In linguistics, reappropriation, reclamation, or resignification is the cultural process by which a group reclaims words or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group. It is a specific form of a semantic change (i.e., change in a word's meaning). Linguistic reclamation can have wider implications in the fields of discourse and has been described in terms of personal or sociopolitical empowerment.
Characteristics A reclaimed or reappropriated word is a word that was at one time pejorative but has been brought back into acceptable usage, usually starting within its original target, i.e. the communities that were pejoratively described by that word, and later spreading to the general populace as well. Some of the terms being reclaimed have originated as non-pejorative terms that over time became pejorative. Reclaiming them can be seen as restoring their original intent. This, however, does not apply to all such words as some were used in a derogatory fashion from the very beginning. In terms of linguistic theory, reappropriation can be seen as a specific case of a type of a semantic change, namely, of amelioration – a process through which a word's meaning becomes more positive over time. Robin Brontsema suggested that there are at least three mutually exclusive goals of reclamation:
Value reversal Neutralization Stigma exploitation Value reversal refers to changing the meaning from pejorative to positive, while neutralization refers to changing the meaning from pejorative to neutral. Stigma exploitation, finally, refers to retaining the derogatory nature of such terms as a reminder that a given group has been subject to unfair treatment. Reclamation can be seen as both a psychological, individual process and as a sociological, society-wide process. In terms of a personal process, it has been discussed in the context of empowerment that comes from "disarming the power of a dominant group to control one's own and others' views of oneself", and gaining control over the way one is described, and hence, one's self-image, self-control and self-understanding. Brontsema wrote that "At the heart of linguistic reclamation is the right of self-definition, of forging and naming one's own existence." Other scholars have connected this concept to that of self-labelling. The empowerment process, and the denial of language as a tool of oppression as abuse of power, has also been stressed by scholars such as Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, the latter who also referred to it as a "reverse discourse". In terms of the wider socio-political empowerment process, reclamation process has also been credited with promoting social justice, and building group solidarity; activist groups that engage in this process have been argued to be more likely to be seen as representative of their groups and see those groups as raising in power and status in their society. Scholars have argued that those who use such terms to describe themselves in the act of reappropriation "will feel powerful and therefore see his or her group label as less stigmatizing. Observers will infer that the group has power and will therefore see the label as less saturated in negativity". Although those terms are most often used in the context of language, this concept has also been used in relation to other cultural concepts, for example in the discussion of reappropriation of stereotypes, reappropriation of popular culture (e.g., the reappropriation of science fiction literature into elite, high literature), or reappropriation of traditions.
Controversy and objections Reclaimed words often remain controversial for a time, due to their original pejorative nature. For some terms, even "reclaimed" usage by members of the community concerned is a subject of controversy. Often, not all members of a given community support the idea that a particular slur should be reclaimed at all. In other cases, a word can be seen as acceptable when used by the members of the community that has reclaimed it (in-group usage), but its use by outside parties (out-group usage) can still be seen as derogatory and thus controversial. For example, Brontsema noted in 2003 in his discussion of the reclaimed terms that while "[the term nigger (sometimes nigga)] may be acceptable for black people to use it freely, it is off-limits to whites, whose usage of nigger cannot be the same, given its history and the general history of racial oppression and racial relations in the United States." A similar argument has been made in 2009 for words associated with the LGBT movement like queer or dyke. A related discourse occurred with regards to the Washington Redskins name controversy, with the Native American community divided on whether the term has been reclaimed or not. Those opposed to the reclamation of terms have argued that such terms are irredeemable and are forever connected to their derogatory meaning, and their usage will continue to hurt those who remember its original intent and even reinforce the existing stigma. The supporters of reclamation argue, in turn, that many such words had non-derogatory meanings that are simply being restored and that in either case, reclaiming such a word denies it to those who would want to use it to oppress others and represents a form of moral victory for the group that reclaimed it. In 2017, the US Supreme Court heard arguments for Matal v. Tam. In that case, the US Patent and Trademark Office refused a trademark registration for an Asian American band, The Slants, because it deemed the term disparaging. However, the court ruled unanimously in the band's favor. Washington University in St. Louis conducted an extensive study on reappropriation based on the band name and found that reclaimed words could be an effective tool for neutralizing disparaging words: "Reappropriation does seem to work in the sense of defusing insults, rendering them less disparaging and harmful." For example, the word "queer" in the sense of "homosexual" was originally strongly offensive, echoing the negative connotations of the word's older meanings, included "strange" and "odd". Since the 1980s, this term was reclaimed by some gay people as a self-reference. From nowadays, because of this reason, this term is still considered offensive by some, especially when used by a person whose sexual identity is not queer.
Examples
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
