queer in context

The “Working Question” on page 28-29 in the chapter “Reading” caught my attention. The section states that words like “queer” and “dyke,” which were used as harmful slurs in the 1950s (and for many years surrounding the decade), have since been “reappropriated by the homosexual community itself.” The author questions how these things happen over time–how do words change in connotation so drastically, and change from derogatory insults to “celebrated” words used to define identity? Should the words be seen as such, or do they still carry negative weight, and does context matter? I would say yes.

This blurb reminded me of things I’ve read/conversations I’ve had about the word “queer” in particular and how it’s use can still be problematic for some, even if it is considered to have a largely positive connotation in the present day. Some people in the gay and lesbian communities prefer that these words aren’t used about them, likely due to the stigma that is still attached to them–they can still be harmful and are absolutely still used inappropriately today, which (understandably) causes some people to be sensitive to their use. The “reclaiming” of these words, particularly the word queer, by many people is certainly widely accepted (it is part of the LGBTQ [and other variations] acronym, for example) and its connotation has definitely changed for the better; however, many people in the gay and lesbian community that I have met/spoken to (including myself, to some extent) are sensitive to these words and prefer not to describe themselves in these terms.

Many gays and lesbians have probably had run-ins with these words when they definitely weren’t being used in a celebratory or positive manner; and, understandably, this can result in a heightened wariness of their use, especially when they are used by those who don’t identify as gay, lesbian, or bi (any number of people in the LGBTQ community could have faced these words as slurs directed towards them, unfortunately–I’m not excluding anyone).  This suggests that their negative connotation–from the 1950s, as well as previous to that decade, and since–still carries immense weight. It could also be argued that the fact that people who grew up in the 1950s and used these words in hateful ways still do so–people who used these words in negative ways back then might still now, and later generations aren’t unaffected by an “outdated” connotation. This affects the younger gay community on a societal and personal level. Personal experiences are huge factors in how people respond to these words–but so is historical context. Earlier in the chapter the author states about contexts that “[the argument] is about the social effects of certain meanings and policies in specific contexts…” (27). While this is about the argument of capitalism versus socialism, in order to make the point that what matters is the social outcomes of arguments, not the meanings of the two ideologies themselves, I believe it can be applied to the argument over the use of the word queer and the like. The impact that these words as slurs have had on society have not been removed. They still linger and therefore questions still linger–when should these words be used? Basically what I’m saying is that context matters. Here, it’s a historical context that hasn’t quite gone away. But–here’s to the future.

A reclamation of these words has certainly taken place–but still, in my opinion, it’s better, and arguably kinder, to ask the person before using them. That being said, the fact that “queer,” “dyke,” and even “gay” are still sometimes used as insults today can possibly make their reclamation even more powerful. Communities have worked to change the way these words are used because they believe that in taking over a word which in the past was used for harm, they are making the transformation from a negative to a positive connotation all the more empowering.

One Response to queer in context

  1. Prof VZ January 24, 2016 at 11:52 am #

    Excellent post on this incredibly complex issue. Your point on historical context–and the duration of certain negative historical meanings–is particularly important. The fact a word that is essentially a slur when uttered by one person can be used in a powerful, even honorific way by another person captures the uneasy co-existence of these registers. The key, as you say, is context, and the social implications of a word in that context. I struggle with this as a teacher: do I describe an author as “gay,” “queer,” or “homosexual”? The latter seems increasingly clinical as an identity marker. “Gay” can seem dated. In English Studies, we tend to use the word “queer”–as in “queer studies,” which is a major branch of criticism and cultural studies.

    These problems can seem utterly complex, but you offer a great solution: just ask someone. Or, if you’re offended, just tell someone. Such conversations make communities more thoughtful, caring and supportive.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes