Wednesday, January 20, 2010

All Language is Political: “Negro Dialect” and the Power of Words

One of the neat things about studying social linguistics is the way it makes explicit the things everyone already knows. Harry Reid’s tone-deaf comment about Barack Obama is a great example. He chose an inelegant way of saying something everyone knows is true: “Obama doesn’t talk black.” Others have made similar offensive observations. “He is articulate,” which is a coded way of saying, “he sounds white.” But it isn’t really enough to say that he sounds white. He sounds like a certain kind of white person, one who has been educated and has not grown up in a rural or poor environment; which is, in fact, true about Obama. Which brings up all kinds of questions about what it means for someone to sound “white.” 

If only Harry Reid had spent a couple of semesters studying sociology or linguistics, he could have put it in a much less offensive, more academic-sounding way. Instead of using the phrase “negro dialect,” he could have said: “One of the reasons the president is popular across racial and class lines is because he doesn’t use African-American Vernacular English.” He could have even sounded more legit (isn’t that a “black” word?) by using its acronym, AAVE.

The irony, of course, is that in his comment about Obama’s use of language, he himself made a sociolinguistic blunder. He demonstrated by his failure to use correct language that he is morally and intellectually deficient. He is not one of “us.” These are exactly the kinds of judgments racists make when they hear AAVE, what some call “ebonics.”

What is so delicious about the whole brouhaha is that it demonstrates the way language works. Language is not merely the communication of ideas. It is the communication of social status, power, and group fidelity. When we deploy language, we advertise to which groups we belong, what values we accept, and what kinds of persons we are. If I drop the g’s off of my words: “listenin’ and learnin’,” I can show that I am folksy or populist or one of y’all, the way George W. Bush and Sarah Palin do. If I borrow words from popular black culture, I can demonstrate that I’m hip - unless I deploy them incorrectly or in an incongruous style, in which case I’m revealed to be a poser. These are all “social discourses,” ways we use language to pull off being a certain kind of person. 

White people often misunderstand AAVE as being incorrect or improper English. But even if we look at language as the communication of ideas, vernaculars often use much more elegant and consistent grammars than (implicitly white) Standard Academic English. One common example is the pair of sentences “she late” and “she be late.” The first is a perfectly correct grammatical construction in many languages. The verb “is” is implied. “She late” means she is late. “She be late” is a grammatical construction which implies a continual action. To translate it into SAE, you have to add cumbersome words: “She is habitually late.” You don’t have to do that in AAVE. You just say, “she be late.”

The same thing applies to Southern and Rural English as well. “Y’all” is a perfectly good word that often serves as a class or regional marker in our language. It’s a word shared by southerners, rural whites, and speakers of AAVE. There is no second person plural in Standard Academic English except “you.” “Y’all” makes clear who is being addressed: “all of you.” “Ain’t” is likewise a perfectly good word which has been in use for centuries as a contraction of the words “am” and “not.” The only reason to shun it is for class prejudice: people who say “ain’t” have not had it educated out of them.

Now, I think it’s really important to be careful about what we say and how we say it, especially if your vocation (like mine) is built on words. But the reality of human communication necessitates a measure of grace. You have to give folks the benefit of the doubt. Rather than react to someone’s socio-linguistic failure with glee or schadenfreude, we should ask how it could have been said better, and then ask if it really makes a bit of difference. When Reid said “negro dialect,” you knew what he meant. And chances are, you’ve thought the same thing.

And if you’ve thought the same thing, perhaps that’s where the real discussion on race, language, and how we treat each other could begin. There are no absolute lines around what constitutes AAVE, and no rational reason why Standard Academic English is considered “white,” or why what is “white” is considered more proper than what is not. Yet we make these kinds of judgments all the time at an unconscious level. We even modulate our dialect, sliding into one kind of vernacular or another depending on who is around us.

All language is political, because we are always indicating through it to which groups we belong, what our values are, and where we call home. Had Harry Reid said something like this, I doubt anyone would argue. Obama uses the language of power, and it is in part his artful use of that power that won him the election.

