While
completing this week’s readings I kept returning to a series of questions: Who
owns language? Or better yet: Is it possible to own a language? Or even
specific words? These questions are particularly interesting when we look at online
language use, since it becomes difficult to delineate the borders of online
speech communities (imo. Please feel free to challenge this.). Who gets to renegotiate
or re-contextualize the meanings of specific words or phrases ? Is all language
used on the internet (especially those related to viral memes such as “aint
nobody got time for that”) open game for all internet users? How much would a consideration
of ownership/authorship of the memes presented in the articles impact the arguments being
made?
Nichols
suggests that memes such as the “Mexicans Be Like” meme are used to re-contextualize
conversations about immigration, culture, race and language, while Yoon argues
that some memes about racism “perpetuate colorblindness and deny structural
racism”. What is most striking to me about both articles is the attempt to
discuss meaning embedded in these memes without a deeper discussion of possibilities
of authorship or without some kind of interaction with those who have produced
or reposted these memes.
Nichols
brings up the models of personhood and social values related to the memes she
analyses and explores for whom these may be meaningful, but we have no idea who
is made these memes. The obvious assumption is that persons with some ownership
of (/familiarity with) Mexican culture are making these memes. If that is
the case, then the memes can be read as the re-contextualizations Nichols
suggests. However, if these memes were created by an “outsider” then they
become something completely different. The use of Spanish may not be enough to
imply that the memes are produced by Mexican Spanish speakers. In the same way,
the dilemma of authorship plagues Yoon’s meme analysis.
Similarly,
discussions of linguistic and cultural ownership can be seen in the examination
of linguistic gentrification offered in Chapter 2 of How we talk about language
and also in the media: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/digital-blackface-reaction-gifs.
Who gets to share member meanings? Who decides who is and isn’t a member? At
the end of her article, author Lauren Michele Jackson concedes that she is not
suggesting that only people of color are allowed to use gifs with the image of
a person of color but emphasizes that “no digital behavior exists in a
deracialized vacuum. We all need to be cognizant of what we share, how we share,
and to what extent that sharing dramatizes preexisting racial formulas
inherited from “real life.” The Internet isn’t a fantasy — it’s real life.” Whose
real life? The very nature of language, the fact that it lends itself to
constant evolution and recontextualization, seems to make attempts by any
specific group to claim ownership, futile. With meaning being embedded in
context, how can we analyse the context of a social situation represented in a
meme, without understanding who the participants are?
ReplyDeleteHi Sarah-Lee,
Thank you for bringing up the concern, which is both Nichols and Yoon discuss meaning embedded in the memes without a deeper discussion of possibilities of authorship. In fact, Nichols (p. 77) admits that it is impossible to know who created, modified and disseminated the examples she examine in the article, and while she recognizes that the uses of this meme are heterogenous, she is much more interested in the meme as a meaningful object within Mexican American virtual communities than as a tool for hatred deployed by others. In other words, she chose to ignore the possibility of the meme being a tool for hatred or anything else. I think her selective ignorance of other possibilities in the authorship and interpretations of the memes do weaken her analysis in some way. However, the problem you posed seems to be not uncommon in Web 2.0 environment where the origin and dissemination of information are hard to be traced. I’d like to hear some advice on how to grapple with it in class. :)
Thank you for your post and the questions you raise. They are very thought provoking, and in my response, I would like to address two of them.
ReplyDeleteOne of the questions you raised was whether or not language used on the Internet was “open game” for all Internet users and up to what degree a consideration of ownership/authorship of memes would impact the argument being made in the articles we read for this week.
In Wonderment: The Spark that Starts Talk about Language, it is suggested that to use words “effectively,” speakers need to have a somewhat deep understanding of where, how and who uses them. In addition, we are presented with the notion that the words we use, aren’t just our words, but have been the words of others and carry their meaning(s) as well as intention(s).
So, how is this relevant? And how does it relate to your second question?
