The Discursive Ecology of Homophobia

Unraveling Anti-LGBTQ Speech on the European Far Right

Eric Louis Russell

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781788923446
• eBook ISBN: 9781788923477
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Through an analysis of the discourse practices of populist Far Right groups in France, Italy and Belgian Flanders, this book makes a ground-breaking contribution to our understanding of the ways in which homophobic discourse functions. It proposes an innovative heuristic for the conceiving of the interplay of language, context and culture: discourse ecology. The author brings linguistic theories, methods and ways of understanding and thinking about language to a study of the overt and covert homophobic discourses of three non-Anglophone populist movements, and grounds the interpretation of such practices in observable data. In doing so the book encourages us all to reconsider the power we give language in our activism and scholarship, as well as in our private lives.

1 Hate and Language, Hate in Language: (Re)Considering Homophobic Discourse

When it comes to racism, we pay too much attention to language […] and we give language a power that I don’t believe it actually has.

Eula Biss¹

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot’.

C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.

Ann Coulter²

Very often, public reaction to offensive speech focuses on a set of recognizably derogatory words or expressions, or on statements clearly seated in discrimination and bias. This is understandable, especially on the part of those whose work does not delve into the minutia of language form and structure – after all, people are called unpleasant names and are subject to invective statements, leaving them angry and wanting to respond. However, as might be inferred from Eula Biss’ above-cited statement concerning racism, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to simply point out the obvious when it comes to combatting the potential social and psychological harms of communicative acts: if all that were required to combat racism, for instance, were the prohibition of ugly epithets and the avoidance of statements denigrating ethnic minorities, a more egalitarian world would be relatively easy to achieve. All but the most naïve understand that this isn’t the case, of course, and recognize that animus is often concealed within utterances that on the surface appear to be anything but hostile or injurious. Later in the interview from which this citation is drawn, Professor Biss admits as much, adding that there is much policing of language, because ‘we aren’t sure how to address the real problems’, further commenting that racism is, in her view, largely seated in complex patterns that underlie our physical, political, economic and communicative interactions.

No doubt similar statements can and have been made about homophobic speech. Derogatory language directed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ³) individuals and groups is not limited to a list of taboo words or overt declarations of prejudice. Censoring words such as faggot, pédé (French), checca (Italian), maricon (Mexican Spanish) or Tunte (German) would do little to eradicate communicative bias against sexual minorities, even if it might eliminate some particularly painful moments in the lives of many. This fact is made acutely clear in the quote attributed to Ann Coulter, a public figure who can hardly be considered favorable to LGBTQ rights and equality: she deploys one of the most recognized forms indexing homophobia among North American Anglophones (fag), concurrently asserting that her statement has nothing to do with homosexuality per se (after all, then-candidate Edwards was openly and incontrovertibly heterosexual). Similarly, homophobic speech cannot be reduced to statements of anti-LGBTQ exclusion or derision, such as the well-known slogans ‘homosexuality is an abomination’ or ‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!’. All but the most inexperienced – or perhaps willfully ingenuous – members of a speech community are aware that animus far surpasses such clichés. However, it can be maddeningly difficult to pin down what constitutes homophobic communicative behavior, let alone those elements within a given speech act that actuate or advocate the harm and exclusion of LGBTQ citizens. Our ability to discern and combat communicative prejudice is often seated in our hearts and not in our minds; it is often felt in our emotional viscera, but eludes our eyes and ears.

The dual imperative emerging from these considerations – the need to transcend the facile and delve into the messiness of homophobic language – frames this book and all that is hoped will come from it. This work endeavors to look past surface forms and easily understood messages, asking how homophobia is integrated within and arises from the very linguistic substance of discourse practices, with the goal of demonstrating that homophobia is not only seated in words and affect, but is also projected through all levels of linguistic and cultural competence and emerges from interwoven layers of linguistic and cultural performance. Undertaken in the following chapters is a simultaneously broad and deep examination of the complex, frequently overlooked linguistic patterns that produce and propagate the homophobic worldview, transmitted in language, and an explanation of these that is socioculturally connected and informed: this approach is subsequently applied to three populist groups active within French, Italian and Flemish speech communities.