————————

[edit 1-23-10]: I should have pointed out that President Obama obviously gets some of his excellent speaking skills from black preachers, and I think he demonstrates a skill at “code switching” - the ability to “pull off” multiple social discourses at the same time. For a great movie about code switching (and its perils), I recommend Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Playing Whack-a-Mole

I realized some time ago that if I spent my energy smacking down every instance of bad theology I encountered, I’d be playing Whack-a-Mole the rest of my life. The assertions are too frequent, too outrageous to deal with them seriously on a regular basis. For example, I think it’s pretty clear that Fred Phelps is pretty wrong about who God is. His church’s music video “God Hates the World” is a flat contradiction of one of the most basic tenets of Christian faith, found in John 3:16.

I feel a little awkward even linking to the above video - as though by the very act of posting it I’m raising it in the global consciousness, when that’s actually the last thing I want to do.

It’s much the same with Pat Robertson’s and Rush Limbaugh’s comments. Should I even acknowledge that they exist? Or, like the braying and barking of barnyard animals, should I just consider their words background noise? Their breath vibrates vocal tissue, and the fleshy movements of their tongues give shape to their exhalations. Commenting on the supposed meaning of those noises, I feel a bit like I’ve called attention to the fact that someone farted.

The difference, of course, is that flatulence cannot always be helped.

Still, giving them attention almost lends them credibility in the eyes of their followers. I would prefer to let them talk themselves into irrelevance if it were not for the fact that in recent years they seem to have gained an even larger audience.

The Bible acknowledges this dilemma. The book of Proverbs is ostensibly written to teach “wisdom.” The idea is that by examining its aphorisms, readers can come to a greater sense of who God is and what God’s wisdom looks like. But some of those aphorisms are contradictory because wisdom involves the recognition of paradox. Here is the relevant passage:

Do not answer fools according to their folly,
  or you will be a fool yourself.
Answer fools according to their folly,
  or they will be wise in their own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-5

So what’s the answer? Do you answer a fool according to their folly? Or do you let them blather on? Do you descend to the level of folly? Or do you upbraid the fool in the hopes that he or his hearers will see wisdom? Does Socrates spend time arguing with idiots? Or does he seek out conversation with peers? The wisdom here may be that dealing with fools is a no-win situation. If you answer them, you become a fool. If you don’t answer them, they think they are wise. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It’s just damned foolishness.

There are a couple of other aphorisms that follow these that may be appropriate:

The legs of a disabled person hang limp;
  so does a proverb in the mouth of a fool. (v. 7)

Like a thornbush brandished by the hand of a drunkard
  is a proverb in the mouth of a fool. (v. 9)

In other words, even these proverbs, aphorisms of the wise, can be misapplied by fools. It is not the sayings themselves that indicate wisdom, but the context in which they are applied.

It is like binding a stone in a sling
  to give honour [or a television or radio program?] to a fool. (v. 8)

My addition may sound cheeky, but the fact is that giving honor to someone in the ancient world often meant giving them time and space for a speech. To give a fool honor, or money, or a forum to spew their vomit, creates a situation in which someone is going to get hurt.

Like a dog that returns to its vomit
  is a fool who reverts to his folly. (v. 11)

Just in case you thought my use of the word “vomit” or “fart” was harsh or un-Biblical.

Do you see persons wise in their own eyes?
  There is more hope for fools than for them. (v. 12)

And that’s really the problem, isn’t it? Because I can recognize fools, does that make me wise? Or does it take one to know one? I also have a forum in which to use my words. I have a pulpit and an audience. I pray that God will help me to use it wisely, that I will not be like a drunkard with a thornbush, or a fool shooting his sling into a crowd, or a dog that returns to its vomit. The desert fathers and mothers used to pray, “Oh Lord, him today, me tomorrow.” I hope that when (not if) I mishandle my words, I only look like an idiot, and that it won’t cause others to get hurt.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

UMCOR Aid for Haiti

You can contribute directly to relief efforts by donating through UMCOR. 100% of donations go directly to relief. I’ve frequently been impressed with the United Methodist Committee on Relief. It’s one thing that our Connection does really well. Charity Navigator also gives them a good rating.

