exposed Black American participants (N=118) to appropriated slurs and measured via activation and academic performance tasks, finding no significant reduction in threat or effects, indicating that reappropriation may not consistently mitigate psychological burdens like stereotype endorsement. Among LGBT+ individuals, exposure to reclaimed slurs in supportive contexts can boost self-assurance by framing the term as an exclusive marker of shared minority experience, though it often evokes due to lingering shock or fears of normalizing out-group offensiveness. Qualitative interviews (N=12) revealed reclaimed as a non-offensive mechanism in homophobic environments, yet participants noted mixed emotional responses, highlighting potential limits to unalloyed psychological benefits.

Out-Group Responses and Measurable Outcomes

Out-group members, defined as individuals not belonging to the targeted group, typically perceive reclaimed slurs used by in-group members as less offensive than the same terms deployed derogatorily by out-group speakers. A 2023 experimental study on homophobic epithets found that observers rated in-group reclamation—whereby targeted individuals voluntarily apply the term to themselves or fellow members—as significantly lower in offensiveness compared to out-group usage, attributing this to contextual cues of rather than . This pattern holds across slur types, including racial and sexist variants, with ratings reflecting an "offensiveness gap" influenced by speaker-group alignment. However, reclamation does not eliminate offensiveness for out-group perceivers, often eliciting or heightened vigilance. In a 2025 study examining of reclaimed among heterosexual participants exposed to in-group () usage of terms like "fag" in supportive contexts, responses indicated a "red alert" effect: unlike neutral insults, such exposure amplified and , suggesting reclamation signals underlying group tensions rather than neutralization. This contrasts with mere insults, where no such escalation occurred, implying causal reinforcement of intergroup boundaries. Measurable outcomes for out-group attitudes remain limited and mixed, with short-term lab effects dominating over longitudinal . Galinsky et al.'s 2013 experiments across 10 studies established that witnessing or engaging in reappropriation boosts the in-group's self-perceived power (e.g., via scales measuring influence and control, with effect sizes around d=0.5-0.8), potentially leading out-group observers to recalibrate the group's status upward and adjust behaviors accordingly—such as reduced but sustained avoidance of the term to evade backlash. No robust evidence links reappropriation to broad reductions in out-group or rates; instead, it may entrench norms prohibiting out-group adoption, as evidenced by persistent higher offensiveness ratings (e.g., means 4-5 on 7-point scales for out-group attempts) and cultural prohibitions observed in media and policy. These findings, drawn from experiments, warrant caution due to the field's documented replicability issues and potential overemphasis on narratives.

Key Examples

Racial and Ethnic Reappropriations

Reappropriation of racial and ethnic slurs typically involves members of the targeted group adopting the terms internally to signify , subvert derogatory intent, and assert control over stigmatizing language, though such efforts often remain confined to in-group contexts and provoke debate over reinforcement of . Empirical studies indicate that in-group use of slurs can reduce perceived offensiveness among observers familiar with the context, potentially fostering by reframing the term as affiliative rather than . However, out-group application retains derogatory force, highlighting the conditional nature of reclamation. A prominent example is the African American community's partial reappropriation of the "N-word," evolving from its origins as a dehumanizing slur during the transatlantic slave trade, where it denoted enslaved Black people as property. By the mid-20th century, particularly amid civil rights struggles and the rise of hip-hop in the 1980s, a phonetic variant—"nigga"—emerged in in-group speech and music to convey camaraderie, resilience, or shared experience, as documented in cultural analyses of rap lyrics from groups like N.W.A. in their 1988 album Straight Outta Compton. This usage peaked in popular media; for instance, a 2007 Pew Research Center survey found 70% of Black Americans viewed the term as offensive when used by non-Blacks but acceptable in some intra-community contexts. Psychological research supports that such reappropriation can enhance in-group control and reduce emotional harm from the slur's historical weight, though critics argue it perpetuates intra-group divisiveness without altering broader power dynamics. In the ethnic domain, reappropriated "" during the 1960s , transforming a term rooted in early 20th-century Southwestern U.S. slang—derived from "Mexicano" and used pejoratively to denote lower-class immigrants of Indigenous-Mexican descent—into a badge of political and cultural pride. Sparked by events like the 1968 East walkouts involving 10,000 students protesting educational inequities and César Chávez's strikes beginning in 1962, which mobilized over 17,000 workers by 1970, the term symbolized resistance to assimilation and Anglo dominance. This reclamation fueled , a nationalist ideology emphasizing heritage and , evident in , , and organizations like the National against the in 1970, which drew 30,000 participants. While empowering for participants—evidenced by sustained use in academic fields like , with over 50 U.S. programs by the —its adoption waned post-1970s amid generational shifts, though revivals occur in . Unlike the N-word, Chicano's reappropriation achieved broader institutional recognition without equivalent intra-group controversy over normalization.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Terms

