Privileged vs. unprivileged language

[noracharles]

"I agree." Originally Old French, which means centuries of history in educated English. Privileged. Unmarked.

"Word." Originally African-American, possibly from the 1980s. Unprivileged. Adopted/co-opted by internet web 2.0 subculture.

"This." I don't know when this came into use, but I think it is probably a Hispanicism, given that it is the literal and functional equivalent of "eso". Unprivileged. Adopted/co-opted by internet web 2.0 subculture.

Here is an interesting discussion about the use of I agree/word/this.

Maybe using "this" or "word" as affirmations is annoying because it's not much of a contribution to a discussion, but then how is "I agree" better?

Maybe using "this" or "word" as affirmations is annoying because it's co-opting other people's culture and/or demonstrating an allegiance to a different male-dominated web 2.0 subculture than the female-dominated fandom subculture.

Mostly using "this" or "word" as affirmations is annoying because it's unprivileged dialect usage similar to "y'all".

I'm seeing some unconscious privileging of traditional anglo word usage over African-American and Hispanic, and it's making me uncomfortable. I don't think adopting a word and using it in its original sense is the same as co-opting other people's cultures, though I admit poaching vocabulary can certainly be part of cultural appropriation. I do think reacting with disgust and wishing to minimize the usage of words adopted from unprivileged (sub)cultures reeks of FAIL.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Language is power. And, Powers want to keep people divided. If people are permitted to associate according to their interests, they might actually achieve their interests.

Powers have worked hard to create a bulwark that is self-policing, that plays certain language games. Now, National Public Radio had a program that treated with geek culture, including a segment from an author, where the language issue was geeks versus popular kids, popular kids 'used' more Afro-American lingo, and the geeks refrained from this same usage.

[noracharles]

Really? That's so interesting.
I totally get how gross it is for the privileged to pick over the culture of the unprivileged and co-opt whatever seems shiny, and I can understand people not wanting to participate in that. It seems to me that geeks rejecting African-American lingo is not motivated by political correctness as much as by defining their own subculture against other subcultures. I'm curious how web 2.0 users fit into this. On the one hand, they're computer savvy. On the other hand they may not self-identify as geeks or intellectuals at all.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not totally up on the Web 2.0 phenom but I do wonder if they are computer savvy without nerdherd or geek affiliation.

But yes, geeks not acquiring something because to them it's a signifier of the popular kids, it's understandable.

Naturally, I'm so old school that I'm geek about not computer stuff.

(btw, I sent you an email, this is 'peoria' It's still the same one.)

[noracharles]

I'm sorry, I haven't received any email which looked like it might be from you. I checked the spam folder too. Where did you find the email addy? Maybe it's not the correct one.

[(Anonymous)]

on your website, above the link for Heartbreak Hotel.

[lakrids404.livejournal.com]

hva' siger du?

this is also used in programming as command word, when calling in a class a object of the the class

[noracharles]

Haha ^_^

Okay, it's a bit complicated, sorry. People use words in a certain way to tell the world who we are, the same way we use clothes. Some people like to sound down to earth and speak a local dialect and use simple words, some people like to sound intellectual and avoid dialect and use lots of foreign words, some people use a lot of slang, some people use a lot of jargon, and so on. We all adapt the way the we speak to the circumstances, and we all have our own individual styles.

Now, some styles of speech are typical of rich and/or educated people, some styles of speech are typical of certain ethnic groups, some styles of speech are typical of certain social classes. When ordinary people start imitating the privileged style of speech, the privileged change their style of speech to distance themselves. When ordinary people use a style of speech different from the privileged style of speech, the privileged put down that style of speech, calling it crude, simple, ungrammatical, offensive, childish, vulgar, etc.

We all choose the words we use in order to represent ourselves in the best way, and that's fine, obviously. We also classify other people based on how they speak, and sometimes put them or their words down to distance ourselves from them, which helps us define ourselves against them. If it's an unprivileged person making fun of someone for sounding snobbish or hoity-toity, whatever. But if it's a privileged person complaining about low-brow language being used where she is exposed to it, that is social oppression.

And some of the comments in the discussion I linked to did not seem to have any arguments against using certain words other than that they made the posters feel uncomfortable. Which I think makes it pretty clear that it's a case of defining and maintaining social stratification.

Or, in other words:
Nogle mennesker er snobber, som når de hører/læser ord som arbejderklassen/folk med en mørkere hudfarve end de selv har typisk bruger, finder det nødvendigt at sige nedsættende ting om de ord. Og det er en måde middelklassen kan holde arbejderklassen udenfor, og sørge for de kun kan deltage på middelklassens præmisser. Og jeg synes det er for lamt at sige at man synes ordene "word" og "this", som er typiske for afroamerikanere og latinoer, er pinligere eller dårligere end "I agree", som er typisk for den hvide middelklasse/overklasse, selvom ordene betyder nøjagtig det samme!

[lakrids404.livejournal.com]

this or ... agree, that is the question