Surely one does not turn against the needy,
when in disaster they cry for help.
Job 30:24

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Faith and Foreskins

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Mr. Not-Nice

The conversation went something like this:
Young woman: I’ve heard that you should always say “see you later” instead of “goodbye” when you part, because if you say goodbye you might never see them again. Do you think that’s true?
Me: I wish that were true. If so, there are a few church people I’d say goodbye to.
Older woman: DA-vid! That was not nice! And you are supposed to be a minister!
Me: What difference does that make?
Older woman: You’re supposed to be like Jesus!
Me: Jesus was loving, but he wasn’t always nice.

I’m surprised at how often I have to say this. People seem to think the most important characteristic of Jesus was that he was nice. Let me make this perfectly clear: Jesus was not nice. He called respected leaders of his day “snakes,” “pagan actors,” and “fools.” On one occasion he even obliquely referred to a woman as a “bitch.”

Yes, he did.

“Oh, no,” you object. “Jesus would never use profanity. He said he wouldn’t take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

See, the problem is that you think of a dog as a cute little puppy. You think of Lassie and Benji and Marley. But in most of the world they are simply large, mangy rats. In today’s America, calling someone “dog” is a term of endearment. But if you if you call someone a “dog” in any other country today, you will start a fight. A hundred years ago, you would get the same response in our own country. “Dog” and “bitch” were equally offensive, since they were two words for two genders of the same animal. But for some reason “bitch” has retained its negative connotation in our culture, while “dog” has lost its offensiveness to our modern ears. So when Jesus uses the word “dog,” we don’t even blink. It doesn’t strike us as offensive. In our culture, if you really want to call a man a “dog,” you use a more elaborate term: “son of a bitch.” And what would the son of a bitch be? A dog.  Ergo, Jesus calls the woman a bitch.

“Fool” has the same problem. Because we do not live in a culture that values wisdom as Jesus’ culture did, when we call someone a “fool” it has very little offensive power. But “fool” was harsh back in the day. We have our own versions: moron, idiot, retard, dumbass. Substitute any of those for Jesus’ words when he addresses the man in the bigger barns parable: “You dumbass! Tonight you will die, and all those things you’ve accumulated - whose will they be?”

“Hypocrites,” again, is just the Greek word for actors. But Jesus uses it describe religious leaders who prided themselves on being distinct from pagan, uncircumcised Greeks. He is saying that they are Greek actors, and you know about actors - those libertine celebrities who get paid to pretend on stage. He is saying to those religious leaders that their religiousness is a sham, their righteousness a fake righteousness, and there is no distinction between themselves and the pagans. So imagine going into any church of fine upstanding fundamentalists and referring to them as actors in a porno movie, willing to sell their virtue to paying audiences… and you’d probably get a similar reaction to the one Jesus got.

And “snake?” Remember, it was a snake that got Adam and Eve into trouble in the first place. People used to die from snakebite a lot more frequently than from automobile accidents. Snakes were unclean, though they were used a symbols of healing in pagan rituals. So to convey the same sense of contempt and outrage, try using the word “rats,” or “parasites,” which we associate with disease, and imagine Jesus applying those words to preachers, pundits, and politicians. Can you see why they killed him?

I think part of the reason the church has lost the urgency of the message of Jesus is that it has lost touch with his outrage. Jesus is more than a little disturbed by the leaders of his day. He is livid. He expects justice and righteousness from people who claim to represent God. He does not expect business as usual. He expects radical change.

But what we expect in the church is nice.

Don’t get me wrong. People in the church need to be adults. They should treat each other with civility. But they should not tolerate childish behavior on the part of other Christians, and they should not be silent in the face of injustice and religious hypocrisy. When Jesus preaches to those in power, he usually says something like, “hey, you dumbass!”