by Ruby Allen
Disclaimer: This essay discusses homophobic slurs and the content of their meaning.
Should you require support at any time while reading the essay, please contact the following:
Headspace – 1800 650 890
Lineline – 13 11 14
Queensland Council for LGBTI Health – (07) 3017 1777
The discrimination of minority groups within society takes many forms, one of which is the use of slurs. Slurs are a type of pejorative: insulting and “disparaging” remarks, phrases or words usually intended to deprecate members of certain social groups.[i],[ii] For instance, “dyke” is a slur used against women who choose to be in romantic and sexual relationships with other women.[iii] The neutral correlate of this term is “lesbian”, which is the generally accepted descriptor for this sexual orientation.[iv] A question of importance to philosophers and linguists is as follows: if slurs and their neutral correlates are both used to describe the same referent, why is one term considered harmful and the other not? In this essay, I argue that while slurs may have the same referent as their neutral correlates, they cannot have the same meaning. This is because slurs are created with the intent to discriminate and threaten the group being described, while neutral correlates simply classify and describe such groups. I will demonstrate this through analysis of the terms “dyke” and “lesbian” using Christopher Hom’s method of ‘combinatorial externalism’. Finally, I will argue that combinatorial externalism holds against Luvell Anderson’s ‘deflationary theory’ on the basis that words would not require prohibition if they were not harmful in the first place.
An answer to the why slurs are considered harmful while their neutral correlates are not can be found in the work of Hom. In his article “A puzzle about pejoratives”, Hom proposes a semantic view of slurs termed combinatorial externalism, which posits that slurs have both normative and descriptive components, while their neutral correlates are descriptive only.[v] Hom argues that the normative content that distinguishes slurs from their neutral correlates is the implication that members of the relevant group “ought to be subject to such-and-such discriminatory practices for having such-and-such stereotypical properties, all because of belonging to such-and-such group”.[vi] Essentially, the semantic content of slurs is said to include prejudiced ideology and the threat of “discriminatory practices” towards the referenced group.[vii]
Other theorists oppose the ideas put forth by Hom. For instance, Luvell Anderson’s deflationary theory supposes that derogatory attitudes are not encoded within the meanings of slurs.[viii] Instead, it is proposed that slurs are derogatory as a result of their taboo nature because “when a word is prohibited, then whoever violates its prohibition risks offending those who respect it”.[ix]
Slurs characterise the referent group as “others” and imply that they are not worthy of respect.[x] This is clearly exhibited by the term “dyke”, which is considered to be a derogatory term for women in same-sex relationships.[xi] In fact, the primary harm caused by this slur is its description of the referent as being outside of mainstream institutions; it intends to make the target believe they have no place in society. It leaves them vulnerable to oppression and violence through alienation.[xii] Thus, the semantic meaning of dyke is defined by an anti-mainstream persona, which is viewed negatively by the majority of society. In addition, “dykes” are stereotyped as being masculine in both appearance and behaviour. Thus, using Hom’s method, the meaning of dyke can be defined as “Ought to be subject to [insert various oppressions here] because of (for example) having a masculine appearance, having sexual desire for women, being anti-mainstream etc., all because of being a lesbian”.[xiii] It can be seen that the slur “dyke” is in fact defined by its own neutral correlate. To understand the semantic content of the slur, therefore, the descriptive term of “lesbian” must also be understood.
Like “dyke”, the term “lesbian” is used to refer to women who “engage in same-sex sex”.[xiv] The term is considered neutral and is the most generally accepted and used reference for this social group. Although lesbian is a neutral term, its semantics are still extremely complex. Contrastingly to dyke, lesbian is associated with “at least one mainstream persona” and thus can be used as a non-slur; it does not inherently threaten alienation from society like its correlate.[xv] Thus, while the term ‘lesbian’ is subject to much ideological discourse, such as sexualisation and fetishization by men, it does not contain an inherently threatening normative aspect.
The differences in semantic content between the terms dyke and lesbian occur because each of these is associated with a different set of “personae”, which are abstract identities or stereotypes.[xvi] Three main criteria for the distinctions between these personae are evident: masculinity, same-gender sexual desire and radical stance. Those referred to as lesbian rather than “dyke” are generally considered to be on the weak end of each of these scales. Thus, “dyke-iness” is typically associated with a radical type of lesbian who does not fit into mainstream society or traditional gender roles. This distinction between different types of lesbians is the effect of heterosexism.[xvii] Lesbian women already subvert traditional gender roles by not entering into heterosexual relationships.[xviii] When they further rebel from traditional notions of femininity by dressing or acting in a masculine way, they are condemned even further by society. The establishment of derogatory slurs such as dyke can almost be interpreted as a punishment for defying the status quo.[xix] Therefore, it is clear that this slur has an inherently negative and derogatory connotation. Analysis of these two terms shows they do not have the same meaning. As Hom posits, this is because the term dyke has normative content that aims to condemn its targets, and this is ultimately where the offence in the term originates.
In contrast to Hom’s combinatorial externalism, deflationary theory recognises the taboo nature of slurs to be their true derogatory force. This theory rests on the invalid premise that slurs are not harmful by virtue of their meaning. Instead, I argue that slurs are taboo because they are harmful. In-group members are able to appropriate and reclaim slurs because their intragroup use does not carry any negative force.[xx] Slurs are used by actors with more social power than the referent to negatively characterise them as “other”. However, the use of a slur by one who is a referent of that slur subverts its inherently derogatory force. The same cannot be said for those who are not personally affected by the negative connotation of the slur. This is the true reason why slurs are taboo. Deflationary theory, in comparison to Hom, is simply illogical: why would a slur require prohibition if it was not harmful or derogatory in the first place?
