Pride & Opinions

I am fascinated by the process through which language operates, especially language related to oppressed groups. Most of the time, I come down on the side of not using words designed to denigrate others - you won’t hear me say the word b**** to describe women, or those who are whiny or subservient or too agressive regardless of their biological sex, because it seems clear to me that the comparison is necessarily steeped in the idea that women, or attributes typically assigned to them, are lesser. Also, as the people I come into contact with change their language, it becomes sort of an interesting thought experiment to try to come up with epithets (to yell at other bad drivers, for instance) that aren’t derogatory to some group, which is actually relatively difficult.

The word “queer” provides an interesting counterpoint to this general proposition of mine, though. For fans of the reclamation of language, it’s the prime example of how language can come to mean different things than originally intended. The GLBT group at my alma mater is ‘Queer Union.’ Almost no one uses the word queer as a derogatory slur any longer, so does that get rid of the historical baggage? Not necessarily. As Ramone Johnson explains in “The Power of the ‘F’ Word,”

In a sense you could claim that the amelioration of the word queer, to opponents’ dismay, hadn’t been a failed experiment at all. At the time of my queer-is-ok spot, the word had been watered down into a sip of insignificance. Although some still find offense to the word, the overall impact is like being struck with a feather boa instead of a leather lash.
Yet, the regurgitation of a historically offensive word has not washed away the original offense (or the offender). Today, the bayonet called queer has just been replaced by another weapon of choice, the semi-automated fag. So, must the F-bomb be ameliorated as well? And what then will the run of the mill bigot conjure up to sling?

The idea that words cause backlash and a race to other, sometimes even more derogatory, terms, gives me pause. I’m not sure what the intrinsic value is to saying derogatory things about others. I understand the problems with censorship, but is it censorship to say that I choose not to use those words, and hope others will do the same? I’m certainly not going to argue for laws to ban them, but that’s not the only option. As Ramone concludes, in response to a question about whether someone should reclaim racial and gay slurs,

But now, as we speak, though not in person and despite our virtual distance as strangers, the possibility of you identifying as a “queer ni**ah” cripples my amiable pen—one that I’ve learned must change, must be an example, a mentor and a role model. My hope is that your identity rests as a “beautiful gay African-American man.” A man that has little use for ameliorated words. A man is so confident and so strong and so incredibly actualized that even the original offense of those ameliorated word have little impact. So, I say don’t ameliorate the words for use as your identity, let them burn in the char of hatred in which they were created.

I like that answer. The whole article is good.