On the use of language
May 21st, 2006Sorry I haven’t been posting more this month, all. Hopefully I’m getting quality over quantity, though. A word of advice: don’t get a pet who, in the event they should feel sick, won’t eat on their own. Especially if this pet needs to eat every few of hours throughout the day in order to live. Just saying. (She’s fine now, though. Amp can post pictures of his kids, I can post pictures of my ferret. Isn’t she cute?)
I’ve talked about this before, but it bears repeating. Basically, in the past few days on the Queer Rage community on LiveJournal, someone was banned for using the word “bitch” in a post as a synonym for “complain”…but only after being asked not to use that word, refusing, AND getting into an argument insisting that using the word isn’t misogynistic. (The post is locked, BTW.) It’s clearly stated in the rules of the forum that certain language is not permitted, and that those who use it will be asked to rephrase posts or not use it in the future, as the community is designed to be a safe space. This happens all the time in the LJ *_rage communities, because apparently people don’t actually read the rules before joining and then think people are being mean to them. I don’t really understand why anyone acts so surprised about this.
Anyway, that’s just the background for my post. See, after that, then someone else had to make a “goodbye cruel forum” post which has since been deleted (so I can’t link it), basically arguing that “it’s not words that matter, but the intent.” I see this defensive reaction a lot when people are asked to please examine their use of language and perhaps not use words which others find offensive.
While I agree that, sometimes, people unintentionally use language that can be offensive, once they have been informed that others find it hurtful, they should at least apologize. So “gay” and “lame” and “crazy” are often used as derogatory terms by people who don’t realize the history behind those words. (Especially “lame”.) Fine. Then, yes, intent is more important, and sometimes the language used does not accurately reflect it — but more often, intent is demonstrated through the word choice of the individual.
No matter what people claim their intent is, that doesn’t make it so. After all, people lie. People can say they intend whatever they like, but people prove themselves through their actions. Their actions are the only thing others have to judge their intent by. Speaking is an action. Word choice is, therefore, especially in a text-based medium, the most important indicator we have to judge a person by. If someone truly cares about the rights of oppressed groups to be treated with respect, they would understand why it’s important not to use words referring to those groups in a negative sense, even if they’re not actually referring to members of those groups.
I’ll just repeat what I said in the ensuing discussion:
I guess what it comes down to, for me, is, “Okay, so you don’t think use of this word is a big deal. If it’s not such a big deal, why do you have to defend it so hard? If it’s not a big deal, why is it so hard to just…not say it?” And I think that insistence on using words one has been informed are hurtful, just because it’s slightly easier than thinking for a couple of seconds before the words come out of your mouth, really reflects exactly the attitude that any anti-oppression work is trying to fight. “Allies” who refuse to change their use of language because it’s slightly inconvenient don’t really get a lot of respect from me. If it’s the intent that matters, not the words used (as one poster said), then…uh…I’d appreciate it if the intent was a conscious effort to be respectful expressed through language.
And that’s where I really stand when it comes to this. I have to seriously question anyone who claims to be an ally who is willing to use gender-based, anti-gay, racist, ablist, etc., slurs. (Not in a reclaimatory sense, of course. Totally different discussion.) It shows to me that these people say they care about the issues, but they aren’t willing to actually change the simplest, most basic aspects of their behavior in order to subtly combat the attitudes they claim to oppose. So many protest the idea of changing their word choice on the premise that it’s such a little thing that it shouldn’t matter. Were that true, it wouldn’t be so hard to refrain from saying certain things in company you don’t wish to alienate whom you know will not appreciate it.
The other thing which usually comes up when issues some deem “trivial” come up, is that someone has to invariably try to imply that anyone who cares about it obviously doesn’t have anything better or more important to do with their time. I find that usually the opposite is true. The more you care about anti-oppression work, the easier it becomes to see all manifestations of it, even the small ones. Does anyone honestly think that just because I want to discuss word choice, or issues which may seem trivial but which do actually impact people on an everyday, practical level (like the posts about grooming and makeup), that I somehow don’t care about bigger issues, like the war? Worse, it’s argued that paying attention to small manifestations of an oppressive society somehow detract from the larger struggle — it sets up a false dichotomy, an opposition which isn’t even there.
Fighting against little things is important, too. There needs to be a balance.
May 21st, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Sapir-Whorf, anyone?
Sometimes it seems like there’s not one doggone thing you can say anymore without someone gets offended by it–but maybe that’s just a sign of how far we have yet to go.
