The Q Word and Why Queeritage: Exploring the Evolution of Queer and its Reclamation
- queeritagepw
- Aug 5, 2024
- 6 min read
Updated: Sep 24, 2024
Written by Melody Chen
The adage “words are potent weapons for all causes, good or bad” illustrates how languages, expressions, and words are the essential mediums that have bridged human connections and elevated human societies from animal worlds. Used adequately, words can evoke emotions of love and joy; used maliciously, however, words can have the power to sabotage relationships. From the 1500s to 1930s, the usage of the word “queer” steadily increased, with exponential growth in the late 19th century and early 20th century (“Google Books Ngram Viewer” 2019). However, the 1930s to 90s marked a period in time when the use of the term queer declined remarkably (“Google Books Ngram Viewer” 2019). The changes in its definition suggest why the usage of the term queer fluctuated. The meaning of the epithet queer has evolved drastically throughout time — from being an asexual and agender expression to a derogatory epithet towards homosexuals, and to presently a term reclaimed by the LGBTQ+ community — and the term’s varied use reveals how interactions within the LGBTQ+ community and between queer and cishet communities have changed.
Origins and Definitions of Queer
Originating in the 1500s, the adjective “queer” was derived from the German word quer — denoting perversity, eccentricity, and peculiarity (Oxford Reference 2021). Queer did not begin as an epithet for gender or sexual deviancy; instead, queer was used to describe odd “objects, places, experiences, [or people]” (Brontsema 2004). For instance, queer in the sentence “Chemistry seemed like a queer subject” would connote only the peculiarity in the subject of chemistry. However, in the mid 18th century, the adjective morphed into a noun and verb that described people who were sick and ill (Oxford Reference 2021). Simultaneously, homosexuals and transsexuals were pathologized as mentally ill and sexually deviant and believed to have been “threats” to humanity due to the emergence of heteronormativity and cisnormativity aimed at upholding patriarchy. Thus, the term queer was then used in a derogatory sense to objectify and distance LGBT people. In addition, in the early 1900s, usage of queer within the LGBT community was also evolving. Initially concurring with the term fairies, queer was synonymous with masculine-presenting gay men, and fairy represented feminine-presenting gay men (Brontsema 2004). Within the gay community, queers and fairies were also not a united group originally. Socially, queers despised the flamboyant and effeminate expressions of fairies — largely as a result of intergenerational toxic masculinity and gender norms (Brontsema 2004). Economically, the distinction between queers and fairies also suggested the influence of class on the freedom of expression, as queer men were more likely to belong to the middle-upper class, yet existed less visibly and authentically due to workplace pressures (Brontsema 2004). Disparities in visibility of sexuality between queers and fairies caused straight communities to come in contact with gay men who were only effeminate, and therefore perceived gay men as merely a feminine and exuberant group of people collectively labeled queer (Brontsema 2004).
On Claiming Gay
Cishet people’s external abuse of queer as a pejorative term towards homosexuals drove queers and fairies to claim the term gay as a secret code word for homosexuals within the LGBT community (Brontsema 2004). Initially connoting joyfulness and lightheartedness, gay was adopted widely within solely fairies, as many queers were reluctant to adopt the epithet gay due to its upbeat and feminine connotations (Brontsema 2004). Nevertheless, most queers eventually claimed the term gay, as they did identify as homosexual, and as the specifically effeminate meaning of the term slowly faded (Brontsema 2004).
On Reclaiming Queer
Despite the adoption of gay over queer as a more positive term for homosexuals, the epithet queer was reclaimed by the LGBT community in the 1980s in an effort to advocate for equal human rights amidst the AIDS crisis, and to restructure the LGBT community as a more expansive and inclusive community (Brontsema 2004). The foremost reclamation of queer was by Queer Nation, an activist group formed in 1990 in New York as a subgroup of the AIDS rights advocate group AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP). As a confrontation and resistance against the homophobia, exclusion, and essentialism within AIDS activism and the gay and lesbian community, members of Queer Nation at the time reclaimed the word queer in its denomination (Brontsema 2004). The bold use of queer in the precise fight against queerphobia was a recognition of the injustice that queer people faced, and an upfront call to an end to queer discrimination. Moreover, the ambiguity of the term queer highlighted the existence of diversity and fluidity of gender and sexual identities — including the emphasis that gender and sexuality did not have to be confined to binary paradigms, and that anyone could affiliate with the LGBT community regardless of race, gender, class, etc (Brontsema 2004).
