The more interesting questions emerging in the discussions above, at least to me, are not so much to do with what has been stated, but more with the unstated; the relationship between words and their meanings/contexts or language and thought; the anxieties about difference; and more recently regulation vs democracy (and anarchy). On the first two issues at least - and moving away from the word "whore" - one of the earliest protests at least for English language using feminists was the use of "he" and "man" as gender neutral universal signifiers. Much water has flown under the bridge since then, and even though there isn't any uniformity of language reform, there is certainly a greater awareness of the issues regarding language, gender and power. In fact, as early as the 70s (to my knowledge) the process of "reclaiming" certain words - and the word "whore" being one of them (witch, dyke, bitch, tart etc being others, amongst several more) - was an integral part of the Western feminist movement. However that reclaimation and attendant subversion was *highlighting* the violence against women integral to the use of the words, and not erasing and neutralising their use. The feminist reclaimation was not about *cleansing*language - on the contrary it was about deployment - and thus inherently political. Incomplete though such a project will always be, and its political subversiveness contingent, its attempt to foreground the relationship between language and thought and thus found a political practice on the basis of such an awareness is to my mind one of the most fundamentally challenging parts of feminist politics. And indeed it is this that has set it apart from earlier politics and has influenced newer social movements.
That apart - I am struck anew by the fact that it is not so much the protest against particular word usage that has excited comment here, but the fact of a woman expressing her right to differ. If one does not deserve censorship (and by now I think we have beaten at least that horse dead!!) then neither does the other. Having said this - I am surprised that there has been so much debate about moderation - most e-groups are moderated; there are certain norms associated with that process - surely it is perfectly simple to follow some of these here? If that could be done, we could move on from some of the semantics of this discussion, whilst retaining the more substantive parts which I think would be quite fun to debate. On 6/10/07, sanil v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As someone who moderates postings by students - boys > and girls - I do not think that Rajeender's public > mails merit moderation. If this guy has been sending > abusive personal emails, then he should be reported to > the police. I denounce him. None of us should invite > him home either. Some wife-beaters and perverts may > have interesting things to say about Kerala, computers > or even gender. Why shouldn't we listen to those? If > this is liberalism, so be it! > > The prevailing consensus on the sexist and oppressive > nature of certain words seems to be based on > simplified and popular interpretations of the logic of > binaries and stereotypes. Contemporary logic and > philosophy of language have proposed a nuanced > critique of binary logic and stereotypes. What is > wrong with binaries? Some developments in logic show > that binaries work through a law of composition which > is not that of opposition or contradiction. Serious > political criticism should shift its focus away from > these binaries. They are nothing more than the dust > collected in the wake of power. However, populist > interpretations propagate exactly the opposite notion. > They are still unearthing binaries behind every > utterance and showing us that one of them is > privileged over the other. They do this as if they are > saying something significant about power or hegemony! > They still fantasize about cleansing language and > thinking of binaries! Such revenge against natural > language, even if it manages to produce monotonic > utterances, would not save us from hegemony. > > Now stereotypes! Psychoanalysis and theories of > language have developed a sophisticated account of > them. There is one insight most of them share. > Stereotypes are not ideological constructs saturated > with prejudices and ideological meanings. In fact, > stereotypes are poor in meaning. They plug-in the > gaps in the symbolic domain and give it consistency. > Hence, their impenetrability to ideology critique. Our > populist theoreticians pervert this insight and draw > silly consequences. They still think that they can > criticize stereotypes by revealing the prejudices > condensed in them! That they harbor dangerous meaning > is their lure. The stereotypical activist is their > victim not critic. In the hands of some, this popular > anti-stereophony/binarism has become a tool to ensure > easy victory in all arguments. > > This is not to say that all stereotypes are harmless. > Interpretation or censorship is not the best way to > counter them. Some might wish to take a leaf out of > the Sardarjis' book of dealing with Sardar jokes - > mostly by laughing, sometimes with the sword and some > other times by withdrawing into their thick beard of > confidence. > > Using the word "whore" in a communicative context > merits punishment. But, using a half-baked theory of > stereotype to censor the use of the word "whore" in > all discursive contexts is alarming. > > > sanil > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. > http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 > > > > -- G. Arunima Associate Professor Women's Studies Programme School of Social Sciences Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi 110067 Tel: 01126704178 (dir) 01126704166(off) Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ greenyouth mailinglist is the activist support mailinglist for kerala To post to this group, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