The term "," historically denoting peculiarity or strangeness since the , evolved into a derogatory slur against perceived homosexuals by the 1890s in English-speaking contexts, often implying deviance or criminality. Reclamation efforts intensified in the late 1980s during the epidemic, as activists in groups like adopted it to challenge assimilationist tendencies within the gay rights movement and assert a more radical, inclusive identity encompassing non-normative sexual orientations and gender expressions. In 1990, the activist collective explicitly reclaimed "" through public chants and demonstrations in , framing it as an umbrella term for anyone opposing heteronormativity, which broadened its application beyond homosexuality to include bisexual, , and fluid identities. By the early 1990s, queer theory formalized this reappropriation in academia, with scholars analyzing it as a tool for deconstructing binary categories of sex, gender, and sexuality, though this intellectual shift drew criticism for prioritizing abstraction over concrete political gains. Surveys indicate that between 5% and 20% of non-heterosexual individuals now self-identify as queer, reflecting its mainstreaming as a positive, non-specific label, particularly among younger cohorts who view it as flexible and anti-essentialist. Empirical research on linguistic reclamation suggests that in-group use of "queer" can enhance self-assurance and reduce the sting of its historical negativity by fostering a sense of agency and collective power, as demonstrated in studies linking self-labeling with reclaimed slurs to improved psychological empowerment among stigmatized groups. Other sexual orientation terms have seen partial reappropriation within specific subcommunities. "Dyke," a slur targeting s since the mid-20th century, gained traction as a of in feminist and circles from the onward, often paired with "bull dyke" to signify toughness and resistance to patriarchal norms; in-group adoption has been linked to heightened perceptions of control and efficacy in experimental settings. Similarly, "" or "fag," historically a violent evoking burning at the stake, is occasionally reclaimed in campy or ironic contexts within male subcultures, such as drag performance, though studies show its use can diminish perceived agency compared to neutral labels like "." In Poland, during the 2020–2021 protests against abortion law restrictions, LGBT+ and women's rights activists reclaimed the homophobic slur "pedał" in the solidarity slogan "pedały z kobietami" to promote empowerment and intersectional solidarity, with research indicating mixed perceptions but potential for reduced stigma in supportive contexts. For gender-related terms, ""—once a mocking label for effeminate boys—has niche reclamation among some gender-nonconforming individuals as a playful embrace of , but remains highly divisive and less widespread than "." Reappropriation of these terms remains contentious, with older generations within the LGBTQ often rejecting "" due to its traumatic associations as a slur, as evidenced by listener backlash to media normalization in surveys. Cognitive studies further reveal that reclamation alters slur processing speeds and emotional valence in reclaimed users, reducing inhibition, yet out-group exposure can reinforce stigma if context is ambiguous. Overall, while these efforts have neutralized derogatory force for in-group , they have not universally eliminated offense, with semantic analyses highlighting persistent affective complexity tied to historical power imbalances.

