I thought my last blog would have been liberating and informative and in several ways it was, however some did not receive its objective. Although accolades and affirmations were made concerning my last blog, “Hey Girlfriend!: White Caricatures of Black Rhetoric,” i received a plethora of inbox messages relating to the “intention” of my White colleague, which is understandable as i expressed that i had the same sentiment at first, but intentions are not the foci of concern. In contrast, does the intention of my White colleague have any relationship to my intrapersonal interpretation of her caricaturization of Black rhetoric?
Let us put this conversation into context and enter into a mock dialogue with myself, Conā, a Black woman, and another colleague, Khaled, an Arab male:
Conā: Hey Khaled how’s it going?
Khaled: It’s going great Conā, I’m just reading the Bible.
Conā: Oh, i was under the impression that all Ārăbs (The first “A” pronounced as a long “A” = eɪ, and the second “A” pronounced as a short “A” = æ) were Muslims.
Khaled: That’s not true Conā. Also my ethnicity is pronounced Arabs (pronounced [ar-uh b]) NOT Ārăbs. The way that you articulated it is very offensive to me and my culture.
This mock conversation segues into the discourse on the relationship between intention and interpretation. I could respond to Khaled offering an elaborate explanation on how i did not intend to offend him or his culture and that this is simply the way that i say this particular word. Granted i may not have been aware that the pronunciation i used was offensive, but once Khaled disclosed his interpretation of my pronunciation i am made aware (or i should have been made aware).
Communication is not performed on intentions alone. If it were true that communication was performed based solely on intention, we would not need language at all; rather we would look deeply into each other’s eyes and make a transaction between intentions. In reality we must work together with language in order that our intentions are interpreted as closely as possible. If your “intention” is truly not to offend a culture through rhetorical malfeasance, once a person informs you about an offensive interpretation through language, immediately correct that rhetoric. Disclosing an “intention apology” does not change the harmful interpretation.
In brief, I lost an associate. Why? I lost an associate because i interpreted blatant caricatures of Black rhetoric as impropriety instead of genuine intent.
This associate clearly has no concept of a critical consciousness. That is a major fail on their part, and I can only refer you to Madame Lenelle
ReplyDeleteI must agree with the previous comment. The person who sent you the email not only lacks critical consciousness but also is operating out of a space of privilege that has allowed them to not have to consider the possibility that what they are doing may need to change. Rather than recognizing that as this speech is offensive to you, it may be to others that they encounter (and even those they may use it with) who have yet to state as much, they are going to continue in that vein merely because their "intent" was not negative. What they feel to realize is that there is a difference between ignorance of a situation and blatant disregard... Now that person has the knowledge behind the phrase and how it affects others, the fact that they are still willing to use it indicates a blatant lack of regard and respect for Black women and their language practices. If they know people with whom they use the phrase with and are comfortable with it or reciprocate, that is one thing, but the interactions should then be confined to those relationship, for as you stated in the first post, 'girlfriend' holds many meanings and connotations behind it that go beyond mere acquaintance.
ReplyDeleteHi! I have read both of these blogs, and I have a question about your analysis of rhetoric. First, can you elaborate more on what exactly "rhetorical malfeasance" is?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I am concerned about the conclusions you draw because they seem to be based on little to no evidence, and the little evidence that you have is circumstantial at best. Rhetorical analyses clearly show HOW a particular 'thing' has come to be, and I am not really seeing that happening here.
The term "girlfriend" is used across a variety of communities of cultures, so can you more clearly articulate how this is a particularly Black rhetoric? Until you can clearly show this, I do not understand why the associate in question would NEED to rectify or do away with their use of the term. Additionally, I cannot see how their use of it functions as a caricature of Black rhetoric.
More crucially, I hope it becomes clear, then, that you cannot hold someone accountable to a "critical consciousness" that simply does not exist.
I am Chicana, and I grew up saying not only girlfriend, but homegirl as well. I use both terms even now because they are a part of me. I also think its important to note that this is a term used by working class/poor Chicanas. I think the impulse to say that people who use this term are "uneducated" (or even to simply imply it) or foolish is an elitist one.
Also, your analysis of this associate's quote seems a bit misguided. You draw a very indicting conclusion about this person's intent when, from what I can see, there is no clear indication that this person does defiantly "intends" to keep using the term "hey girlfriend"(which I believe is really her prerogative). In fact, from reading the other blog you posted, it seems more so that here she is referring to the intent to HARM or HURT you or any other Black woman. She is trying to make clear that when people use the term "hey girlfriend," they are not using it with the intent to to harm. This is probably because so many people use it that no one would ever think it would be harming a particular community of people.
I realize that you are making a distinction between intent and interpretation, and that your analysis is based on your personal, embodied interpretation of that phrase from an interpersonal communication standpoint--what it means when a white woman says "hey girlfriend" to a Black woman. But given that the phrase is used in so many communities, I think your rhetoric here collapses on itself. You are necessarily evoking intent in order for you to interpret her use of "hey girlfriend" as CARICATURE, and this is BECAUSE we are talking about interpersonal communication. Additionally, then, you cannot sanction her continued use of the term outside of this interpersonal space, NOR can you make any judgment calls about her continued use being a defiant attempt to continue the caricature of Black rhetoric.
This leads me to wonder if this blog is more about catharsis than it is about rhetorical analysis, especially since there is this very odd comment about this blog not being inspired by said colleague, when the blog begins and ends with "I lost an associate," and is written in such a way that infers that the person being quoted is that associate.
I think this is an important thing to tease out because these tensions among people--especially among white women and women of color (and amongst even women of color)--are not going to go away any time soon.
Philosopher Martin Heidegger once said that language is the house of being. It is here, in the linguistic space, where identities are constituted and presuppositions are (sometimes) exposed. Your ex-associate must recognize that her choosing to continue to articulate something that she is in no way equipped to articulate is a form of ontological violence, a reification of YOUR being in light of her own "Good" intentions. I understand that she may want to be good with you, but this requires a radical rethinking of her relationship to you. As for the "Arab" comment, I would like to think that your ability to apologize and no longer speak in that way is a step toward mending or mitigating the violence you unintentionally committed against him. You're a beast Cona!!!
ReplyDelete