Speaking as a Crazy Faggot
There has been a lot of talk in the blogosphere and in the media lately about words. Advocates for the mentally ill have been gaining traction with educating people that the use of "crazy" as a generic insult is demeaning. Kobe Bryant was caught on tape calling a referee a "faggot," but in his non-apology stated that he was using the term as a generic insult, not as a homophobic slur.
I'd imagine that most of you who read this are aware that I'm gay. I'd imagine that the majority of you know that I have been treated for mental illness (specifically, clinical depression). I am a member of both groups demeaned by the words in question.
However, I regularly use "crazy" as a generic insult, but would never even consider using "faggot" as such.
So, of course, this got me wondering. If "crazy" is as demeaning as "faggot" (or "nigger" or "retard" or "cunt" or the myriad other words that I instinctively know are not O.K. to use even though they don't apply to me), then why is it still part of my vocabulary? Alternatively, if "faggot" is just a general insult as Kobe Bryant (credibly, from reports of those who know him) meant it, why is it so upsetting to me that a celebrity whom millions of people look up to used it in anger? So am I oversensitive about one of these words, or insensitive about the other?
To me, I have to examine this from the most basic point of view: What is a word?
A word is a collection of sounds. (Not a collection of letters. We use letters to represent sounds, albeit somewhat awkwardly in English.) We have two ways of interpreting these collections of sounds: the meaning, and the connotation.
Even if you do not know the meaning of a word (it's in a foreign language, it's a word you've not encountered before, etc.), it's pretty easy to pick up the connotation of a word. If I sneer at you an call you "crazy" or if I sneer at you and call you "faggot," it's clear even without knowing the meaning of either word that it is being used insultingly. That is the context of both words. It's clear and unambiguous.
Let me jump to a slight tangent to help you understand where I'm going. I have a friend who, when I was in college, one day sneered at me and called me an "actor." Well, I was, in fact, a theatre major. I had, in fact, at that point received remuneration for appearing on stage and as an on-camera performer. She clearly was using the agree-upon definition of the word. But she used in in a very surprising context (as an insult), and therefore imbued it with a totally new connotation. In that context, this word that I would use every day to describe myself became an insult.
Now, if my friend had begun using "actor" with this insulting connotation as a general insult, directed against people who were, in fact, not actors, what would the effect have been?
Well, initially I suspect it would have been funny. If she had walked up to a shy little wallflower who had somehow angered her and spat, "Don't be such an actor!" the effect would have been surreal.
But let's say that somehow the societal pendulum had swung back to the days when actors were widely and generally regarded as degenerate, dangerous, low-life, immoral, criminal, and less-than-human. Let's say that being accused of being an actor really was insulting to those who aren't actors, and being reminded that one is an actor is insulting to those who actually are actors. In this science-fiction universe, the word "actor" would have adopted a demeaning connotation. Every time it got used, it would be reminding actors that they're a group with whom nobody should want to be associated.
So why isn't "crazy" in this category in my mind?
Well, to me, I think it boils down to this: I sincerely don't think of the mentally ill as crazy.
To me, "crazy" is a generic term, and one that applies to all of us. Every single one of us has bits of irrationality in our behavior. We've all got the crazy in us. It's normal. It's natural. It's not to be aspired to, of course, but to me it's in the same category as flatulence. It happens. That doesn't make it O.K. to deliberately fart in the elevator, but we don't do well to pretend that some of us never pass gas. If you were to ask me if someone suffering from a mental illness is crazy, I'd probably say yes. But if you asked me if the sanest person on the planet is crazy, I'd probably also say yes. The word "crazy" may once have referred very specifically to people with mental illnesses, but it no longer does, at least in my mind.
So, to me, if I had the opportunity to speak to Kobe Bryant, the question I now want to ask is this: "I suck cock. Am I a faggot?" If Kobe Bryant responds with, "No, of course not, 'faggot' is something bad and there's nothing wrong with being homosexual," then I'm completely O.K. with him, personally, having used the word as a generic insult. Similarly, if he responded, "Well, yes, but so is everyone else in the world," I'd similarly decide that his personal use of the word is O.K.
