Stephen Colbert and Philosophy - Aaron Allen Schiller [110]
Yet, as Kennedy notes, the history of a term is not obviously at issue when it comes to the elusive logic of offense. When David Howard, the white director of the Office of the Public Advocate in Washington D.C., used the term “niggardly” in a closed-door discussion with three of his staff members in 1999, the fact that the word, which means “miserly,” has Scandinavian origins and no racial connotations didn’t stop him from eventually being forced to resign his post when word of his “misdeed” became an open secret in Washington D.C. To many, the word “niggardly” evokes disgust just in virtue of sounding like the N-word; the fact that it has no historical connection to the N-word is beside the point. This just goes to show that how we hear words (perhaps even their very meaning) isn’t logical or rational. We can’t just decide that something does not offend the ear. The logic of offense, it seems, is personal and political, principled yet irrational all at the same time.
The less-extreme Regulationists are in favor of what we might think of as a partial ban on the use of The N-word. In some circumstances, it’s perfectly acceptable to use it, and in other circumstances it’s not. What determines whether or not any particular use is appropriate is a matter of debate. Perhaps only African-Americans should be allowed to say it, on the assumption that one cannot logically be said to be racist against oneself. This seems to be the way Chris Rock thinks about it. As Randall Kennedy points out, Rock, who is not alone in doing so, holds to a strict double standard when it comes to the use of the N-word:
even blacks who use nigger themselves adamantly insist that it is wrong for whites to do so. On the album containing his “I hate niggers” skit, for example, Chris Rock … presents a sketch in which a white man approaches him after a performance and appreciatively repeats some of what Rock has just said onstage. The next sound heard is that of the white man being punched. Rock’s message is clear: white people cannot rightly say about blacks some of the things that blacks themselves say about blacks. (Nigger, p. 100)
In the skit, Rock “punches” his white fan, much to the delight of his audience, even though the fan is coming to Rock, one assumes, in the highest respect and with the best possible intentions. He’s a fan! But that doesn’t matter to Rock. No matter what the intentions of the white fan, the use of the N-word is always off-limits to him, presumably because of the color of skin alone.
It’s in response to episodes such as these that Kennedy asks the question,
Can a relationship between a black person and a white one be such that the white person should properly feel authorized, at least within the confines of that relationship, to use the N-word? For me the answer is yes. (Nigger, p. 42)
According to Kennedy, if the white person has shown himself to not be racist, and perhaps if no other word will communicate the idea that the white person is trying to get across, then, yes, it would be okay for a white person to use the N-word in that situation (“within the confines of that relationship”).
Put in the terms of linguistic license, Kennedy is clearly against Eradicationisism which says that no one ever has linguistic license to use the N-word. And he thinks that Regulationism, which issues linguistic license based on skin-color (or other racial markers), is just arbitrary. For him, what matters is the intention of the words as spoken in a particular situation. The white person who has cultivated a relationship with a black person and who cannot express himself in any other way than to use the N-word may, since he or she has shown themselves to have good intentions in using it. If this is an accurate characterization of his position, let’s call Kennedy an “Intentionalist.” An