Disability and Other Marginalized Identities

In disability activism, reappropriation involves disabled individuals and communities adopting historically derogatory terms as affirmations of identity, , and resistance to stigma, often emphasizing identity-first such as "disabled " over euphemistic alternatives like " with a ." This practice, which gained traction in the late amid broader movements, aims to subvert ableist power structures by transforming slurs into markers of pride and shared experience, though acceptance varies widely within communities and can provoke backlash from those preferring avoidance of such . For instance, self-identification as "disabled" has become prevalent in circles, with surveys of activists showing higher rates of this preference compared to the general public, reflecting a deliberate reclamation to highlight systemic barriers rather than individual deficits. A prominent example is the reclamation of "crip," a shortening of "," which originated as a slur but has been repurposed since the in academic and activist contexts like crip , a framework developed by scholars such as Robert McRuer to critique normative embodiment and advocate for across fluid abilities. In crip , the term fosters disidentification with ableist norms, acknowledging bodily variability as politically salient rather than tragic, and has been adopted in queer-disability intersections where " crip" denotes reclaimed dual marginalization. Usage remains in-group specific; for example, disabled scholars argue it signals resilience and insider status, but external application risks perpetuating harm, as evidenced by ongoing debates in journals where not all physically disabled individuals endorse it due to personal trauma associations. Parallel efforts appear in advocacy through the movement, which emerged in the 1990s and explicitly reclaims "mad" and "crazy" to challenge psychiatric pathologization and celebrate neurodivergence as cultural variation rather than illness. Participants, including those with of or institutionalization, use these terms in events like parades—first held in in 1993 and expanding globally—to build community and critique coercive treatment models, though critics within contend such reclamation may downplay severe impairments requiring medical intervention. Similar in-group dynamics apply to sporadic reclamations of terms like "spaz" among friends with mobility impairments, framing them as affectionate camaraderie rather than insult, underscoring reappropriation's context-dependence and potential for without universal endorsement. For other marginalized identities intersecting with , such as neurodivergence, reappropriation manifests in embracing labels like "autistic" or "neurodivergent" to reject deficit models, though this often involves paradigm shifts more than slur inversion, with autistic self-advocates since the early promoting these as neutral descriptors of innate wiring amid debates over whether they obscure high-support needs. Empirical studies indicate that while these terms enhance in-group —e.g., via online communities fostering —they elicit mixed out-group responses, including resistance from clinicians prioritizing functional impairments over celebratory framing. Overall, these practices highlight reappropriation's role in fostering resilience but reveal tensions between and the risk of alienating allies or minimizing empirical challenges like access barriers.

Political and Artistic Contexts

In political movements, reappropriation of derogatory labels has frequently functioned to neutralize insults, foster group cohesion, and advance . The term "suffragette," introduced by the in 1906 as a mocking diminutive for militant members of the British , was rapidly adopted by and her followers, who repurposed it as a symbol of defiant in their campaign for women's voting rights. During the 2013 Gezi Park protests in , Turkish Prime Minister derided demonstrators as çapulcu (looters or marauders) on June 2, 2013, prompting protesters to reclaim the word—coining the verb "chapulling" to denote —which unified a heterogeneous and amplified their message through and street actions. In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton's September 9 speech categorizing half of Donald Trump's supporters as a "basket of deplorables"—implying traits like and —led many adherents to embrace the epithet defiantly, with Trump affirming in a December 13, 2017, speech, "We're proud to be the deplorables," thereby converting the slur into a rallying identity. Such tactics in often leverage the original slur's specificity to a perceived adversary, enabling rapid without requiring new terminology. Empirical analysis of the Gezi events indicates that reappropriating çapulcu enhanced protesters' and collective efficacy, as participants reported diminished emotional impact from the insult and increased motivation for sustained engagement. In the deplorables case, surveys post-2016 showed the label's uptake correlated with heightened among affected demographics, suggesting reappropriation mitigated alienation and reinforced partisan . In artistic domains, reappropriation manifests through subversive reuse of symbols and terms in creative works, aiming to dismantle their oppressive associations from within cultural production. African American fashion designer Patrick Kelly, whose career peaked in the late 1980s and early 1990s, integrated stereotypical racist imagery—such as grinning mammy dolls, watermelon prints, and references—into high-fashion garments, explicitly framing these as acts of reclamation to confront and invert their historical degradation of Black identity. Kelly's collections, showcased in from 1985 onward, drew on personal heritage while challenging white audiences' comfort, with pieces like his 1988 "Mammy" skirt suit using bold colors and exaggeration to assert over . Hip-hop artists have similarly repurposed racial slurs like the n-word in lyrics and performances since the genre's emergence in the 1970s Bronx scene, evolving it into a vernacular marker of intra-community resilience and critique of systemic racism, as evidenced in tracks by groups like N.W.A. from 1988's Straight Outta Compton, where the term underscores defiance against external derogation. This linguistic shift, documented in analyses of rap's lexical patterns, reflects a causal mechanism where in-group usage dilutes out-group weaponization, though it remains contested for potential commodification in commercial contexts. In both Kelly's visual provocations and hip-hop's auditory reclamations, the process hinges on artists' insider status to redefine meanings, often yielding measurable cultural diffusion—such as Kelly's designs entering museum collections by 1990—while exposing tensions in broader societal acceptance.

