Identity Politics, Reappropriation and Words I'd Rather Not Type

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

You may have heard of Sl*tWalk Toronto in the news the past few months. For those not in the know, in January of this year, a representative of the Toronto police stated that in order to avoid sexual assault, women should not dress like a "sl*t". The statement sparked outrage about perpetuating the perception that women in any way bring on sexual assault and rape by dressing provocatively. Activists went on to organize the "Sl*tWalk" protest, specifically choosing the word "slut" as a deliberate act to "take back" the word from people who use it in a pejorative context criticize and blame women.

That act of language is generally referred to as reappropriation, and it has applied to numerous words that have, historically, been used by the majority population to negatively portray and marginalize minority groups. Among the words that have been "reclaimed" by activists are pejorative terms for gays and racial minorities, perhaps most infamously the
"N-word" (sorry not saying or typing it is pretty well ingrained in my mind) which is used colloquially among many young African Americans and quite liberally in music. It is probably fair to say that "reappropriation" of some slur words is so complete that they are part of the popular culture within the communities that formerly only heard them from others seeking to cause them harm.

And that is where some of the difficulty of the project comes into view. For while reappropriation can be legitimately seen as empowering, it generally grants exclusive right to use the word within the community that has "reclaimed" the word. Simply put -- it may be one thing for a group of young African American men to call each other by the "N-word" but it remains a word of racist intent when uttered by a white person, or at the very least, an unwitting white person will commit one HECK of a faux pas trying to use it.

The difficulty is even more complicated by the fact that these communities are not exactly unified in belief reappropriation is proper. I work in education and know no end of middle-aged African American women who are livid that their students think the "N-word" is ever appropriate. Many of the college aged women that I teach express open disgust when we discuss these issues with their age group peers using words like "sl*t" and "b*tch" in any positive manner. And when you factor in the blurry boundaries of identity, it gets even MORE complex -- I have many students presumed to be African American but who are actually from countries like Haiti, Jamaica and the Domican Republic and they usually feel zero affinity for reappropriation of words used oppressively in eras before their families arrived in America.

What do people think of these issues? Is reappropriation of negative language a positive project? Would it be better to leave such language in the hands of bigots and focus instead on marginalizing those people?

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

And in this issue if one brother be convinced, and another convinced not-so, let both be satisfied in their opinion.

-Apostle Paul (paraphrased)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I think it's better to not worry about the words so much. It's all humbug.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

You can easily say this as you are (as far as I know, if I'm wrong I apologize) not a member of an oppressed minority and as such have never had derogatory words that are part of historical racism or sexism used against you. Until this happens you have no idea of the power of these words, or how much they can and do hurt at times.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

You have no idea how much better it makes people feel to have a pity party.

Don't you know I have it worst of all? Let me tell you...

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I can't and won't speak for the N-word. Not being part of the oppressed group I can't condemn their usage of a word that has been used as a tool of oppression for so long. If they feel it is empowering for them to use it I give them all the right.

Now, slut. That I can speak on. I am all for the reappropriation of that word. It too has been used as a tool against women, to shame us for enjoying sex or just as a general word of degradation. However, just like in the black community there is dissension as to it's use. Intent definitely matters in it's usage. I would never call a woman I don't know a slut but I use it amongst my friends all the time, because they know I am using it affectionately and proudly. If every woman who has been called a slut would stand up and say 'Yes, I am. What of it?' it would lose it's negative connotations quickly.

Also, although I wanted to I did not attend the Slut Walk, it was 11C that day and I didn't feel like freezing my ass off in skimpy clothes ;)

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

can't and won't speak for the N-word. Not being part of the oppressed group I can't condemn their usage of a word that has been used as a tool of oppression for so long. If they feel it is empowering for them to use it I give them all the right.


I think where it gets much more complicated is with the not at all insignificant numbers in that community who do NOT want to reclaim it and who are pained to hear it as often as is possible in urban colloquial culture. It may not be my dispute, per se, but I can't help but think conversations about "reclaiming" are devoid of the nuances and treat entire communities as if they were all activists of the same mindset.

I am all for the reappropriation of that word.

On the same note as above, I wonder how would you respond to the female students I have had who find that intensely offensive?

If every woman who has been called a slut would stand up and say 'Yes, I am. What of it?'

Or what if the response was "No, I'm not -- that's a stupid word for a woman who is confident in her sexuality"?

[lyssna.livejournal.com]

Is reappropriation of negative language a positive project? Would it be better to leave such language in the hands of bigots and focus instead on marginalizing those people?

I think this should be for the affected group to decide and up to everyone else, in the spirit of not being assholes for no reason, to accept.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Lenny Bruce famously used slurs in his act to assert that the words have power over us because we let them. He would rattle them off rapidfire until they turned to meaningless mush in your brain. (There's a good portrayal of this routine in the film Lenny. (http://youtu.be/SOnkv76rNL4) Trigger warning for that link, in case it isn't obvious.) It is at once a sign that Bruce lived in a more naïve time, and a sign that we live in a differently anxious time, that it's difficult to imagine him performing that act today.

