Language in Meaning

           In her text “Sexing the Body”, Anne Fausto Stirling, in discussing human sexuality as it relates to the body, talks about the way in which meaning can be inscribed in the body, citing Judith Butler's suggestion “that we look at the body as a system that simultaneously produces and is produced by social meanings...”. This play of meaning vs. cultural meaning vs. contextual meaning made me think about the way in which we talk and write about issues of the body, gender, sex, sexuality, and identity. If the body is a vessel that both carries and creates meaning, it seems to me not too far of a leap to say that language, which is used and created to convey ideas and enforce power structures is also something that has an intricate relationship with the meaning and creation of social meanings.

         I question the role of language when the very order of words (let alone their variety of connotations, denotations, and historical baggage within their social and temporal context) can have a powerful influence on the way in which a person sees themselves in relation to their identity. Here I think about “person-first” language (PFL) vs “identity first” language (IFL) (i.e. the use “a person with disability” vs “a disabled person”). While there is very little difference in the literal make up of the two in terms of words used, they can invoke very different responses. The first (PFL) is meant to avoid dehumanization through focusing on the condition before the person. But as Emily Ladau discusses, her use of IFL has an important interaction with her sense of self and identity as self-described disabled person.

        Words and terms can also carry heavy social and political weight. Take for example the word “Queer”: a word that has been used as a slur but now has (for many) been reclaimed for use, in a general sense, as an umbrella term for people within the LGBT acronym. A single word, and it can invoke any or all of its history of hurt, politics, reclamation and celebration, and identity depending on whom, by whom, or from whom it is used. For a brief summary of the term's history and contemporary usage, you can check out Marissa Higgen's article on Bustle.com.

        In trying to discuss identity, gender, sexuality, and all of their related experiences, it seems as if it is necessary to break things down into their parts—to look at things (terms, experiences, labels...) in their various contexts. While this may be useful for understanding the parts, and more importantly not misunderstanding, how can the understanding of something that is innately a person's experience, whole and individual, be understood through the study of its separate parts? And when each word in a discourse carries with it all the meaning of its society, its context, and its history (and potentially violence), how then can the topic be adequately and accurately discussed without falling prey to the hard-to-comprehend language of Philosophy? And can the ways in which gender, sexuality, identity, the body etc.. be discussed within one culture even be accurate in talking about experiences within cultures with different social meanings? How can discussion of such individualized experiences adequately capture the full breath of each experience? To try and find a language in which there is a standard way of talking about something that is at its very core not standard, but something highly individual and fluid, seems self-defeating.

        I am only just beginning to confront ideas of the body, gender, identity  and sexuality in a traditionally academic context, so I hope that the answers to my questions are forthcoming. But for now, I think I will be wondering about the role of language for a little while longer.