For more info on Slutwalk, look here: http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/

For the most part, this is in reaction to the Slutwalk campaign that began in Toronto, but I’ve been considering the topic of verbal reclamation for a while now. It’s something that’s discussed often in the context of African-American studies, because the process of reclaiming the word ‘nigger’ has already reached the point where the word has been completely separated from its negative history in some social circles (I encountered this most often when I was in grade school- students would use the word in lieu of ‘person’, usually, but not always, with a friendly connotation, and with little or no connection to the word’s racial heritage).

Part of Slutwalk is the reclamation of dehumanizing labels directed at women that enforce the idea that a woman is responsible for her own sexual assault. I certainly support their cause: No one, male or female, should ever feel as if they somehow asked to be violated. But is it possible to reclaim a word? To change the meaning of a word by force?

Language constantly evolves. There have been efforts to curb this evolution (the Academie Francaise is one example of an institution that has attempted to stagnate language), but necessity and society have dictated otherwise. With new technology comes the necessity for new words to describe it. Logically then, wouldn’t social change regarding how we treat women require new words to describe them as well?

Obviously this analogy is imperfect. When a new piece of technology is developed, it often outmodes previous models, and those models are forgotten and replaced. The same is not true of social change- cannot be true of social change. It is important to remember where we have come from in regards to civil rights and social equality. And deleting words like ‘slut’ from our lexicon will not erase its existence- nor will it erase the injustice that accompanied it.

Yet, does using the word as if it were not derogatory make it so? What about the use of the word ‘fag’ or the phrase ‘that’s so gay’? This is not an act of reclamation (usually), here the words are being used as a substitute for stupid or undesirable. Yet often these words are not intended as homophobic slurs, even though they are being said by people who are not homosexual. While the use of these phrases remains derogatory, it is not necessarily intended to be an attack on homosexual people. Does that mean that it isn’t? Does that mean that the implication at gay is equivalent to stupid is irrelevant?

Regarding the word ‘nigger’, it is also implied that it is acceptable to reclaim the word, as long as the person doing so is black. However, the act of reclamation seeks to revoke the power that the word receives from its inherent racism. But in relegating its use based on race, it seems that the obverse becomes true: to use the word nonchalantly is a privilege denied to those not of a certain race.

Finally, is reclamation a moral act? Yes, by revoking power from words like ‘slut’, one might seek to permeate and change the culture that created the word in the first place. But is it appropriate for these words to exist in our language, powerless and non-theatening? When one reads a book like Our Nig, the affect of the language should be viscerally painful, it should reflect the misery of the character caused by the period. Would the affect be the same if the word ‘nigger’ had been forgotten as anything but harmless slang?

I ask many questions because I honestly don’t know the answers; I don’t know enough about language to even begin to figure them out. I personally do not use the words described above; I do not wish to be associated with their connotations. But I was also incensed when I found out that new editions of Huckleberry Finn would use the word ‘slave’ in place of every use of the word ‘nigger’. While I appreciate the idea of dismantling the meaning of words, I feel that it’s not something that can be done by choice (I still cringe when I hear or read some of these words, even in a neutral environment). Yet I’m still comfortable using them (in quotation) when they are being discussed. Language is complicated, I suppose.