By his principle, the idea of reappropriation appeals to me. Frankly, I'm tempted to think that using the expression “the N word” implicitly infantilizes Black people, imagining that they are too stupid and delicate to handle me using it even to make an unambiguously anti-racist statement like “the word n****r is a slur.” But that's a suspiciously White guy-ish thing to think, isn't it? I'm mindful of the need for the privileged to defer to the judgement of folks directly affected by racism et cetera, and it's clear that as you say not everyone is up for reclamation, especially coming from the tongues and pens of the privileged. So I'm happy to cheer for reclamation when it happens but accept that it isn't always right ... which is why I didn't actually use the word in this post.

In the case of the N word, one cannot possibly be ignorant of many people considering it offensive for White people to use it. So if a White person does so, they are implicitly saying that they don't care that it offends Black people. Which is surely racist, even if the word in itself has no magical power.

That said, I do think that this kind of language policing can go off the rails. No White American adult could miss knowing that the N word is offensive for them to use. But one could easily miss that many dwarfs find the word“ midget” offensive. (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050501/COMMENTARY/50429001) If I politely use the word “roma,” many folks may not know that I'm avoiding the use of the slur term “gypsies;” I pretty much have to use the slur at some point to just make clear what I'm talking about. There are identity politics activists who seem to think that it's vitally important for people to keep current with preferred language, to know what “roma” means, when sometimes even respected activists cannot keep up. (http://bearsir.livejournal.com/346600.html?thread=3526632) There's a whiff of self-righteousness in that, and I am skeptical of the value which that really provides.

So I see that there's a need for the privileged to be polite and attentive to these language questions, and I also worry about it becoming a distracting obsession. I wish I could draw a bright line between those two, but I cannot.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The concern I have about denigrating the perspectives, involvement and contributions of people that you label as privileged in their efforts to help resolve these problems is that it risks weakening support for the cause.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'm tempted to think that using the expression “the N word” implicitly infantilizes Black people

Just to clarify -- I use the expression in part out of a desire to avoid offense, but also because of how I was raised. It was very evident very early in my education on these matters that this word's history is too connected to events like the Red Summer and Tulsa for me to ever feel comfortable hearing it or writing it. I viscerally cringe even reading it.

and it's clear that as you say not everyone is up for reclamation, especially coming from the tongues and pens of the privileged. So I'm happy to cheer for reclamation when it happens but accept that it isn't always right ... which is why I didn't actually use the word in this post.

You see, this is one of my big issues conceptually -- I know it is not my place to mediate this, but I am also very much aware of how such language reclamation is NOT universal within the communities that have struggled with discrimination and its connection to language. It seems to get even more complicated with words that were first "reclaimed" within some activist corners and that have since passed into colloquial use without the specific intent of defiance.

I tend to think of this a lot because I teacher people who want to be teachers -- most of whom are white and who need a perspective on how incredibly complicated this situation is. In my own classroom teaching career, I long ago concluded that the "n-word" was off limits in my classroom for anyone to use -- but actually discussed it with the students, first admitting my own personal limitations and raising the question of the people who hear that word and CANNOT "reclaim" it, want nothing to do with it.

I suspect some would label that "whitesplaining" but it's the best I got.

Re-post for poor formatting, sorry.

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

Well, first off I'll address the OP, because what I *really* want to talk about is going to incite some flaming, but I hate when people divert the topic at hand.

I think that the issue at hand centers around a more simple concept: empowerment or dis-empowerment. The use of derogatory words is almost always used from a person of power against a person without it. The terms "asshole" "douchebag" "pussy" etc (terms that are associated with men) are not considered on the same playing field as "cunt" "slut" "bitch" (terms that are associated with woman). Why? It seems that (in theory anyway) it's a given that two guys will beat the crap out of each other and that will be that. Whereas it is incredibly unlikely (as a whole, I've met some ladies that would kick my ass in an instant, heels or not) that a woman will stand up in her high heels and whip some ass.

As such, the question is whether the people who are reappropriating the term are feeling more empowered by it, or less. If woman (and people of racial minorities) feel that using derogatory words in a positive way empowers them and allows them to be a stronger person (or group) for it, then feel free! Arm-chair pundants the world over are screaming outrage at the practice, yet we have no true understanding of how this matter affects the people involved in it.

IMO the desire to reappropriate a term is a purely personal decision and should be taken carefully. (Or the idea could be really funny, a la Porch Monkey.)

Onto my main note. I'll address something that really bothers me. When a child is shot in a gang battle, we assess blame where ultimately it is due. Ultimately if a 15 year old decides to hang out with a bunch of criminals with drugs and weapons then ends up dead, we obviously feel it is a tragedy yet we state quite clearly that he was acting inappropriately. While the representative of the Toronto police was speaking out his ass, is there not a gem of truth in his words? Just like the child who was shot was a victim to the person who shot him, the rapist is the ultimate responsible party. However, For people to take offense to the ghastly idea that a woman might have a role to play seems to me somewhat blinded.

