1. I agree with Hornsby's claim at the end of her paper that we cannot evaluate the use of slurs in language by simply examining examining the words themselves. We must take into account the "postures, movements, and expressions of talking human bodies" as well as "the practices of embodied speakers" in order to accurately examine "the practice of language... [and] how it actually is". (Hornsby, 2001, p. 141) Language is more than just how words interact with each other and the world and, especially with slurs, we must take into account the unspoken aspects of language in order to understand them.
2. I don't think I agree with Hornsby's claim that derogatory words always have neutral counterpart, or that this counterpart is relevant when we are discussing the derogatory use of the word. By this I mean that when slurs are used, many of their users don't know what the neutral counterpart of the slur is, and even if they are aware what the neutral counterpart is, it would not capture the same meaning or force of the slur. If one were to replace the use of the N-word in a statement they made with 'African-American' I don't think the meaning of the original statement would be completely captured using the neutral counterpart instead of the slur.
3. Are slurs actually useless, or are theorist actively avoiding them because of the underlying negativity slurs carry? I feel like slurs are in fact useful and that when they are used there is "something we want to say with them", but the way they are useful and what the user is trying to say with them is so distasteful that many people wouldn't want to be associated with them (p. 129). It seems like a cop out to say that slurs are useless and the claim that "most of us probably have no trace of a tendency to use them" does not mean they do not in fact have a use. There are many words that most people have "no trace of a tendency to use them" such as 'skirr' which means 'move, fly etc. rapidly' because there are "other words that suit us better", but that does not mean the word 'skirr' is useless (p. 129).
That's an interesting point about skirr, and I might offer a counterexample - we don't tend to use old English terms, but we still have a general understanding of them and could use them to express something specific, by taking advantage of the feelings associated with those words (think of a Renaissance fair). I feel like Hornsby is trying to say that slurs have feelings that we ought not to need, sort of condemning the use in general. However, there's something else behind that assertion of uselessness. We can't properly codify slurs and say 'this is the set of traits that fit this word' not just because it is distasteful, but because the definitions tend to drift over time and be applied to groups that were not included previously. Think of the way we apply 'Liberal', 'Terrorist', or even 'Feminist' today compared to the way it was used 10 or 20 years ago. The words change pretty drastically based on the agenda of the speakers, and the agenda behind slurs is not one we would want to support by codifying it.
ReplyDelete