My best friend, who attends the University of Chicago, is member of Delta Gamma sorority. Their recruitment period was held last week, and for the theme of one party, she was obliged to dress as a pirate or maritime creature. Unsure of the appropriateness of her garment, she felt compelled to ask whether she looked slutty in her pirate costume, only to realize that she would be berated by her sisters for using the word "slut." At this point, it seems that she had run into something of a dilemma: while she recognized that "slut" was a derogatory and highly sexualized term seemingly used extensively for the purpose of objectifying women, she was also unsure of how else to pose the question. When she called to tell me about the incident, she asked me whether we should change the meaning of the word "slut," or to stop using it altogether.
Her question shocked me, largely because I was quickly horrified by how little attention I paid to my everyday vernacular, and furthermore, by the implicit suggestions that my commonly used vocabulary imparted. Whereas her sorority sisters were acutely attuned to connotations, in my mind, there were specific definitional aspects of nearly every word (save those that had already been classified as racist, homophobic, sexist or otherwise) that rendered them either appropriate or inappropriate in various situations. I had never considered the loaded characteristics of a word like "slut," which I generally associated with promiscuity. I did not pay much attention to the negative connotation that promiscuity carries, at least for women. Is there any way, then, my friend inquired, to divorce the supplementary baggage of a word from the word itself?
The word "geek" serves as an interesting case study for such a question. A few decades ago, "geek" was quite the insult. Socially inept and generally awkward, the label was to be avoided at all costs. Granted, "geek" has never been an especially gendered term, though the classification generally encompassed specific characteristics (extreme computer skills, for one) and the implications went far beyond such features. But in recent years, the "geek" has undergone a significant makeover, not in its denotation, necessarily, but more so in its connotation. With the emergence of the "geek squad" as skilled computer technicians, along with hugely popular public figures like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, the "geek" began to be embraced. In fact, last year marked the first time that the term was associated more positively than negatively.
While such an example may demonstrate the capacity of word meanings to shift, can its effectiveness be applied to other examples? Michel Foucault often remarked upon the power invested in language and particularly in names in establishing supremacy, and it seems that we, as of late, have given little consideration to such a concept. The slang of generations, decades and even centuries past is likely as widespread and colloquial as that of today's, but in the modern era, has it become more apparent that we have lost sight of the subtext of our texts? Shakespeare's "painted maypole," though perhaps equally vitriolic in intention, is still, in some ways, more refined than our commonplace usage of "slut" or "whore." Is it time to reexamine or, at the very least, be more cognizant of the ways in which we speak to and of one another?
There are of course several compounding factors that play into the redefinition of such a term. But at the very least, perhaps my best friend's question should catalyze something larger than the reassessment of a single word. Too often, it seems, we speak carelessly to others, about others and about ourselves. While this is not to suggest constant self-censorship, it is worthwhile to consider that we, as users of a language, are ultimately responsible for its meaning. We have the capacity to change the connotations of a word by applying it in different settings, or by being more cognizant of the frequency or virility with which we apply it.
There is power in language and with this recognition, perhaps we should become more vigilant guardians of its clout.
