Abstract

In an important paper for the literature on slurs, Robin Brontsema shows that slur-reclamation is a phenomenon that can take more than one form. One aspect underlying this variation is whether the derogatory content of a slur is preserved in reclamation or not. Brontsema (2004) shows that each of the two options is viable, and after discussing the virtues and vices of each of them, concludes that the multifaceted nature of reclamation points towards a pluralistic approach. In this paper, I engage with extant accounts of reclamation and assess how fit they are to capture the two forms of reclamation mentioned above under a unitary theory. I thus consider three of the most well-developed theories of reclamation in the literature: the Echoic View championed by Bianchi (2014), the speech act theoretic account proposed by Anderson (2018) and the general view that slurs are polysemous (Jeshion (2021), [author a]). I show that each of them has problems with accounting for one of the two forms, and is thus unsuitable to be the unitary theory sought after. Although the conclusion is negative, some of the avenues I discuss in relation to each view look promising and thus invite further exploring.