With the news that a version of Huckleberry Finn is being published with the redaction of the word "injun" and the replacement of "nigger" with "slave" there has been a lot of discussion regarding the contextual use of slurs and offensive language. Though not so much in the media, I have seen a number of conversations dealing with when or even if it's acceptable to use slurs in context. And one of the big topics is of groups "reclaiming" slurs; whether this is OK, when other people can use them and when other people can change the meaning of these words.
It took me a while to figure out exactly how to break down the subject. It's a sensitive topic with complicated and nuanced rules and layers. Luckily I was talking to a friend and had an "ah-ha" moment.
Slurs are like a kick me sign. This probably seems like a odd statement but I think it applies. Imagine a situation in high school. Someone is an outcast. A bully places a kick me sign on their back as an attack. That kick me sign is the slur. In this situation I'll use the term "heeb" as I feel comfortable with it but feel free to substitute fag or nigger. The thesis should remain the same. So this victim now technically owns the kick me sign. Many people would question whether this is a desirable item to own but it was given to them. They now own it.
The first step in reclaiming this word, this slur, this kick me sign, is to take away the power it gave the bully. So they use this sign among their friends. They put it on and some of their close friends, who have also had this sign or similar signs stuck to them, joke around and give light taps on the person's rear. At this point this group using the word within themselves takes meaning power away. They're no longer being victimized by it. They are using it to make fun of the bully.
So far in this example we have a group of Jews reclaiming the term heeb. They make fun of anti-Semites by using the word internally, perhaps even creating a magazine. So what are the implications at this point? That it's OK to use this among friends if you are part of the group. If that bully comes back and actually kicks the person in the ass (an anti-Semite calls a Jew a heeb) then that kick would be assault. Looking at it that way one would be hard pressed to misinterpret a bully hitting someone else. Let's find a greyer area. Let's say that someone the victim knows casually sees the kick me sign. They believe that they are close enough friends to give a light tap but the person with the sign doesn't feel that way. After getting kicked it's up to the kicker to explain his or herself and for the kicked to then choose whether that was really an assault or a misunderstanding.
I think this analogy holds pretty well and can serve as a general guide. Is it fair that certain groups will be able to claim more rights to words under this system? Not really but if things were fair in the first place then they wouldn't have been called those slurs at all. This unequal system is a result of unequal treatment. The bullies, racists, anti-Semites and homophobes introduce this uneven balance of power. Reclaiming words is simply a redistribution of the imbalance.
But this is only one step. It takes power away from the bully. What if the person with the kick me sign wants to gain power through this term. Essentially that would be like them getting a jacket that has "kick me" embroidered or silk screened onto the back. At this point it's part of their fashion, their outward identification. This is how they want to be seen. And it's not actually telling anyone to hit them. This is the step where "black" became the term of choice to identify African Americans rather than "negro". This is where "queer" became a movement rather than a slur. It doesn't happen with every term and it's up to the victimized group to take this step.
I recently saw an episode of South Park where the town ends up re-purposing the word "fag" to mean "a biker that makes a nuisance of theirself". I understand that the point South Park was trying to make is that words change meaning and that they are not permanent. That's true but their mistake is taking an active slur and having an outside group redefine it. That's not really acceptable. The term fag is still in use as a pejorative for homosexual. In continuing to use it as an insulting term but for another group that new definition incorporates the original meaning. It's an insult built on the foundation that "fag is bad", and since fag is still used for gay then it also means "gay is bad". It would be exactly the same for white people to suddenly claim the term "towel head" means bad driver. Since it's currently an insult any time it's used it still contains the implication that you're insulting Arabic people. It would be up to Arabs to first reclaim and then repurpose this term. In the kick me analogy this would be like the bully demanding that a nerd hand the sign back so they can put it on a gay person. The bully has already giving the sign to the nerd. It is now the nerd's property.
I hope that the above clears up a bit of the mystery that some people perceive around the complicated and sometimes controversial process of groups reclaiming or "owning" words that have been used against them. As with anything this complicated and has the possibility of cutting to the quick every case to to be looked at individually. It's worth noting that "taking back" a word or "owning" it does not mean actual ownership. After all, this whole thing was sparked by how stupid and wrong it is to remove the word nigger from a book written by a white man.
