>
>The bit that got to me in Diane's message dated Feb 28 (slow to catch up,
>aren't I?) was the "slipperyness" and potential for in-group controversy
>of affectionate, ingroup usage of terms that entered the lexicon as terms of
>abuse for the group by outsiders. ...
<snip>
>As a long-time advocate of respect for indigenous usage in the field of
>education, I find this issue very challenging. Irony, as we have often noted
>in this medium, is a very delicate genre. Perhaps, the best guidance we can
>offer is to suppress its usage when cross-cultural communication is at stake ?
>
>
>Robert
Thanks for the thoughts Robert,
Ah. Tact. This is an important point, I think; when is it "appropriate"
perhaps, to deploy "contestable" terms. For myself, and certainly I'm one
of those who agree that "the limits of my language are the limits of my
world" (Wittgenstein), I think
the inherent political quality of language needs to be foregrounded;
language which "offends" changes;
in a way, what is offensive is often reflective of some intolerance; thus
accepting, *critically*, the complexities of our "slurs" and "deorgatory"
terms, may signal an important step to changing the way we think about the
effects of affect, perhaps, the relation between expression and the choices
of words;
rather than suppressing these issues, cruss-cultural exchanges offer
opportunities for critical and refelctive consideration of the impact of
words.
what i mean to say is suppressing the slurs suppresses the ideology, and
supposes that one ought to choose the opportunitieis to deploy constestable
terms on the basis of indieinous languages as being relative/site-specific,
yes?
perhaps slurs & slangs aren't indigenous languages...?
diane
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." Ani Difranco
*********************************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction,
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
snailmail: 3519 Hull Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V5N 4R8