[again, reference to specific film topic at end]

Epiphanie wrote:

> I don't know why you assume I'm a Brit currently visiting  
> Australia; I'm an
> Australian citizen originally from Bulgaria

My mistake; in an earlier post you mentioned the UK and then being in  
Australia, so made an erroneous connection.

Clearly we understand the nature of language very differently.

> Many people (myself included) still find the so-called 're-claimed'  
> use of
> queer 'offensive and derisive' [snip]...because anytime you use the  
> word you are
> evoking not only its original hateful context but the way it is  
> *still* used
> as a hateful term today (e.g. by the leader of the Russian mafia in  
> David
> Cronenberg's *Eastern Promises*).

I am dumbfounded by the idea that political decisions about language  
use should be made on the basis of a fictional character in a  
dramatic narrative movie...if you enjoy doing this, carry on, but  
don't expect a lot of folks to nod in agreement.


>
> By the way, you don't have to lean to the left to use queer; it's not
> associated with political affiliation.

Well, BTW, in the US, LGBTQ people (yes, the Q is increasingly added  
to the acronym) who use "queer" in a positive sense by and large  
really do mean it to fall on the progressive side of things.  E.g.  
out homosexual Republicans never call themselves "queer;" it doesn't  
appear in their literature, advocacy, etc.  From the 1990s on Warner  
and others, such as Lauren Berlant, forcefully argued against the  
general direction of liberal gay civil rights activity for seeking to  
blend  into the mainstream with campaigns around marriage, open  
military service, etc.  They argued that queer sexuality really was  
different and challenged heteronormativity and that queer culture can  
and should seek recognition on its own terms, not try to fit into  
dominant ideological and sexual/social norms.  For a nice exposition  
of this kind of position:  Sandra Jeppesen, "Queer anarchist  
autonomous zones and publics: Direct action vomiting against  
homonormative consumerism," Sexualities (2010) 13:4, 463-478.


I understand verbal language to be a medium of communication that  
allows considerable creativity and change in expression.  In fact, in  
contrast to expressive media such as film, video, fine art painting,  
etc. it can be used creatively, artfully, without extensive training  
or capital resources, or relation to dominant institutions.  By  
ordinary people!  Consider rap and hiphop, slang, shop talk, and all  
kinds of ideolects.  With a little knowledge of linguistics,  
especially social linguistics, the whole topic opens richly.

You could make a good case for arguing that verbal language is one of  
the arts readily available to and ingeniously used, in many cases, by  
"the people."  Along with gardening, cooking, song and music, and  
other folk arts.

But to return to a film example.  Jennie Livingston's 1990 film Paris  
Is Burning shows a subculture that appropriates from the dominant  
culture and turns it to its own purposes.  I guess from Epiphanie's  
position these folks are just deluded,  " to the point that they have  
internalised them and reproduce them, to the detriment of the  
everybody everywhere." Well, Snap!.

in stylish disagreement,

Chuck Kleinhans

*
*
Film-Philosophy
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**