"That's so gay" controversy

Mon Mar 12 13:32:02 UTC 2007

Thanks, all for a very helpful discussion. And the references.  I already
did my radio gig on this, and made a point very similar to Peter's
argument, below (although not quite as eloquently).  In the case in
question, the high school student's use of ""that's so gay" was in the
common sense (in teen slang) of "that's lame or stupid" (a usage that the
OED documents back to the 1980s).   I tried to make the point that we are
not "in control" of the meanings of words and expressions; our intent is
not the only determiner,  its reception in a given social context
depending on other factors.  And those who claim otherwise are naive (in
the case of students, perhaps)
or disingenuous (as in Anne Coulter claiming faggot is "just a schoolyard
taunt")

I didn't get to discuss - but would have liked to - the dilemma of a
school's response to this.  As a linguist, I don't believe in legislating
language.  As an educator, I believe in creating an environment in which
no student feels denigrated.  Clearly, there is a lot of education that
can go on in a classroom about the use of such terms, the ideal solution.
But, having taught high school, I know that the majority of my colleagues
would not undertake such discussions, either out of uncertainty or lack of
interest.  So the schools end up issuing reprimands (as they did in this
case).  But that's certainly not going to alter the established use of
this in teen-age slang = if anything it might reinforce it as subversive.

What do you all think?

Greta

Patrick, Peter L wrote:
> 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
>
>

Greta Vollmer
Associate Professor
Dept of English
Sonoma State University
1801 E. Cotati Blvd
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
707-664-2504
Fax:  707-664-4401