I think your last paragraph said it all. I get right tired of those who claim to be my allies treating my concerns as trivial compared to theirs. The language we use can shape our thought, especially for those of us who don’t examine either language or thought much, and thoughts in turn shape our actions.
Yes, language does change, and new meanings can grow over old ones–but it doesn’t happen at the same rate for all of us. One thing that helps is when a person who objects to some word then provides alternatives for immediate use, not just leaving us hanging.
Details can be important, all right.
Life is short but ferrets are long.
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:56 am
Angiportus — Not _everything_ is suspect. The English language is HUGE. I mean, honestly, if someone objects to the term “bitch” (which is one, admittedly, I’ve stopped myself from using mid-post alot) is used in place of “complain” and says so, do they really need to say “complain” instead? For “lame” — what’s wrong with “stupid” or “dull”? “Dumb” might be suspect for the mute-association, but “silly” is always safe.
I can’t honestly believe that people’s vocabularies are so limited that they can’t think of a non-offensive term without a list of suggestions. It’s one thing to say something without thinking, but when called on it to claim you can’t find a synonym? That’s silly.
May 22nd, 2006 at 6:57 am
Arrright, I didn’t mean to say (or imply) that everything is suspect. And there are some books out about how to write without using terms that might offend people, which do provide alternatives, at least for sexist offenses. But even the word-handiest of us occasionally need a minute to come up with an alternative to something someone just objected to, even those of us who have memorized the books. The hugeness of the language both helps and hinders this quest.
I don’t know if there’ll ever be 100% agreement on which words are okay and when. There’s always going to be a few subjective glitches that couldn’t be predicted. E.g., when someone says something fits like a glove, and I have never found a pair of gloves that fit right yet, should I voice my offended-ness at this continuation of an apparent plot to marginalize people whose hands don’t fit standard gloves, or just move on? [I use "like the water fits the shore" for a good fit; that will do till the next tsunami.] –I know there isn’t any such plot, I guess there used to be custom glove-makers or something. I figured long past that I’d just do my best and quit worrying, and thank earlbecke again for pointing out how those who take time to examine “trivial” issues are actually the ones smart enough to make a dent in the big picture.
May 29th, 2006 at 12:36 am
Re: the use of “lame,” what is your argument? My assumption (correct me if I’m wrong) is that you’re implying that the history of “lame” as a derogatory term has to do with bashing handicapped people or the like. In any event, the OED entry on “lame” seems pretty conclusive on the subject:
“[. . . an ablaut-variant is *lômjo- in OHG. luomi, MHG. lüeme dull, slack, gentle, early mod.G. lumm, whence lümmel blockhead. From the same root is OSl. lomit{ibreve} to break.]
…
2. fig. a. Maimed, halting; imperfect or defective, unsatisfactory as wanting a part or parts. Said esp. of an argument, excuse, account, narrative, or the like. {dag}Phr. lame to the ground (cf. Antrim & Down Gloss. s.v. Lame ‘A stab of a bayonet which has lamed me to the ground.’).
c1374 CHAUCER Troylus II. Prol. 17 Disblameth my yf ony word be lame. For as myn auctor seyde so sey I. 1390 GOWER Conf. II. 218 The gold hath made his wittes lame. 1531 ELYOT Gov. I. xxv, That the knowlege and contemplation of Natures operations were lame and..imperfecte, if there followed none actuall experience [etc.]”
My argument is basically that the word lame evolved from a general term for any sort of impairment, which was used at least as early as 1374 in much the same way that it is today. “Lame” as a statement of individual handicap and “lame” as a generally negative evaluation of individual concepts evolved from a general idea of something that is lacking as opposed to “lame” being a slur on handicapped persons, etc. I mean, seriously, “blockhead” and “to break” evolved from the same root.
Not to nitpick, but I think claiming that the word “lame” is offensive (borrowing a stronger argument for it as such) weakens an otherwise strong and interesting argument about the use of language. Even “crazy” goes rather too far . . . at this point, even when we’re trying to be progressive, it’s important to take into account the evolution of language and whether it’s worth the assault on figurative language to make sure that no one could possibly be insulted. “Craziness” has come to be used very widely in a figurative sense for things that make no sense, are extreme, etc.– and a quick glance at the OED indicates to me that similar to “lame,” “crazy” evolved from much broader senses into more specific meanings, calling into question the relationship between people who suffer from metal disorder and the common use of the word “crazy.” It’s a chicken-or-egg discussion that seems rather pointless in the end.
With words like “gay” and “bitch,” they are very different, and it makes a lot more sense to look critically at the ways in which we use them. No one could pretend that using “gay” in a derogative way harkened back to negative connotations of “Full of or disposed to joy and mirth,” nor could anyone justify an etymological connection between female dogs and women who anger the speaker. “Gay” is cut-and-dry becuase despite obsolete connotations having to do with moral looseness, the only two uses that most people know about today are either joyful or homosexual, and it’s obvious which is being nastily appropriated as an insult. “Bitch” has its roots as a derogatory term as early as 1400 (again, OED), unquestionably negative (though apparently more common and “polite”), and explicitly comparing a woman to a female/animal (conflating the two rather.) That’s something that really deserves looking at and even policing, as certainly do negative uses of “gay.” As for “crazy” and “lame,” you’re a very long way from convincing me.
May 29th, 2006 at 1:59 am
All I know is that people with mental and physical disabilities have asked, in some online communities that I am a part of, that “lame” and “crazy” not be used as negative terms because they find the histories and implications of those words hurtful. Since they would know better than I would, and because it’s a small thing, I won’t use those words. I’m sorry if that doesn’t “convince” you — maybe you ought to speak to someone who knows more about the subject of ablism than I do. I do think that slurs against people with disabilities aren’t really given the same amount of weight that slurs against any other group would be, and that really seems like something that warrants further attention as far as I’m concerned. Especially with “crazy” and variants thereof — there’s the attitude that stigmatizes those who suffer from mental illness, and perpetuating that doesn’t really do anyone any good. It’s an unneccesarily hurtful insult that really doesn’t need to be used when there could be more neutral ways of phrasing things.
May 29th, 2006 at 2:44 am
Another point: just because the popular use of “crazy” as a slang word is different from the literal definition of mentally ill doesn’t mean the word doesn’t still have a history. Arguing that “the meaning has changed” so it’s okay to use now is not a really good argument, because it’s the same one people make for certain slurs, like the n-word. I’d rather just err on the side of caution and not say things I’ve been informed some of my allies find hurtful. It’s basic courtesy.
Additionally, it was explained recently on the LJ community feminist_rage why “moron” and “idiot” are considered ablist terms.
Taking those terms out of my vocabulary is admittedly a bit of a struggle — BUT: why is it necessary to use these terms, anyway? Calling someone an idiot or a moron is really uncalled for, I think. It’s much more effective to actually engage people’s arguments rather than hurl insults, anyway, so these words mostly don’t even need to be used. Most of these words that people have such a hard time taking out of their vocabularies are unnecessary to constructive discourse, so they shouldn’t be that much of an issue.
May 29th, 2006 at 11:22 am
I think that for terms like “idiot” and “moron” you again have a better case, since such terms are, again, insults that compare somone’s mental ability to that of individuals who are real individuals with real struggles and who deserve not to be made into flippant insults. And you’re also right that people should consider whether it’s called for to call someone an idiot/moron in the first place.
I agree with you in principle that people should make an effort to use language that is constructive, and that people should be sensitive to the effects of that language. And the cases you’re talking about involved people who were very unapologetic and very rude and flippant when the matter was called to attention. But I think that there is a question of “reasonable intent” to be had here, and that’s where you and I differ on the words “lame” and “crazy.” When I use those words in everyday language, I think that it is reasonable to expect that no one is going to be offended, for reasons I’ve already listed (though I do realize that crazy is one that can be used in a more or less derogatory way, “crazy in love” is not the same as insulting someone by calling them crazy, which I think crosses the line). I also think that for the same reasons, altering the words I use to express the concepts thereof is not a meaningful ideological shift, because the way I use them has nothing to do with disability or mental illness, and I think that the majority of people feel the same way.
Of course, if I made a comment and someone said that it offended them personally, I would respect their feelings, and that is a different matter. For me it’s like the difference between calling a cisgendered person “she” and calling a gender-queer friend “she”. Am I going to start using gender-neutral pronouns for everyone I meet? Probably not. Am I going to use gender-neutral pronouns for my friend? Of course. Are gendered pronouns inherently offensive? no.