Overall, it is clear that slurs do not have the same meanings as their neutral correlates. Analysis of the terms “dyke” and “lesbian” confirmed Hom’s combinatorial externalism by showing that dyke and lesbian have different meanings due to the differences in their social perceptions; being a lesbian is viewed as being a part of society while being a “dyke” is not.
Ruby Allen is currently completing a Bachelor of Politics, Philosophy and Economics with Honours. She is majoring in philosophy and hopes to commence further study in this area once she completes her current degree. Her primary areas of interest include cognitive philosophy, the philosophy of language, and social and political philosophies, such as feminist and queer theories.
ENDNOTES
[i] Christopher Hom, “A puzzle about pejoratives,” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 159, no. 3 (2012): 383. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23261422
[ii] Adam M. Croom, “Slurs,” Language Sciences 33, no. 3 (2011): 343. DOI:10.1016/j.langsci.2010.11.005.
[iii] As diverse gender identities have become more discussed and socially accepted, modern definitions of “lesbian” have come to include multiple gender diverse identities that are non-men. This is important to note because a fundamental part of non cis-heteronormative identities is that they do not conform to traditonal western views of gender and sexuality. However, as most literature on the subject refers to “lesbian” as a women-specific term, this essay will engage with the connection the term has to womanhood. Consequently, “dyke” is considered a woman-specific slur. Therefore, while I acknowledge that lesbians can be gender diverse, I will be using gendered language in this essay which reflects that used in the literature.
[iv] Heather Burnett, “A Persona-based Semantics for Slurs,” Grazer Philosophische Studien – Internationale Zeitschrift für Analytische Philosophie 97, no. 1 (2020): 31. DOI:10.1163/18756735-09701004
[v] Hom, “A puzzle about pejoratives,” 394.
[vi] Hom, “A puzzle about pejoratives,” 394.
[vii] Robin Jeshion, “Slurs and stereotypes,” Analytic Philosophy 54, no. 3 (2013): 315. DOI: 10.1111/phib.12021
[viii] Luvell Anderson, “Calling, Addressing, and Appropriation,” in Bad Words: Philosophical Perspectives on Slurs, ed. D. Sosa (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018), 14, DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198758655.001.0001
[ix] Luvell Anderson and Ernie Lepore, “Slurring words,” Nouˆs 47, no. 1 (2013): 38.
[x] Elisabeth Camp, “A Dual Act Analysis of Slurs,” in Bad Words: Philosophical Perspectives on Slurs, ed. D. Sosa, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018), 29, DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198758655.001.0001
[xi] Burnett, “A Persona-based Semantics for Slurs,” 31.
[xii] Burnett, “A Persona-based Semantics for Slurs,” 33.
[xiii] Burnett, “A Persona-based Semantics for Slurs,” 42.
[xiv] Robin Jeshion, “Expressivism and the offensiveness of slurs,” Philosophical Perspectives 27, no. 1 (2013): 236.
[xv] Burnett, “A Persona-based Semantics for Slurs,” 31.
[xvi] Burnett, “A Persona-based Semantics for Slurs,” 33.
[xvii] Perry Silverschanz et al., “Slurs, Snubs, and Queer Jokes: Incidence and Impact of Heterosexist Harassment in Academia,” Sex Roles, 58, no. 1 (2008): 180.
[xviii] Catherine A. MacKinnon, “Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination,” in Feminism Unmodified (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1987), 32–45.
[xix] Silverschanz, “Slurs, Snubs, and Queer Jokes: Incidence and Impact of Heterosexist Harassment in Academia,” 179.
[xx] Croom, ‘Slurs,’ 343.
WORKS CITED
Anderson, Luvell, and Ernie Lepore. “Slurring words.” Nouˆs 47, no. 1 (2013): 25–48.
Anderson, Luvell. “Calling, Addressing, and Appropriation.” In Bad Words: Philosophical Perspectives on Slurs, edited by D. Sosa, 1-25. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198758655.001.0001
Burnett, Heather. “A Persona-based Semantics for Slurs.” Grazer Philosophische Studien – Internationale Zeitschrift für Analytische Philosophie 97, no. 1 (2020): 31-62. DOI:10.1163/18756735-09701004
Camp, Elisabeth. “A Dual Act Analysis of Slurs.” In Bad Words: Philosophical Perspectives on Slurs, edited by D. Sosa, 30-56. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198758655.001.0001
Croom, Adam M. “Slurs.” Language Sciences 33, no. 3 (2011): 343-358. DOI:10.1016/j.langsci.2010.11.005.
Hom, Christopher. “A puzzle about pejoratives.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 159, no. 3 (2012): 383-405. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23261422
Jeshion, Robin. “Expressivism and the offensiveness of slurs.” Philosophical Perspectives 27, no. 1 (2013): 231–259.
Jeshion, Robin. “Slurs and stereotypes.” Analytic Philosophy 54, no. 3 (2013): 314-329. DOI: 10.1111/phib.12021
MacKinnon, Catherine A. “Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination.” In Feminism Unmodified, 32–45. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Silverschanz, Perry, Lilia M. Cortina, Julie Konik, and Vicki J. Magley. “Slurs, Snubs, and Queer Jokes: Incidence and Impact of Heterosexist Harassment in Academia.” Sex Roles 58, no. 3-4 (2008): 179–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9329-7.
Photo by Amber Weir on Unsplash
EXORDIUM 