Börzsei claims that a meme represents “all non genetic behavior and cultural ideas that are passed from person to person” (as cited in Nichols, 2016, p.72). And Yoon (2016) studies memes as a site of ideological reproduction. So, even though there might be room for the question of intent, the meanings and ideologies behind a word or phrase seem to be bigger than that.
We are told in Ch. 2 that when a speaker uses the word “gabagool,” they are being a “specific type” of person, and so it seems to me that when an Internet user chooses to create a meme that stereotypes and/or ridicules a specific group of people they are tapping into an existing narrative that goes beyond their initial intent.
I would like to submit this example for your consideration:
In 2002, there were 50 Haitians living in the entire Chilean territory. From 2013 to 2016, that number increased 731%, and today more than 1 million of them live in Chile.
Since the bulk of the Chilean population has a rather insular and ethnocentric mentality, we can see several memes on Chilean websites that stigmatize Haitians. One of the words to do so is “masisi,” which is a creole word that means “gay.” On different blogs, it is possible to find different views about this particular word, and it is often indicated that Haitians should know that Chileans don’t have mal intent… they are just joking. Furthermore, the suggested comeback is “y tu hermana” (Which means “your sister,” although I think that the equivalent in the U.S. would be “Your Mom.”)
So, even if someone uses the word “masisi” to refer to a Haitian in a joking way, does that excuse them from the implications that their comments/memes might have? In my opinion, it does not. In fact, continues to perpetuate the idea that black people are inferior, that it is ok to laugh at gay people, and that the response or retort should be to make a joke about a woman.
Thank you, Sarah-Lee, for your post. I, too, have been wondering about the relevance of authorship -and reception- of online discussions/media posts. None of the authors adequately addresses this issue in their methodologies, except -as Peizhu already pointed out- Nichols (2016) who concedes the impossibility of knowing the creators of online memes.
ReplyDeleteWhile we may not have to go so far and take up Rushkoff’s (2019) suggestion to become "spoilsports", authorship remains an important issue if we are to expect meaningful online engagement that connects rather than divides us in our humanity. I am looking forward to exploring this question in class.
Sarah-Lee, thanks for sharing your thoughts and bringing up these evoking questions: "Who gets to share member meanings? Who decides who is and isn’t a member?". This reminds me of a conversation that we had in Diversity in Education where we discussed cultural sharing and cultural appropriation in class.
ReplyDeleteSome of the members of our class were/are/will be language educators or work with language educators so these are particularly important questions, especially if we want to expose our students to different perspectives and ways of representing the world. What is the role of language educators in this case? How can our classrooms be inclusive of minoritized or racialized ways of speaking while also being respectful of these speech communities? How do we know as educators when we've crossed ethical lines?
Hi Sarah-Lee, thank you for bringing up questions of membership (e.g. "who", "whose"). If the internet can be seen as a speech community, all members would co-construct the community. Sharing the same language is one thing. Understanding meanings and referents are essential during the interactions between memes and participants.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, although people understand a meme's superficial information or language literally, it cannot guarantee that they can make sense of the meaning of the meme that the author wants to convey. For example, I sometimes come across memes which are written in English. I understand the information but I still cannot understand why it's funny or what it's talking about.
For another, if people are familiar with the speech event, they might get the implied meaning of a meme immediately though it is not written in languages they know.
(Sorry about it. Above is me...)
ReplyDeleteHi Sarah-Lee, thank you for bringing up questions of membership (e.g. "who", "whose"). If the internet can be seen as a speech community, all members would co-construct the community. Sharing the same language is one thing. Understanding meanings and referents are essential during the interactions between memes and participants.
For one thing, although people understand a meme's superficial information or language literally, it cannot guarantee that they can make sense of the meaning of the meme that the author wants to convey. For example, I sometimes come across memes which are written in English. I understand the information but I still cannot understand why it's funny or what it's talking about.
For another, if people are familiar with the speech event, they might get the implied meaning of a meme immediately though it is not written in languages they know.