Controversies and Objections

Risks of Reinforcement and Backlash

Reappropriation of slurs risks reinforcing their derogatory force rather than fully neutralizing it, as in-group self-labeling often fails to diminish the term's stigmatizing impact for out-group audiences or in broader cultural contexts. Empirical analyses show that highly charged labels like the N-word or F-word retain significant offensiveness despite reclamation efforts, potentially perpetuating negative tied to historical . This incomplete decoupling can lead to cognitive of harm, where the term's original associations linger, undermining the intended and risking inadvertent normalization for misuse. Backlash frequently arises from out-group attempts to invoke reclaimed terms, interpreted as overstepping boundaries and evoking . In July 2018, at a concert in , a white audience member was halted mid-performance and publicly shamed by Lamar for rapping the N-word from the artist's lyrics, illustrating strict in-group exclusivity and immediate social repercussions. Similarly, the received over 18,600 complaints in June 2020 after publishing the full N-word in a news article about its usage, reflecting widespread outrage over perceived insensitivity even in journalistic contexts. Within reappropriating groups, can foster internal of , with users expressing shock or fear that reclamation normalizes slurs for out-group deployment in hostile environments. Qualitative interviews with LGBT+ individuals in homophobic settings reveal that while self-use provides agency, it triggers concerns over desensitization and heightened exposure to traditional . Perceptions of reclaimed derogatory labels, such as "fag" for , also correlate with reduced attributions of agency compared to neutral descriptors, potentially amplifying psychological costs. These dynamics highlight causal limitations in reappropriation's transformative potential, where group-specific reclamation does not erase out-group offense triggers, often escalating polarization instead of resolution.

Critiques from Power Dynamics and Victimhood Perspectives

Critics contend that reappropriation does not fundamentally dismantle the power asymmetries embedded in slurs, as reclaimed terms often retain their derogatory connotations and offensive impact when used by out-groups, thereby preserving the original linguistic mechanisms of dominance and exclusion. This persistent means that marginalized groups gain limited in-group utility while dominant groups hold onto the capacity to weaponize the word, failing to shift broader relational power dynamics. Philosophical analyses further argue that reclamation projects can backfire, reinforcing oppressive ideologies when they fail to be recognized as subversive or when allows unintended derogatory interpretations, thus strengthening rather than eroding the structures of historical subjugation. For example, equating the of reclaimed slurs with everyday linguistic overlooks the unique, enduring harms tied to their oppressive origins, such as associations with or , potentially normalizing in uncontrolled contexts. Such failures impose ongoing burdens on target communities to police usage and context, entrenching reactive strategies that accommodate rather than transcend power imbalances. From victimhood perspectives, these limitations suggest reappropriation may perpetuate a grievance-oriented identity, as the positive revaluation depends on continual reference to past , keeping groups psychologically anchored to trauma narratives rather than fostering detachment or self-definition independent of slurs. By minimizing the gravity of derogatory histories in pursuit of pride-based uses, reclamation risks internalizing stigma without eliminating it, which critics liken to a form of symbolic accommodation that sustains victim signaling over empirical . Empirical studies on stigma reduction remain inconclusive, with some reclamation efforts showing no broad of negative associations beyond insular settings.

Free Speech and Normalization Concerns

Reappropriation of slurs has been upheld as a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, as demonstrated in the 2017 Supreme Court case , where the band successfully challenged the denial of a for their name—a term historically used as an anti-Asian slur—on grounds that the Lanham Act's prohibition of disparaging marks constituted viewpoint discrimination. The ruling emphasized that even offensive or reclaimed language cannot be censored by government action, affirming reappropriation's role in countering derogatory uses through expressive reclamation. However, critics argue that selective permissions for in-group use, as in social media policies allowing "self-referential" slurs but prohibiting out-group deployment, risk inconsistent enforcement and , potentially chilling broader discourse by prioritizing group identity over neutral speech protections. Normalization concerns arise from the potential for in-group reclamation to erode a slur's perceived offensiveness, facilitating unauthorized out-group adoption and diluting its reclaimed empowering function. For instance, widespread in-group use of terms like the N-word in music has been cited by out-group members as justification for their own usage, as seen in incidents where non-Black individuals invoked cultural examples to defend deployment, provoking backlash and undermining anti-prejudice efforts. Empirical studies on appropriated slurs indicate that ingroup adaptation can heighten when out-groups mimic the practice, as the term's refurbished ingroup solidarity fails to transfer across boundaries, leading to misinterpretation and harm. This diffusion risks transforming reappropriation from a targeted act of resistance into generalized normalization, where the slur loses specificity to the group's experience and regains derogatory traction in mixed contexts. When reclamation falters due to ambiguous context or incomplete uptake, it can reinforce rather than subvert oppressive norms, with hearers defaulting to the slur's historical derogatory force and entrenching stigma. Linguistic analyses highlight this precariousness: failed performative reclamation distorts intent, validating traditional harms and amplifying backlash against the targeted group, as conventions prioritize entrenched meanings over novel reframings. Such outcomes underscore causal risks where partial normalization invites misuse without achieving full neutralization, perpetuating cycles of offense despite initial empowering aims.