Now, of course, the real problem becomes dialectual. If a British English speaker asks me if he can "bum a fag," he means something very different than the way I interpret it. Similarly, I once really freaked out a British friend of mine by asking if she had seen my "fanny pack." We Americans use the same collection of sounds to mean very different things than our British counterparts. We speak different dialects.
Well, dialects occur within countries as well as across oceans. Dialects crop up based on region, class, education, profession, and myriad other linguistically isolating factors. Is it right for Americans to demand that Brits stop calling cigarettes "fags" or for the British to demand that Americans stop using "fanny"? I'm inclined to think that we're better served by working to understand what the other user of that particular collection of sounds means in their own context.
I'm not going to deny that the fact that the mentally ill feel demeaned by our use of "crazy" as a generic insult, but I am going to encourage them to try to differentiate between those who are looking down on them as a class and those for whom the word has lost all meaning.
I'm not going to discount the possibility that Kobe Bryant and others who use "faggot" (or, for that matter "gay") are, in their hearts, completely open and accepting of gays and lesbians and genuinely don't think the word "faggot" (or, for that matter "gay") means a homosexual. I will admit to finding that scenario slightly credulity stretching (especially in the case of "gay," which was deliberately adopted a generation ago as a word without negative connotation that could be used to mean homosexual, and previously meant "happy"), but I'm willing to accept it if it comes into evidence and forgive those who use what I consider a very demeaning word in that event.
All that said, though I have no right to demand that others strip their language of words that I consider to be demeaning, I certainly appreciate when they do, and would prefer if their apologies when they screw up were sincere apologies.
And, therefore, I'm going to respect that, even though I'm also part of the class that's supposedly offended by "crazy," that this class considers it demeaning. I choose to accept that. In the future (though I expect I'll slip up plenty), I'm going to try to look for more descriptive terms to replace the generic "crazy." I'm not sure that what I come up with will be less insulting since, in the end, the any group that is feeling demeaned will continue to feel demeaned by whatever word we use, but I will try.
And I will fail. Others will, too. If I screw up, I will apologize. If others screw up, I will ask them to apologize. And I will forgive.
Because ultimately the solution is not to monitor what collections of sounds we use, or what those sounds mean to us and to others, or what connotation we give to those collections of sounds. Ultimately, the solution is for each and every one of us to respect every other person on this planet as an equal. Because, frankly, if I know in my heart that you respect me, you can use whatever insult against me that I deserve at that moment.
Even if it's "actor."
I'd imagine that most of you who read this are aware that I'm gay. I'd imagine that the majority of you know that I have been treated for mental illness (specifically, clinical depression). I am a member of both groups demeaned by the words in question.
However, I regularly use "crazy" as a generic insult, but would never even consider using "faggot" as such.
So, of course, this got me wondering. If "crazy" is as demeaning as "faggot" (or "nigger" or "retard" or "cunt" or the myriad other words that I instinctively know are not O.K. to use even though they don't apply to me), then why is it still part of my vocabulary? Alternatively, if "faggot" is just a general insult as Kobe Bryant (credibly, from reports of those who know him) meant it, why is it so upsetting to me that a celebrity whom millions of people look up to used it in anger? So am I oversensitive about one of these words, or insensitive about the other?
To me, I have to examine this from the most basic point of view: What is a word?
A word is a collection of sounds. (Not a collection of letters. We use letters to represent sounds, albeit somewhat awkwardly in English.) We have two ways of interpreting these collections of sounds: the meaning, and the connotation.
Even if you do not know the meaning of a word (it's in a foreign language, it's a word you've not encountered before, etc.), it's pretty easy to pick up the connotation of a word. If I sneer at you an call you "crazy" or if I sneer at you and call you "faggot," it's clear even without knowing the meaning of either word that it is being used insultingly. That is the context of both words. It's clear and unambiguous.
Let me jump to a slight tangent to help you understand where I'm going. I have a friend who, when I was in college, one day sneered at me and called me an "actor." Well, I was, in fact, a theatre major. I had, in fact, at that point received remuneration for appearing on stage and as an on-camera performer. She clearly was using the agree-upon definition of the word. But she used in in a very surprising context (as an insult), and therefore imbued it with a totally new connotation. In that context, this word that I would use every day to describe myself became an insult.
Now, if my friend had begun using "actor" with this insulting connotation as a general insult, directed against people who were, in fact, not actors, what would the effect have been?
