Shortly after, Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page: “I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel…his recent tirade…was such a strong slap in many American faces…Just as we'd be appalled if any public figure of Rahm's stature ever used the "N-word" or other such inappropriate language, Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities - and the people who love them - is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking.”
In response to the controversy over Rahm’s use of the word “retarded,” Rush Limbaugh said the following on his radio program: "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are loony tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news…I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House."
On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked for Palin’s response to Limbaugh’s use of “retard” and she responded with: "They [liberals activists] are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh…Rush Limbaugh was using satire... I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'f-ing retards,' and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there."
Colbert then used satire on his show to question Palin’s claim that Rush was using satire: (discussion of this controversy starts at 3:10):
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| ||||
Each of the above instances is an example of someone creating meaning, and these illustrate how the same language can mean different things depending on the context: who is using the word, what their intentions and/or perceived intentions are, who the audience is, and more. There’s also the issue of who gets to say when the word is offensive and when it isn’t (since Sarah Palin has a child with Down Syndrome, she and others assume she “knows” something about the use of the word “retard” – like when it’s “really” offensive). Palin uses a common technique for encoding meaning by linking the use of the word “retard” (which is not uncommon to hear in casual conversation and many people do not interpret as being offensive) with the use of the “n-word” which has a well-known history and is generally accepted as being offensive. If you say “using the r-word has the same impact for people with developmental disabilities as using the n-word has for African-Americans,” you create a framework (use a discourse) for making sense of the use of the word “retard.” Of course, the meaning of the “n-word” is not as obvious, though, because it is often interpreted and experienced differently when the speaker is African-American, in which case it can be “empowering” or humorous or something else entirely. Which shows that meaning is not IN the language itself, but in the multiple meanings/discourses invoked by that language in particular contexts by particular people.
So…does that mean that you can’t ever say that certain language is offensive, or that if you do, it’s just your opinion and therefore doesn’t really “matter” because someone else can say it isn’t offensive and that “cancels you out?” Or that since there’s no Truth, no one can make claims about the offensiveness of language (or anything else)? Well, that’s not the social constructionist perspective - because remember that from this perspective language and the discourses it invokes actually constructs reality – talk about serious effects! The language we use creates the world we live in, AND language is never neutral or “innocent” or without effects. So while multiple meanings (discourses) exist, it is important - from a social constructionist perspective – to really look at the impact of that language and take responsibility for those effects because we all create and are created by the society in which we live. And that’s what claiming that certain language is offensive is really about, right? How that language impacts people – certainly the people who are being referenced (people with developmental disabilities, African-Americans…) but also the people who use the language and everyone who hears it. The “r-word” and “n-word,” depending on the context, can invoke discourses/meanings that devalue particular people, and when this happens repeatedly it constructs a society that devalues particular people – and that devaluing certainly has effects. And we as individuals and we as a society decide if we are okay with those effects or not – and that creates the discourse that certain words are offensive (or not – i.e. we’re just being forced to be “politically correct”).
No comments:
Post a Comment