References

  1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23955354/
  2. https://philarchive.org/archive/POPRTB
  3. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lpp-2024-0029/html
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103123001403
  5. https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/research/detail/2003/the-reappropriation-of-stigmatizing-labels-implications-for-social-identity/
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255975002_The_Reappropriation_of_Stigmatizing_Labels_The_Reciprocal_Relationship_Between_Power_and_Self-Labeling
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235283579_The_reappropriation_of_stigmatizing_labels_Implications_for_social_identity
  8. https://thesis.unipd.it/retrieve/02c6a2f5-eced-44bd-b388-a30a4fe735e2/pdf%2520a.pdf
  9. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2025.2469581
  10. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.13022
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216614000526
  12. https://journals.colorado.edu/index.php/cril/article/download/255/235/529
  13. https://www.rosettatranslation.com/linguistic-reappropriation-a-battle-of-wills-over-meaning/
  14. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lpp-2024-0029/html?lang=en
  15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24539396
  16. https://philarchive.org/archive/JUSSRI
  17. https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/69101/1/Reclaiming%2520Colourful%2520Language%2520-%2520The%2520Impact%2520of%2520Linguistic%2520Reclamation%2520on%2520the%2520Cognitive%2520Processing%2520of%2520LGBTQ%252B%2520Slurs.pdf
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354904043_The_Moral_Status_of_the_Reclamation_of_Slurs
  19. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0261927X231173147
  20. https://www.mariettatimes.com/news/religion/2024/02/christians-were-known-by-how-they-acted-not-what-they-said/
  21. https://precepts.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/2459/
  22. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11x2681/when_did_christians_begin_referring_to_themselves/
  23. https://www.haverford.edu/quaker-studies-working-group/religious-society-friends
  24. https://quaker.org/legacy/disown.html
  25. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yankee-nickname
  26. https://www.masslive.com/sponsor-content/?scid=123474&prx_t=MuwCAJ7cRAmxEPA
  27. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yankees-is-just-as-bad-as-redskins/2013/09/20/927a2c46-2085-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html
  28. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/different-fight-same-goal-how-black-freedom-movement-inspired-early-n1259072
  29. https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/is-queer-ok-to-say-heres-why-we-use-it
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321921389_Social_identity_indexicality_and_the_appropriation_of_slurs
  31. https://hal.science/hal-04361226
  32. https://philpapers.org/archive/CEPIDO.pdf
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0388000115000583
  34. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/no-harm-still-foul-on-the-effectindependent-wrongness-of-slurring/2EF29DCFA262CE271E4F6BA115B1F159
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386381130_Slur_reclamation_irony_and_resilience
  36. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/10388/
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103114000390
  38. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0261927X20904983
  39. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-64119-005
  40. https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53749800
  41. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0075424211414807
  42. https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-219
  43. https://www.history.com/articles/chicano-movement
  44. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/chicano-renaissance-new-mexican-american-generation-embraces-term-n869846
  45. https://sites.psu.edu/rhetoricallyspeaking/2023/11/28/evolution-of-queer/
  46. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3485&context=scripps_theses
  47. https://digitalprojects.binghamton.edu/s/humdev357/page/language-labels-sexual-evolution
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X22002330
  49. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0261927X251385002
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378503168_The_Use_and_Perception_of_Reclaimed_Group_Labels_for_Lesbian_Women_and_Gay_Men
  51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389510854_A_red_alert_appears_Ambivalence_of_the_reclaimed_hate_speech_in_a_hate-saturated_environment
  52. https://www.out.com/activism/homophobic-slurs-being-reclaimed
  53. https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2019/08/21/752330316/a-former-slur-is-reclaimed-and-listeners-have-mixed-feelings
  54. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2025.2558100?src=
  55. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10400435.2022.2058315
  56. https://www.shapearts.org.uk/blog/language-and-disability-rights-an-evolving-relationship
  57. https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/unpacking-disabled-reclaiming-disability/
  58. https://sjdr.se/articles/10.16993/sjdr.1067
  59. https://dsq-sds.org/article/download/3705/3240
  60. https://callingupjustice.com/crip/
  61. https://www.theindependencecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Disability-Language-Guide.pdf
  62. https://www.ryanhonick.com/blog/2025/1/7/reclaiming-disability-language-empowerment-humor-and-advocacy
  63. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2024.0016
  64. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2024.0297
  65. https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/suffragists-suffragettes-difference/
  66. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a33633227/suffragette-meaning-history/
  67. https://theconversation.com/why-people-reclaim-words-meant-to-insult-them-and-how-this-has-become-a-powerful-tool-for-protest-258368
  68. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/10/turkish-protesters-capuling-erdogan
  69. https://hbr.org/2016/10/is-insulting-your-rivals-supporters-ever-a-good-idea
  70. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0915/Les-Deplorables-why-some-Trump-supporters-have-embraced-the-label
  71. https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-were-proud-to-be-the-deplorables/2017/12/13/222f7c50-e045-11e7-b2e9-8c636f076c76_video.html
  72. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/pops.13022
  73. https://www.famsf.org/stories/trigger-figure-patrick-kellys-reclamation-of-racist-iconography
  74. https://journals.uc.edu/index.php/Undergradshowcase/article/view/4116
  75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.09.005
  76. https://www.in-mind.org/article/from-derogation-to-reclamation-how-does-language-change
  77. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44209141
  78. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53676557
  79. https://ojs.ehu.eus/index.php/THEORIA/article/view/26849/25506
  80. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/46635/S_Cohen%20RMA%20Thesis%204682904.pdf?sequence=1
  81. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/victory-slants-are-officially-rock-stars-first-amendment
  82. https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/reclaimed-words-and-a-meta-oversight-board-decision-reveal-problems-with-policing-online-hate-speech/
  83. https://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/openfordebate/whats-to-ban-social-media-policies-on-hate-speech-and-reclamation/
  84. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2025.2469581?af=R
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.