Just as woman are sick of men flagrantly blaming woman for getting raped, I'm just as sick of woman blaming men as a whole, while taking no responsibility for actions that (having made better choices) would have helped prevent the assault.

Finally, I'm all for the Slutwalk. I wish we'd have one here in Arizona, the weather here is absolutely great for low-cut tops and short shorts. /giggity.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I'm just as sick of woman blaming men as a whole, while taking no responsibility

Blaming women for being raped and blaming men for raping women are equally offensive to you?

I'd like to offer you the opportunity to reflect, and rephrase that, because I hope that you don't really mean that.

Re: Re-post for poor formatting, sorry.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

For people to take offense to the ghastly idea that a woman might have a role to play seems to me somewhat blinded.

People take offence because women are not to be blamed for their rapes. The idea is reprehensible. Rape most often has nothing to with sex but is about power. Women are raped while wearing all manner of clothing, while doing all manner of activities. To try and do everything right to avoid being raped is an impossibility, because there will always be something that will set a rapist off.

Edit to add that women do not blame all men for rapes. We blame the rapists and the culture that allows attitudes like the one shown here to exist.

Re: Re-post for poor formatting, sorry.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Furthermore (sorry, but you've set off an issue of mine) your idea does a disservice to men as well. Are men such animals that the very sight of cleavage or a thigh will cause them to rape? If so, all men should be caged for the general safety of the public no? The reason they are not is because most men can see these things and not rape. The ones that do are the ones to blame, for their lack of morals, their low-regard of woman and their sense of superiority are what cause them to rape, not what the woman is wearing.

Re: Re-post for poor formatting, sorry.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The terms "asshole" "douchebag" "pussy" etc (terms that are associated with men)

Notice how 2 of the three put downs for men are female gender oriented? As bad as calling a man "girlie".

Its ingrained in our language.

Re: Re-post for poor formatting, sorry.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Just as woman are sick of men flagrantly blaming woman for getting raped, I'm just as sick of woman blaming men as a whole, while taking no responsibility for actions that (having made better choices) would have helped prevent the assault.


I wish to tread gently as you seem sincere and are already getting an earful.

Let me stipulate a point: all people could probably benefit from some level of threat awareness and self defense training, even if just on the passive level.

But the diminishing return on that is fairly rapid. What if a woman DOES everything that is commonly prescribed to "reduce" the chance of her being raped? Apart from the fact that she might very well be raped anyway since most rape is not stranger rape, a rapist is not going to not rape -- at best, he doesn't rape her.

And to be frank, a lot of what people call taking "sensible precautions" sounds a lot like "living terrified". It comes at the expense of being able to live life, enjoy oneself and go about work and fun under the very reasonable expectation that other people are NOT rapists. Very quickly into the process a lot of well-meaning "advisors" for women seem to be advising them to live in a virtual prison.

That ain't right.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Reappropriation doesn't really work because a) the party the word doesn't represent continues to use it as a hateful term and b) the part trying to "take it back" still gets butt-hurt when their opposition uses the phrase, even if that person isn't using it to intentionally harm.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

a) Not if it not longer achieves its desired effect to cause offense.

b) See a).

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

To me, reappropriation diminishes the seriousness of the issues that it is claiming to address. Society has bigger problems that the occasional insufficiently careful word choice.

Would it be better to leave such language in the hands of bigots and focus instead on marginalizing those people?
Yes, although the words they speak are less important than the attitudes behind the words and the actions that arise from those attitudes. Ensuring that perpetrators of socially undesirable and illegal behaviour are adequately punished is far more important than worrying their vocabulary.

Reappropriation

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Formerly known as "sticks and stones".

I love the label "heretic."

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

There is no need for me to "rappropriate" the words "heretic" or "heresy" since they only have a negative connotation within orthodox circles. The word implies choice and freedom rather than a straight-jacketed espousal of mumbo jumbo.

"Slut" on...

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

What words end up meaning depends more upon who hears them than who says them.

The n-word is interpreted so widely by different individuals. It doesn't communicate anything that I wish to say, so I never use it.

If an oppressed group wants to re-appropriate a word, I not going to be the one who will tell them they cannot.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

If an oppressed group wants to re-appropriate a word, I not going to be the one who will tell them they cannot.

I think what I am wondering about are the limitations of that when the "oppressed group" reclaiming the word is really only a subset and other, also significant, portions of that group find reclaiming offensive and perpetuating words that can only be legitimately seen as painful.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

My use of gay camp with straight men's names sure gets LJ feminists riled up, but they don't know where I'm coming from on that, and even the ones that do, still wag their fingers at me.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Use any word you want. Just be prepared to get the crap beaten out of you.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

DQ'ed...