"That's so gay" controversy

[Patrick, Peter L]

John's argument appears to imply that either (a) the use of "That's so gay" derives from the older senses of the adjective (meaning "carefree; colorful; jaunty; lighthearted"), or (b) at any rate is not directly derived from the sense meaning "(primarily male) homosexual". Both these arguments are obviously wrong. 

 

We can see that from the fact that the phrase in question is practically always one of denigration, insult or abuse, unlike the older sense; and also that it is directly connected by naïve users with sexuality. In the UK, where it is commonly used by primary school children, I've asked several of them aged 8-9 what it means, and gotten replies using words like "man-love-man"; when I inquired whether that was how they actually used it, it turned out of course that they meant "something bad or not very good", with no literal reference to sexuality. 

 

To me this clearly suggests that they are aware of the derivation, and therefore are learning to connect "homosexual" with "bad". (Perhaps they are not even aware of the older sense). As the phrase seems to be pretty new usage (though we may find out when documented that this is the fallacy of neologism - I/we just haven't noticed it till lately), it would indeed be most unlikely that the new would fail to conjure or connect with its immediate predecessor, though that could eventually happen (whether it could happen only under conditions of continued stigmatisation of homosexual identity is an interesting question).

 

Does this mean that the usage is, as John claims, not "inherently homophobic and oppressive"? On the contrary, it means that the adjective identifying a group of people (routinely oppressed in this homophobic nation, as in others) is knowingly used as a byword for denigration, even by a segment of the population who knows very little about them and has very newly absorbed prevalent prejudices. That ain't borscht-belt humor.

 

In this case, as in nearly every case of racism and prejudice in general, actual usage is not strictly about what the speaker narrowly intended the hearer to think at that moment - much less about whether some of the speaker's best friends are X, or whether the speaker is basically a nice person - but about social context more broadly conceived. Language that helps to enact, reinforce and recreate oppression - and pass it on to a new generation of (relative) innocents - is itself a kind of oppression. Failing to make the connection - eg, using the phrase, but in other ways not actively behaving in a homophobic fashion - is just a type of not-getting-it.

 

Imagine yourself using the N-word in a similar derived and general way, and constructing an argument that there was nothing racist about it. (Better yet, construct the argument for us so we can judge it.) Or, since I think you are in Japan, make up a new similar phrase like "That's yellow", used as a term of general abuse, and try it out on your English-speaking Japanese friends. Would being unaware that a significant number of people find it insulting, actually make it neutral? Of course not. Would the fact that you are a nice guy constitute a linguistic argument about social context? Nope. 

As Marcy Morgan has argued about African American speech norms, in a discussion of 'baited indirectness', "Audiences are co-authors who, along with speakers contribute to and determine the intent of what is said... Speaker intent is constituted through collaboration and is not considered complete without it" - a speech norm often misunderstood by outsiders to the African American speech community. Thus, you or your daughter alone, as speakers, can't be considered adequate judges of the meaning of the phrase in its social context. (I'm not saying I can - you have to examine its use empirically, and take into account reactions of people different from yourself, in this case including those who take it as linked to homophobia and find it offensive, as well as - perhaps more damningly - those who take it as linked and don't.)

                        -peter p-

 

Prof. Peter L. Patrick

Dept. of Language and Linguistics

University of Essex

Wivenhoe Park

Colchester CO4 3SQ, U.K.

patrickp at essex.ac.uk

(+44) 1206  872088

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~patrickp

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-linganth at ats.rochester.edu [mailto:owner-linganth at ats.rochester.edu] On Behalf Of John McCreery
Sent: 12 March 2007 00:02
To: linganth at cc.rochester.edu
Subject: Fwd: [Linganth] "That's so gay" controversy

 

I am curious about the turn the discussion is taking, assuming that "That's so gay" is inherently homophobic and oppressive.  The only person I've actually heard use the expression is my  30-year old Navy pilot, now a new mom, daughter, who is one of the most absolutely non-homophobic people I know. In her usage, it becomes a kind of rolling-the-eyes  equivalent of "That's a crazy thing to say." It seems to be more or less equivalent to "Are you high?" spoken in a sarcastic tone, which used to fill the same slot in her conversational patterns. 

All this is not to say that the expression was not coined in homophobic circumstances (I simply don't know if that is the case). It does, however, appear to be one of those cases in which slang may have dubious origins, but actual usage doesn't imply the implications those origins suggest. 

I am once again reminded of my friend Donald DeGlopper's remark re studies of Chinese religion, where Don remarked that anthropologists tend to lump together the local equivalents of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Easter Rabbit and treat them all with the same deadpan seriousness. Ah yes, I thought to myself hearing Don say this, analysis as Borscht-belt humor. 

John

 







-- 
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
HYPERLINK "http://www.wordworks.jp/"http://www.wordworks.jp/ 

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 11/03/2007 09:27


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 11/03/2007 09:27
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/linganth/attachments/20070312/76177cf1/attachment.htm>