From the very first steps of description, to the elucidation of linguistic patterns, to their analysis, the approach taken here rests on a fundamental presumption: the actuation of discourses is not accidental, but is driven by choices, conscious or subconscious, on the part of discourse authors. Some of these are lexico-semantic, e.g. referring to a person as gay versus homosexual (or eventually as fag, sodomite, pervert, etc.); many more are anchored within grammatical and semantic choices, from the morphological, to the syntactic, to the pragmatic, as well as in meanings emerging at the intersection of these. This approach is founded upon three derived assumptions: firstly, that homophobic discourses are manifest through structured linguistic performances constrained by language-specific parameters; secondly, that these performances are circuitously interleaved with linguistic competence; and lastly, that all such linguistic activity is inseparable from wider sociocultural competence.

The last point is particularly significant to this book, as it recognizes that language does not exist in a vacuum. Language is a human phenomenon that subsists parasitically in individuals and cultural collectives. While a description of particular discursive acts depends largely on linguistic methodologies, their interpretation and the assertion of specific analyses are grounded in a broader sociocultural frame. This reflects many of the core tenets of cultural linguistics, specifically that ‘there are many reasons to believe that the “language system” on the one hand, and “belief and behavior” on the other, cannot be separated in any principled way’ (Enfield, 2000: 149).⁴ In other words, the convenient lines distinguishing langue from parole, competence from performance, idiosyncratic from shared and I- from E-language must be concurrently troubled and blurred.

Before launching into the heart of the matter, however, it is beneficial to inquire about the usefulness of the intellectual enterprise at hand. In the following sections, and with admitted brevity, I attend to three questions, the responses to which serve to justify the scope, content and goals of this book. These questions concern the interest and importance of homophobia as a sociocultural phenomenon, the particularity of homophobic language within this frame and the need for a properly linguistic approach to homophobic discourse practices. Also addressed are questions pertaining to the foci of particular case studies that constitute the bulk of this book, notably the interest of social media corpora and the selection of data from Flemish, French and Italian sources. Subsequent sections review previous studies of hate speech and homophobic language and set the stage for all following chapters. These serve to highlight not only the important work that has inspired this book, but also to complexify them. Far from imagining that there is a simple, one-size-fits-all approach to homophobic discourse analysis, this discussion lays the foundations for a multipronged approach to linguistic description, discursive interpolation and culturally situated explanation. Collectively, this introductory chapter serves to anchor the ecological heuristic fleshed out in Chapter 2, while also anticipating a series of case studies in Chapters 3 through 5.

1.1 Why Homophobia?

A first question that may be asked of this work cuts to its very premise: why is it important to study homophobia? Especially in democratic societies, it can be tempting to believe (or at least hope) that anti-LGBTQ animus is on the wane. Taking stock of political and social advances, as well as the relegation of blatant manifestations of homophobia to the impolite extremes of public life, homophobia might be seen as less salient or significant a topic. In a world in which more and more countries extend same-sex marriage, civil unions and other protections to LGBTQ citizens, in which openly gay and lesbian individuals are celebrated as entertainers, athletes and politicians, and in which transgender visibility is apparently ever-increasing, does homophobia still matter?

Although I am wary of trivializing strides toward fuller equality and inclusion, my answer to the preceding question is unequivocal: homophobia and its careful examination matter tremendously, perhaps now more than ever.⁵ This response is predicated on the observation that, alongside cultural, legal and political changes that have made life easier for some LGBTQ persons, especially those who are relatively more affluent and those living in relatively more progressive polities, homophobia has not disappeared, even if it has evolved in substance and practice. Indeed, it may be the case that the easy-to-identify homophobic acts are becoming less frequent or ‘going underground’ in some settings, even as more complex, deeply rooted manifestations of animus become more prevalent and normalized elsewhere.

