A long, long time ago - sometime last year - I was at the Utah Pride Center. I was there to support a friend's tobacco prevention organization to get LGBT young people involved in taking a stand against Big Tobacco. While everyone was standing around the pizza socializing, the conversation somehow shifted to how an individual wasn't afraid of doing something that the rest of the group wasn't willing to do (the details are obviously fuzzy...). This person ended with something along the lines of, "you guys are just p-----s" (Just trying to keep it G rated, but the word is a vulgar term for female genitalia that, today, is used as a derogatory term to tell someone that they are weak, unable, afraid, etc... if that helps figure out what was said). Another person quickly responded said, "let's unpack that word. What about this group is a vagina?"
While said somewhat in jest, the intent was to draw attention and critical thought to a commonly used word that others may find offensive, especially since it attaches a negative meaning (weak, afraid, etc) to an aspect of womanhood. This is similar to other common terms, like "gay" or "retarded." Of all the things to say, why pick something that is demeaning to a group of people? Granted, most people are using these words out of habit or because it is a common/popular term and are not intending to cause harm or dehumanize a group of people. They are used out of innocence or in an effort to fit in. But they often still make others feel uncomfortable and belittled.
Now that we have that established, I want to change pace a little and bring up the response: "Let's unpack that word." I tend to hear this phrase often when associating with "inclusive circles" and those attempting to create safe spaces. It is an effort to dissect a commonly used word or phrase and understand its true meaning and whether it was accurately used in the situation. Perhaps a better, less offensive word, could be substituted: a euphemism. So, when someone says, "that's so gay!" a common response would be, "let's unpack that word... What about this conversation/activity is homosexual? How is this topic dealing with anyone's sexual attraction? Did you mean...?"
You get the idea.
That critical thought is a soft approach to help minimize or remove future offenses. We all want to feel included and not many people want to be outright offensive. So, we talk about things.
And now to my main point: I feel that the majority of my friends and associates who are seeking to be inclusive tend to look past a few offensive words. While being quick to "unpack" how "that's so gay" can be offensive, these people are also quick to use often offensive swear words in their casual conversation and brush it off as "free speech" or "a matter of expression." Many people find swear words offensive, otherwise they would not be categorized as a swear word. Yet because it isn't directly affiliating a descriptive word of a group (i.e., retard) to a negative connotation (i.e., stupid, incapable, broken), it does not need to be "unpacked" and removed from one's lexicon for an unoffensive euphemism. Like I mentioned earlier, generally speaking, most people are not saying these things to be offensive, but many people are offended. Perhaps we can all work on being more inclusive by what we say...?
I hope I am making sense. Is this a valid concern? Is it a valid point of discussion?
Let's unpack this.
I like your main point of how people will be quick to discuss why using words that are usually used to negatively define a certain group is bad but that doesn't happen with other words that some people would deem inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a valid concern and point of discussion. One thing that I've always found interesting about these words that always start with a negative connotation is how people who fit into different categories try to take words and make them more empowering.
An example of this:
1) While many members of the LGBT community stand up to negative phrases like "that's so gay" or "Faggot", there are the few that casually use both of these terms in their offensive ways (stupid, less than, etc.). When allies or other groups hear these LGBT people using the words casually then they probably assume that the whole community is being hypocritical (Asking one thing and doing another). While there are these few community members that find nothing wrong in using this type of language the majority are fighting for these words to not be used in negative ways.
Do you think that words that originally are rooted in hate towards a group can and should ever be used to positively describe a group? Also, do you think it's first the job of the community members or those outside of a community to stop using offensive language in order for it to stop being casually said?
Final question, do you think a hateful or offensive word ever loses its power? Does tone and other ways the word was said affect the meaning of the word and make it acceptable or unacceptable?
Good questions!
ReplyDeleteI feel that words that are originally rooted in hate towards a group should generally be avoided. It is true that, just like you had mentioned, when the group itself begins to use it, it validates the rest of the community to use it as well. An example of this is the infamous "N" word. Highly offensive to most, it has been "reclaimed" by many in the black community. Even though it is often used in lyrics and conversation as a positive thing, it is still highly offensive if a white person uses it. I think that goes with practically any word like these discussed. Another interesting one is the term, "queer." Many within the LGBT community have reclaimed that term as well to be empowering, though it is still up in the air for many in and out of the community. If nothing else, I feel that there is a growing confusion surrounding the word, which is also something that makes for a difficult understanding.
As far as who owns the responsibility to stop using offensive language first, I feel that it is an individual thing. Generally speaking, I feel that it is in good taste to avoid language that is offensive altogether (whether one belongs to "the group" or not), seeing as it is impossible to know what will be taken as offensive by those in the conversation. Others, however, feel that it is appropriate to use certain words only within social circles where unwritten rules have been established on what is ok and not ok... Or if it/they are used in humor or sarcasm. To that circle, they understand the humor, while an outsider might be highly offended. Does that make sense?
I don't think that a hateful/offensive word will ever fully lose its power. Everyone is on such different levels of understanding, inclusion, and ignorance that words will always hold power. The power might shift in some communities, from a negative to a positive connotation (like "queer"), but it will never really lose the negative connotation to some (like how you mentioned tone. People will always be offended when someone intends for it to be offensive - and sometimes not... based off tone, context, etc.)
Though swear words are not directly connected to a specific group or community, do you feel that they should also be addressed in the conversation of inclusive language? Should those striving to be inclusive make an effort to purge swear words from their lexicon?
I think it's hard to really dissect swear words. Especially when the dictionary definition is "an offensive word used as an expression of anger". So that could mean that any word that someone finds offensive and is being said in an angry way is a swear word. If you say fiddlesticks when you get angry and I am offended by that word then you are, in my eyes, swearing but to you fiddlesticks may not be swearing.
ReplyDeleteVery true. But there are a standard set of swear words in our society that have been established. Those words that the MPAA and the music industry use to rate movies and music. What about those?
ReplyDelete