“As soon as I see the Latinx term being used instead of Latinos, I’m not interested anymore” read the first critique received after the launch of a program I am collaborating with which aims to empower Latinx youth. I was surprised by this person’s inability to look past the term to consider the project’s benefits. Somehow, the word “Latinx” was powerful enough to discredit our entire effort.
Not once had I been questioned about the use of the term “Latinx” in college where I was surrounded by highly educated peers who deemed the term politically correct when referring to people of Latin American origin. Yet, among the wider community “Latinx” is intended to describe, few outside of elite institutions and over the age of 29 have heard of, or feel represented by the term, with many describing it as an “anglicism,” an “elitist” imposition, or a “loss-of-touch” with older generations. A poll released in August 2021 further evidenced this divide, indicating that only 4% of people of Latin American origin prefer the term “Latinx,” while 15% prefer “Latino,” and 30% prefer “Hispanic.”
“Latinx,” a pan-ethnic attempt to be inclusive of those who fall outside the male/female gender binary and provide an alternative to “Hispanic”– a term criticized for its ties to Spanish colonialism– has gained popularity in recent years within mostly US college-educated demographics. Nevertheless, amongst non-US college-educated people of Latin American origin, it is broadly unpopular and is often considered a “US-centric” imposition upon Hispanic or Latino identity. Moreover, the “x” in “Latinx” is seen as an anglicization, given it doesn’t follow the traditional structure of Spanish, making it difficult to pronounce because in Spanish few words end with two consonants.
Like much of the language dominating progressivism, “Latinx” has emerged out of a dialogue among minority activists and academics, and well-meaning white liberals, without enough consensus from the larger minority population. The top-down manner in which the term has been promoted has also served to accentuate generational, educational, and class divides within the community.
This controversy goes beyond semantics. The term “Latinx” has shown to have a tangible impact on voters’ political inclination, with a recent nationwide poll indicating that 30% of Hispanics would be less likely to support a politician who uses it. This should hardly be encouraging, considering the mere 4% who prefer the term. With mid-term elections approaching in 2022, liberals would be wise to pay attention to this trend and its effects. The use of “Latinx” runs the risk of undermining initiatives and policies beneficial to the community. For instance, its misuse with people who are not attuned to its goals could end up having a direct consequence on the reversal of hardline Trump-era migration policies such as the “Title 42” regulation which was weaponized during the pandemic to deny all families, children, and adults the opportunity to seek safety in the United States.
Though it’s true that Hispanic and Latino voters are shifting right for a myriad of reasons, the use of “Latinx” as an all-encompassing term, may accelerate this trend. At a time when conservatives are making inroads with this demographic, liberal efforts to use this term inclusively could be counterproductive in courting Hispanic and Latino voters.
There is no easy solution to this multilayered controversy, but it’s clear that politicians, activists, academics, and the larger public, must be inclusive and sensitive in understanding that it’s not possible to define our community in one fell swoop. Getting rid of the term “Latinx” is not the answer, as it serves to include marginalized groups who are excluded by the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino,” but we should also not stop or get comfortable with just “Latinx.” On the contrary, we need to further engage in conversations across divides in the community which is torn in a moment that calls for solidarity. Rather than rely on a single term, politicians need to start addressing the concerns of “Cubans”, “Colombians”, “Mexicans” and so forth, on their own terms, because they are each different. We must do a better job at viewing the Latino / Hispanic / Latinx demographic as diverse and nuanced. We also need to work with what makes sense beyond the confines of the English language.
For when a pan-ethnic label is necessary, a new term that arises from within the community, abandons colonial roots and is inclusive of marginalized groups, is needed. Perhaps we ought to find a broader category that, rather than refer to language or culture, points to something we all undisputedly have in common. Geographical origin, for instance, implicitly includes all cultures and languages within the region.
Ultimately, this term must be formulated across generational, educational, and class divides within our community, and only by actively listening and responding to this wider range of voices will liberals have a shot at gaining the trust and vote of this constituency.