The main thing I’m objecting to in your post is the fact that you claim “crazy” and especially “lame” as ablist, etc., and then say that anyone who uses such terms (essentially) cannot “claim” to be an ally once they have been informed of their potential offensiveness. I really think that there is a distinction to be made with regards to what terms can be reasonably said to be inherently derogatory and offensive. Now, since we’re talking about a public forum and not discourse among friends, I would probably lean towards your approach to such terms when making a post, just to be on the safe side. But do I consider myself an ablist person when I say that an idea is “lame” or that jumping naked into a revene would be “crazy?” No.
May 29th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
(re: above, sp. revine => ravine)
Also– you say that “Arguing that “the meaning has changed” so it’s okay to use now is not a really good argument”– which I agree with, but that was not my argument. My argument is that “lame” and “crazy” as terms did not start out as terms that indicated only physically/mentally disabled people, but as broader terms having to do with figurative weakness/imparement and what is “unsound,” and that their generalized meanings as they are still used today evolved prior or parallel to their uses for impaired people (much similar to the word “impaired”–if I said that a device or concept was “impaired,” would you consider it a slur?). Your mention of the “history” of these terms seems to imply that they originated from slurs against disabled people, which is not the case, at least according to the evidence presented by the OED.
I’m not saying that people don’t have the right to be offended by these terms– even the notion of needing a “right” to be offended is ridiculous. As I said above, I would respect the wishes of anyone who asked me not to use a term. Borrowing that, however, I resist the idea that uses of “lame” and “crazy” are inherently complicit with ablism.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
[...] Whenever the topic of using non-offensive language comes up, someone invariably objects on one of two grounds: [...]
May 30th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
[...] Whenever the topic of using non-offensive language comes up, someone invariably objects on one of two grounds: [...]
May 31st, 2006 at 1:56 pm
I think the terms are ablist when used in a derogatory sense, yes. So your example of, say, “crazy in love” doesn’t seem like an issue. So maybe I haven’t been making clear that I’m mostly talking about the negative ways I hear these words used (I rarely hear them used in a positive or non-judgemental way, mainly as insults). I don’t think I’ve ever heard “lame” used in any other way than as a synonym for “stupid”, “boring”, etc., except very occasionally as a neutral description of a physical condition.
All I know is that such usage bothers some disabled feminists that I highly respect and, yes, I think I wouldn’t be a very good ally if I weren’t mindful of the way my language might hurt their feelings. It’s a small change just to describe something I don’t like a little differently, and it means a lot to some people. But, of course, you’re free to disagree. I think there are much, much worse words than “lame”, like “bitch” or “cunt” that deserve more attention, and I think there we’re in agreement.
This is one of the things I’m getting at, though. That isn’t most people’s intent, but why are we using a synonym for “crippled” as a negative descriptor for concepts, inanimate objects, movies? It doesn’t make a whole lot of literal sense, for one, and it just serves to show that disability is so wrapped up with an idea of being lesser or bad that people don’t even think about it. I think the fact that people use a lot of words while claiming they didn’t literally mean to reference the actual meaning of the word is telling. (Like people who say, “oh, but I didn’t mean gay THAT way.”) It doesn’t matter if people don’t intend to evoke the connotations of a word which has in the past had a specific meaning referring to, in this case, a disability. That is what the word literally and historically means and the slang meaning is, I would argue, based on that original definition.
But just attempting to avoid use of language which might hurt some people’s feelings in a forum where you know its use is frowned upon is a good start, even if someone doesn’t go out of their way to always avoid it in private conversations with friends and such. That would be expecting a lot and I understand that. No one’s perfect. I think just trying to “play it safe” in mixed company is the minimum anyone can do.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:09 am
I’d like to posit that it’s in fact not such a small thing to change one’s choice of words.
Certainly for folks who feel strongly about these issues and take pains to express those feelings in their verbiage it may seem trivial, but that’s only after having had much experience thinking explicitly about such things. Sad as it may be –or much as perhaps they ought to–, the fact is most people do not think about their words before they speak. Therefore pressuring them not to use terms like “bitch” (read: complain) or “lame” (read: uncool) or “gay” (read: uncool) on the grounds that it’s a simple thing is a bit disingenuous. Habits are hard to break and language is the ultimate habit.
Note, this is not to say I think one oughtn’t inform others when their choice of teminology is unseemly. It is only through doing so often enough that one can cause them to question their words and strive to break away from perpetuating derogatory positions. But I think it’s important when bringing this up to understand that it’s a long path from casual unthinking speech to where one can simply add a new word to the blacklist and be done with it.
(Just passing through, so not likely to catch any replies.)
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:59 am
[...] earlbecke - On The Use of Language [...]