Well, initially I suspect it would have been funny. If she had walked up to a shy little wallflower who had somehow angered her and spat, "Don't be such an actor!" the effect would have been surreal.
But let's say that somehow the societal pendulum had swung back to the days when actors were widely and generally regarded as degenerate, dangerous, low-life, immoral, criminal, and less-than-human. Let's say that being accused of being an actor really was insulting to those who aren't actors, and being reminded that one is an actor is insulting to those who actually are actors. In this science-fiction universe, the word "actor" would have adopted a demeaning connotation. Every time it got used, it would be reminding actors that they're a group with whom nobody should want to be associated.
So why isn't "crazy" in this category in my mind?
Well, to me, I think it boils down to this: I sincerely don't think of the mentally ill as crazy.
To me, "crazy" is a generic term, and one that applies to all of us. Every single one of us has bits of irrationality in our behavior. We've all got the crazy in us. It's normal. It's natural. It's not to be aspired to, of course, but to me it's in the same category as flatulence. It happens. That doesn't make it O.K. to deliberately fart in the elevator, but we don't do well to pretend that some of us never pass gas. If you were to ask me if someone suffering from a mental illness is crazy, I'd probably say yes. But if you asked me if the sanest person on the planet is crazy, I'd probably also say yes. The word "crazy" may once have referred very specifically to people with mental illnesses, but it no longer does, at least in my mind.
So, to me, if I had the opportunity to speak to Kobe Bryant, the question I now want to ask is this: "I suck cock. Am I a faggot?" If Kobe Bryant responds with, "No, of course not, 'faggot' is something bad and there's nothing wrong with being homosexual," then I'm completely O.K. with him, personally, having used the word as a generic insult. Similarly, if he responded, "Well, yes, but so is everyone else in the world," I'd similarly decide that his personal use of the word is O.K.
Now, of course, the real problem becomes dialectual. If a British English speaker asks me if he can "bum a fag," he means something very different than the way I interpret it. Similarly, I once really freaked out a British friend of mine by asking if she had seen my "fanny pack." We Americans use the same collection of sounds to mean very different things than our British counterparts. We speak different dialects.
Well, dialects occur within countries as well as across oceans. Dialects crop up based on region, class, education, profession, and myriad other linguistically isolating factors. Is it right for Americans to demand that Brits stop calling cigarettes "fags" or for the British to demand that Americans stop using "fanny"? I'm inclined to think that we're better served by working to understand what the other user of that particular collection of sounds means in their own context.
I'm not going to deny that the fact that the mentally ill feel demeaned by our use of "crazy" as a generic insult, but I am going to encourage them to try to differentiate between those who are looking down on them as a class and those for whom the word has lost all meaning.
I'm not going to discount the possibility that Kobe Bryant and others who use "faggot" (or, for that matter "gay") are, in their hearts, completely open and accepting of gays and lesbians and genuinely don't think the word "faggot" (or, for that matter "gay") means a homosexual. I will admit to finding that scenario slightly credulity stretching (especially in the case of "gay," which was deliberately adopted a generation ago as a word without negative connotation that could be used to mean homosexual, and previously meant "happy"), but I'm willing to accept it if it comes into evidence and forgive those who use what I consider a very demeaning word in that event.
All that said, though I have no right to demand that others strip their language of words that I consider to be demeaning, I certainly appreciate when they do, and would prefer if their apologies when they screw up were sincere apologies.
And, therefore, I'm going to respect that, even though I'm also part of the class that's supposedly offended by "crazy," that this class considers it demeaning. I choose to accept that. In the future (though I expect I'll slip up plenty), I'm going to try to look for more descriptive terms to replace the generic "crazy." I'm not sure that what I come up with will be less insulting since, in the end, the any group that is feeling demeaned will continue to feel demeaned by whatever word we use, but I will try.
And I will fail. Others will, too. If I screw up, I will apologize. If others screw up, I will ask them to apologize. And I will forgive.
Because ultimately the solution is not to monitor what collections of sounds we use, or what those sounds mean to us and to others, or what connotation we give to those collections of sounds. Ultimately, the solution is for each and every one of us to respect every other person on this planet as an equal. Because, frankly, if I know in my heart that you respect me, you can use whatever insult against me that I deserve at that moment.
Even if it's "actor."