In past classes I have taken, as well as in my current gender and communications class, the imprecise nature of language has always struck me as fascinating. Slight alterations of speech pattern or word organization allows for meanings to be switched, reversed, hidden, or implied. By being limited to the words officially recognized in dictionaries with which to express nonspecific feelings, desires, and experiences, we are restricted to understanding our experiences only as others have before us. In class on Tuesday, we had a discussion about how language allows self- reflection, amongst other things, and I felt that while this is true, it sometimes forces us to define ourselves with insufficient vocabulary. When someone or something can't be described or named by an existing word, then does that person or thing exist?
In Julia Wood's text, she observes that as a culture, we name only what is important (cite?). As culture and society change around us, new names and words are added to the human language to reflect these changes and developments. It is indeed interesting to ponder this delayed reaction. How long does something, such as the existence of transgendered individuals, have to exist before it is granted acknowledgement? Apparently, quite a while. I have a hard time believing that education about the various gender identities and sexual orientation hasn't gained momentum until relatively recently has anything to do with the length of time these issues have existed. In fact, I know that this is untrue. I truly believe that all types of people have always existed, and hope that our language will catch up to our culture soon.
I had an interesting experience in my art history class on monday, my professor was making a comparison between Olympia, an 1800's prostitute preserved in time in a painting by Eduardo Manet, and current day "hookers". She seemed to be making the point that while Olympia was a high-class working girl, there is a world of difference between her and the present day "crack whore trannys". I was shocked that a young professor would say something like that, it made her sound really ignorant. I didn't want to call her out and embarrass her in front of the class, but I'm going to tell her today that we don't use that word anymore, and you never know who you could be offending, not to mention perpetuating ignorance, intolerance, and stereotyping. Hopefully she'll say something to correct the error. Whats worse, she got laughs from most of the class! Maybe I'm hyper-aware of these issues right now, and maybe I would have laughed a few months or years ago, but after meeting several transgendered individuals I don't find it funny anymore.
Great post! If you were shaping an argument to use while you discuss this issue with your professor, what would you say about how language shapes perceptions and expectations and in particular, the power of language in our lives?
ReplyDeleteI would probably shape my discussion around the dangers of generalizing, or essentializing. As students, we often look to professors as educated, knowledgeable people- especially with regards to subjects we have little background with. When a professor, or anyone we respect, makes generalized statements with no further explanation, it can be assumed that many will file away this new information as truth, being the closest concept to truth that they have so far. When we hear current-day prostitutes being described as "crack-whore trannys", this perpetuates transgendered people being polarized as extremely different than us, part of the underworld of drugs and promiscuous sex. Without ever having personally encountered something, other peoples descriptions of these things are all we have to go off of. I definitely would try to describe how powerful naming things is, and how incomplete descriptions can perpetuate ignorance. I'd maybe compare it to how the term "homo" has acquired a somewhat negative connotation in the hetero world, and it often causes people to associate homosexual people with the negative ideas that accompany the word. If one instead refers to this person as gay, or homosexual- terms which don't have such negative meanings attached- the person hearing the word is then allowed to form their own judgement.
ReplyDelete