NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/bi/15156

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!emory!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!lunde
From: [e-mail] (Albert Lunde)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: PC (was Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:52:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov16.015203.4780
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Albert Lunde)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Albert Lunde)
Followup-To: soc.bi
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Lines: 58
Originator: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>
 [e-mail] (LEWIS JOSEPH TANZOS III) writes:
>This is completely, totally, and utterly true.  The problem lies in two
>places:
>
>1) To many of the 'non-PC community', PC has taken on the meaning of 'the
>   language that those eco-freaks (or insert appropriate phrase) use'.
>
>2) A small, extremely vocal minority keep spouting off that thoughts and
>   actions along aren't enough, but that you have to say everything in the
>   PC mandated method.

Both of these views I find understandable, but kind of annoying, because
of the lack of a sense of history -- as has been discussed, the term "PC" was
orginally a sort of self-criticism within the old "new-left" and feminist
movements, not a put-down from the outside or a new orthodoxy.

I may be "on both sides of" the question of intentional language.

For the last dozen years I have been in two congregations that practiced
"inclusive language" -- using both genders for god and humanity in our
liturgy out of considerations of feminist theology. And feminism
can also be used to argue the power of previously dispossessed people
doing their own naming.

At the same time, I do not think that most of the benfit comes from
using particular words, especially if one doesn't buy into the ideas
behind them. I personally found that there was some consciousness
raising involved in changing my habits of speech, but now it takes
little effort. I think there is a positive effect on the atmosphere
of our worship to set certian standards of language for the shared
liturgy, but I don't go around trying to censor individual people's
language if they don't conform.

I just came back from a joint service of the Chicago-area United Methodist
"Reconciling Congregations", welcoming the national office of that
program to Chicago. (This organization is about welcoming gay men,
lesbians and bisexuals to full participation in the UM church.)

In a two hour service, the words "gay" and "lesbian" were said 9 times, and
the word "bisexual" was said 4 times. The word "reconciling" was said
numerous times.  I thought there were two contradictory tendencies
in the various speakers -- talking like a convential church
service, while offering glittering generalities and talking about
what we were actually there for -- queer folk in the churches.

The ones who named us, might sound "PC" to your ears, though not
to mine. My point I guess, is that there can be power in naming new
names.

Language is part of a package -- new language is more powerful when it
is not a game of constructing euphemisms, but actually has something
different to say.

--
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 [e-mail] |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 [e-mail] |  Feminist   |.......|.........................