I listened to a woman use the construction latinx in public setting. It was used entirely in passing, as people from Latin America were not the topic of discussion, nor was there any focus on how one might understand new ways of addressing people or showing sensitivity. It seemed automatic. There was no particular hectoring tone about it, though I believe that is always the subtext when using a cultural phrasing that the group itself is indifferent or even hostile too, as is true here. At least, as of a couple of years ago. The fashion among Hispanics may be changing for all I know. Native Americans did not used to care a whit about some mascots and names of sports teams, or were even much in favor of their group being commemorated locally in a team name. Those poll numbers have changed over time, proving that astroturfing can work, I suppose. I am in favor of people changing their own language to express some cultural idea. I dislike it being enforced on others who do not share the idea, but are now under pressure to like it.
Yet it occurred to me that the communication was not so much a quiet assertion that "this is the correct term, and you should use it too," as a class signaler of "I have been connected to a graduate school in one of a related range of subjects (social science, education, politics, some of the arts and humanities) in the last decade or identify strongly with that group." It has a sermon in it, but even more of a brag. I doubt very much the woman perceives this about herself - though she is a linguist and should be alert to layers of meaning. But it is not an expression that is preferred by Americans with recent ancestry in Latin America in general, just the certain ones. The better ones, who know more about how people should behave. That weakens the claim that "this is a usage that keeps us on the path to less prejudice and greater respect." Therefore, an additional signalling is likely. "I am speaking the code of a particular group, like a bird chirping out its territory."
It is not a bait-and-switch or motte-and-bailey or any other specific example of pretending to mean one thing while meaning another, it is just another lack of personal insight.
2 comments:
"...it is not an expression that is preferred by Americans with recent ancestry in Latin America in general, just the certain ones."
Who are those certain ones?
"Latina-Latino" is relatively recent in usage... no earlier than the 60s? (I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong) When I was growing up in Colorado/New Mexico, the problem was that the Latin languages were overtaking, diluting, overwhelming... choose your word.. the indigenous languages. This is still a controversy. In my experience, Mexicans do not consider themselves Latin at all. They were conquerors, not ancestors.
Of course, I could have this all wrong.
The Certain Ones would be the same as the black or African-American ones, who have gone to the correct classes in college and embraced the fashions. No need to force people who have already volunteered.
I had forgotten that on-the-ground historical example of Latin/Mexican/Hispanic/Indigenous identities in competition. I don't fully understand where it has gone, except that there is now supposed to be a national consciousness for political purposes, rather than local identities based on, you know, your actual family's experience.
Post a Comment