WHITE KNIGHTS AND NAMING RIGHTS WORDS BY BRIDGET RUMBALL
W
hat’s in a name? Most things that exist at present have been named at least something; whether we’re talking the name of an animal, an object, or indeed a brand name such as Colgate or Kellogg’s. Ultimately, names help people question the singularity of certain things, to the point where they reach a concrete understanding of that thing and its attributes. Personal names, however, are a bit harder. They have always been a large part of our global culture; a way for people to convey personal identity, whether that be decided for them as a newborn or changed in later life. They can be shortened by friends, lengthened by angry relatives, or altered altogether to reflect the changes in a person’s story. They can also be compounded onto negatively; or erased altogether by slurs and stereotypes. The targeting of certain groups of people, most often minorities, with stinging nomenclature is counterproductive, and most importantly, harmful to someone’s own identity, integrity and personal expression. Examples can be drawn from the fictional hallways of tween TV, where popular, sexually liberated girls are bracketed and catcalled based on their sexual activity; to movies where LGBTQ+ side characters are mocked based on their relationships; to the streets of America (and most other western nations besides, including our own) where black and brown bodies are racially profiled on a daily basis. This has the compounding effect of altering how a person’s identity is viewed in both public and private spaces; threatening the person’s own sense of self for a stereotype-tinted ‘version’ of themselves; branded with the accompanying behaviours and personality expected of the slur. To quote prominent Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, “[a] single story creates stereotypes; and the problem with
14
stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.” Slurs have been around for centuries, evolving as language, society and culture evolves. Yet those that are the most damaging carry within their connotations a history of oppression, violence and discrimination – and which are often therefore the vile arsenal of insecure white men. Such names are so powerful they can cause a person to involuntarily warp or change their identity to fit them; altering their behaviours and personality to fit others’ expectations of them. This is a process which is again glorified by today’s society; think of every movie trope where a girl is negatively branded as ‘sexually promiscuous’, and accordingly changes her style and behaviours, only to be a part of the male white knight ‘you’re beautiful as you once were’ dénouement.
Naturally, there exists a distinction between involuntarily changing one’s personality to fit the mould that accompanies a slur, and voluntarily taking hold of the word and using it positively to define oneself. This has led to some minority groups attempting to reclaim these pejoratives as their own – to take control of their meaning, challenge and undermine oppressors’ ‘ownership’ of language, and so empower their own identities and groups. Examples of this include the reclamation of racial slurs by minorities of colour, most notably African American collectives, and the reform of archaic labels used to denigrate sex workers. The process of reclamation takes time, with the ongoing aim to incorporate these ‘brands’ positively, defiantly, and often proudly into cultural and personal expression.
Reclamation of these personal ‘brands’ is not a simple one however, and comes with many problems and challenges. A (often deliberate) duality operates between the meaning of reclaimed slurs when used by and within minority individuals and groups, and as they exist in the wider social conscious. For example, the use of the term ‘slut’ among women at a SlutWalk is felt as empowering and a statement against patriarchal control of women’s bodies and freedoms of expression. Yet the use of the term outside of safe spaces – such as catcalls on the street or through online photo ‘leaks’/sexual harassment – can be destroying. Furthermore, the reclaimed slur in question may still hold its negative connotations and taboo outside of its targeted groups. In short, this is because reclaiming a term never results in the erasure of its past, but confronts this past and refutes its powers of hegemonic definition. Take Elliot Rodgers’ 2014 shooting spree in California, in which he killed six people and injured several others. Like many mass-shooters in recent times, he made his motives very clear – declaring that he had wanted to attack the “blonde sluts” who “rejected” him. “It’s not fair,” he said into a series of YouTube videos made prior to the spree. “I don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me but I will punish you all for it.” Again, the use of the term may well be powerful when you’re amongst others who use the word positively/defiantly; but when it tumbles from the mouth of a warpedminded murderer, it returns with all the original force and meaning behind it. Reclaimed slurs are also routinely misused. Look no further than every second video on Vine or YouTube, in which (usually, but not limited to) young white boys attempt to use racial slurs as edgy nicknames or terms of endearment. Groups of colour have every right to use such slurs as positive terms, being common within the output of musicians,
PERTH FACT DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE WAS FOUND IN PERTH'S DAMS