Complexities of Linguistic Reclamation
In the ongoing debate of whether pejorative words such as queer should be reclaimed, the two most common opinions are to support or to oppose the term’s reclamation. Linguistic reclamation is the reclaiming of a slur by the targeted individuals themselves (Brontsema 2004). In supporting linguistic reclamation, one believes that the separation of derogatory meaning and history from a linguistic term is possible. In opposition, one believes that it is impossible to strip meaning and history from a term. However, linguistic reclamation of pejorative terms is more nuanced than the firm division in feasibility of meaning-term separation, and should be perceived as both a recognition of painful history, as well as hope in the utopian potentiality of a queer present and future (Brontsema 2004). That is, a term can hold its harmful meanings and still be reclaimed.
Supporting the Reclamation of Queer
The first stance on the linguistic reclamation of queer is that the separation of the painful history and connotations of a term from the term itself is possible, and that the term should thus be reclaimed. As linguistic reclamation can occur only internally by the victims of the pejorative words, this stance argues that reclamation of queer can promote healing from traumatic pasts. Individuals who support the reclamation of queer believe in the emphasis of love over past irreversible pains. However, the majority of reclamation supporters are younger queer people who were not personally subjected to the abuse of the term; therefore, there has been more acceptance of the reclamation of queer from millennials and gen-z people than previous generations. Additionally, the sole adoption of queer by the LGBTQ+ community cannot reverse or deter the continuation of homophobia and transphobia in society. Instead, the termination of discrimination against queer people requires the dismantling of generational systems that were employed to withhold equal opportunities to queer people.
Opposing the Reclamation of Queer
The opposing stance on the linguistic reclamation of queer is that it is not feasible to strip a term from its pejorative connotations, and that queer should thus not be reclaimed. This perspective argues that the derogatory and self-deprecating implications of queer are engrained in the history and usage of the term, and that the boundaries between past and present connotations are inseparable. Thus, the readoption of queer is simply a way for homophobia to be manifested and legitimized in the 21st century. Nevertheless, this stance is also flawed, as language and society is naturally ever-evolving, and the static perception of queer denies the potentialities of advancement in intellectual understanding and societal acceptance of diverse identities.
Integrative Approach to Viewing the Reclamation of Queer
Rather than confining to the polarizing perspectives of feasibility in separating meaning from term, linguistic reclamation can be approached integratively by both acknowledging the painful history of a pejorative term, but concurrently recognizing the power in reclaiming the term. It is undeniable that the utter reversing of the derogatory connotation of queer is impossible. In fact, the explicit asexual definition of queer — peculiar and deviant — means that the separation of the term queer from its historically discriminatory and queerphobic view of LGBT people is infeasible. However, the LGBT community’s re-identification as queer serves as a protest against their discrimination, and a resistance against the constraints of societal structures of binary genders and sexual normalcy. Therefore, though linguistic reclamation of queer may still be contested, the possibilities of LGBTQ+ individuals’ having agency over their self-definition is in itself a powerful revolution against prejudice.
Why Queeritage?
The name of our project is Queeritage — why? To begin with, Queeritage is a fusion of the words queer and heritage. We aim to preserve and share the authentic stories and histories of the LGBTQ+ community through our multimedia storytelling project. In doing so, we also hope to raise awareness about issues regarding queer rights and gender equality. Heritage is defined as “the history, traditions, practices…of a particular country [or] society…that exist from the past and continue to be important” (Cambridge Dictionary 2024). Thus, we felt that the word heritage encapsulated the subject that we strive to honor, and our intent to highlight the past, present, and future. Simultaneously, we decided to use the word queer as an identifier for our project, because of its expansive and inclusive connotations, as well as the term's history and significance in LGBTQ+ activism. Combined, the two terms form Queeritage!
Reference:
Brontsema, Robin. “A Queer Revolution: Reconceptualizing the Debate over Linguistic Reclamation.” Colorado Research in Linguistics 17, no. 1 (January 1, 2004): 9. https://doi.org/10.25810/dky3-zq57.
Cambridge Dictionary. 2024. “Heritage.” @CambridgeWords. July 31, 2024. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/heritage#google_vignette.
Google.com. “Google Books Ngram Viewer,” 2019. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=queer.
Commentaires