A term lacking universally agreed-upon denotation, homophobia is defined in most dictionaries and clinical texts as the irrational fear of or aversion to persons whose identities, orientations and/or social characteristics somehow represent a violation of mainstream heterosexual normativity. To cite but one example, the European Union describes homophobia in its working policies as ‘an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality and to [LGBTQ] people based on prejudice and similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and sexism’, further stating that this may be manifest ‘in the private and public spheres in different forms, such as hate speech and incitement to discrimination, ridicule and verbal, psychological and physical violence, persecution and murder, discrimination in violation of the principle of equality and unjustified and unreasonable limitations of rights’.⁶ Accordingly, homophobia is not just a conscious reaction predicated on fear, but can be understood as any adverse or discriminatory act targeting perceived sexual and gender minorities.

Debate about such political formulations notwithstanding, it is interesting to note that the term ‘homophobia’ has also attained a much more general, sometimes even vague meaning in daily life, often describing a broad range of activities and opinions rooted in anti-LGBTQ bias. Few would argue that physical violence or political discrimination are homophobic, but many would also claim that jocular stereotypes, the subtle exclusion of preference and persistent cultural invisibility are also demonstrative of homophobia, even if any fear of homosexuals and homosexuality underlying these is readily masked by a veneer of civility. This broader understanding of homophobia is much more in line with what Warner (1991) refers to as heteronormativity, building upon the sociocultural conceptualization of compulsory heterosexuality, whereby any challenge to the normative (i.e. straight, heterosexual, cisgender) social matrix is considered an affront (see also Rich, 1980; Rubin, 1984). Accordingly, it is not merely an animus toward, but the dispreference for that not normatively heterosexual that can be viewed as homophobic.

Used as a working term throughout this book, homophobia should be understood as any expression of disdain or diminution, exclusion or negation, derision or reduction targeting non-heterosexual and/or non-cisgender persons, be this physical, political, economic or social. This type of homophobia is a fact of daily life even in the most progressive of communities and the most inclusive of societies, despite – and perhaps as a byproduct of – increased visibility and acceptance. However real and important legal and political strides toward inclusion and equality may be, these have not eradicated the reality and omnipresence of homophobia: LGBTQ citizens continue to be the target of subtle and not-so-subtle antagonism and prejudice, as well as outright violence, the description and study of which far exceeds the scope, let alone the space of any one work.

In Europe, the Americas and elsewhere, it is quite possible that homophobia has not qualitatively or quantitatively decreased, but has merely changed its form and mechanism of action. While easily identifiable events such as gay bashing may be recognized as social ills and overt anti-LGBTQ haranguing is no longer considered appropriate for public consumption, hidden and deeply entrenched forms of homophobia persist and are permitted to thrive in sociocultural shadows. The danger of physical violence certainly continues to be a reality for some, but the threat of social violence is perhaps all the more so for all, very frequently in ways that are difficult to discern and more often than not pass by unacknowledged.

1.2 Why Language?

A second question that may be raised concerns this work’s focus on language: why study homophobic language and not consider other manifestations of animus? Response to this question is necessarily more nuanced, admitting that, while all acts of homophobia are cert...

Table of contents

• Cover-Page
• Half-Title
• series
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Figures
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• 1 Hate and Language, Hate in Language: (Re)Considering Homophobic Discourse
• 2 The Ecology of Homophobic Speech: Unraveling Discourse Practice
• 3 Les Hommen: ‘Muscled Resistance’ and Misogynistic Homophobia
• 4 Le Sentinelle in Piedi: Naturalizing and Denying Homophobia
• 5 Filip Dewinter: Pinkwashing, Populism and Nativism
• Conclusion
• Reference
• Index