Hey everyone!
I was extremely interested in taking this class in order to learn more about language and its relationship to social justice, identity, and politics. I see language as an incredibly powerful tool for many aspects of human life, ranging from communication to identity construction.
As a passionate LGBT activist, I have led many workshops about the power of language and engaging in personal conversations with others about the harm caused by phrases that seem innocuous to many. For example, “That’s so gay” consists of three simple words, but has endless possible negative consequences and effects. Due to my investment in the importance of language and its role in culture (and my general interest in the interaction between science and society), the premise of this class itself was very interesting.
In addition to these phrases that are now semi-common but quite offensive in nature, I am also interested in the re-adaptation of language and words to create new meaning and connotations. For example, the term "queer" used to have a hugely negative connontation, but has recently become a term of empowerment that people within the LGBT community have chosen to self identify with. (The same idea goes for the phrase "people of color"). However, this change in the meaning of the word depends heavily on the given context, location, and population. This shows the malleability and subjectivity of language, its literal meaning, and its emotional significance. I am very interested in learning more about this "changeability" characteristic of language and its implications in society.
Languages that I speak:
I speak fluent English, intermediate Spanish (for about seven years), and basic Japanese.
Countries that I've visited:
Hey Lea! It's a weird coincidence that you talked about being a LGBT activist and the use of "That's so gay." Just recently I was talking to a friend about the use of that phrase or other common phrases that are used but can be offensive depending on the context. The city I'm from (Sacramento, CA) is fairly liberal, however I definitely heard "that's so gay" used very often at my high school. I heard it so much that I would use it too and it was so integrated that I could use it and not even realize it. Once I arrived at Stanford and have been surrounded by a much larger LGBT community, I became more aware of how offensive that can be and made a sincere effort to stop using that phrase as a replacement for "that's stupid." You are right: language is incredibly subjective and it has a powerful impact on perceptions from society.
ReplyDeletecan you think of reasons why sometimes controlling or enforcing language change works well (e.g., the LGBT community taking control of the word 'queer'), and other times it just seems silly and ineffective (e.g., US Congress deciding to call french fries "freedom fries")?
ReplyDeleteI feel as though language changes are effective if they re-name the word to include a more positive, inclusive word in place of the offensive of non-inclusive word or part of the word. The psychological explanation of this includes the idea that now the word is based in an association in the memory with a more inclusive, more affirming word. For example, people have started to question or dismantle the patriarchical presence in our language by using “humankind” instead of “mankind.”
ReplyDeleteOn the flipside, these language changes can be ineffective if they fail to gain legitimacy in the minds of the language speakers. Failing to gain legitimacy can happen for a variety of reasons. For example, my hypothesis is that the attempted language change to "freedom fries" failed because "french fries" is an extremely important, well known term that all simply accept as "the truth." In cases like these, a word change will be very hard to accomplish successfully, unless there is an extremely compelling reason or natural way to do it. In this case, the change was neither natural nor compelling- many saw the change as serving no purpose (and didn't feel as strongly against the French government, and if they did, certainly did not think this language change had any benefit)- and thus, it was not an effective change.