on 10/11/00 6:33 am, Shelley Tremain at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> First, let me clarify: I said the remark was "blatantly homophobic" and
> asked that it be removed and an apology be forthcoming from the DRU. I
> did not say that any individual the DRU, no the DRU in general was
> homphobic. Oppressive and discriminatory remarks have a "life of their
> own" separate from personal intentions of individual actors.
For what it's worth, most people do not pay attention to the grammatical
structure of sentences in email discussion, which, in any case, has its own
linguistic conventions. I agree with Shelley that "oppressive and
discriminatory" remarks have a life of their own, because they are
ritualised and institutionalised. But this signifies to me that people who
do not intend to be oppressive often end up being so precisely because
ritual exists independently of intent. Therefore, we have to be alert to
intent, and so context is relevant - that is, the intention to wound *is*
important (and certainly would be in a court of law). Because of the use of
the terms 'blatantly' and 'hideous' in Shelley's email, and its title, which
I felt were out of proportion in relation to what I saw to be the humorous
intent of the original comment, there was a danger that some members of this
list, who did not know the individuals concerned, would construe that the
DRU was homophobic. Thus, the various responses that leap to the defence of
the DRU - even though it is clearly not necessary - are also justified.
Before I'm accused of sitting on the fence, I also mis-read the actual
comment the first time because I read it in a hurry (and I am a linguist!).
My (humorous) response was "I think that Mark and Dan make a very nice
couple!". On reflection, however, and on a more serious note, I would also
point out that there are many lesbians and gays who are "married" - that is,
they live or have lived in loving 'heterosexual relationships', whilst
knowing that they are 'lesbian' or "gay". Here the distinction between being
and doing is important. I find the exclusionary aspects of *both* discourses
problematic at times and not conducive to dialogue. Perhaps 'sex', like
'gender' is prone to stereotypes?
Best wishes
Mairian
--
Mairian Corker
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
Language Group
School of Education
Kings College London
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|