St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church

Recently, New York chose to ban the "n" word. In my world, the word isn't used. Instead, there are subtle nuances, oblique references to "our kind of people" or "urban" to convey identity. The word in question conveys gross bigotry in some, or refers to "uberblackness" by others, where both the metaphor conveyed by the word "black" and physical identity are made identical, heightened with a negative understanding of ghetto culture. It is always an insult, although in very particular contexts, insults form shared identities, may be used in a comic context, or to diminish that same insult's power through a sense of irony. This is such an insult where who says and when and why will invite many different responses.

What is interesting about the current debate to me is that it appears to be more about tensions within black communities rather than current common social uses of the word between whites and blacks. I can imagine that it would be used by whites in our context, but it is not how whites separate themselves. Other forms of insults can go undetected and can identify whites who identify themselves as not black.

In popular culture the word is marketable, and common, raising lots of practical questions. Is it entertainment? Does it mean something besides an insult? What of its linguistic transformations? What is, for example a "wigger?" What happens when urban whites and blacks start trading the words, but now in a way that doesn't convey political power, but a ghetto identity that is shared beyond race?

According to the legislation, there are no consequences to using the "n" word. So why the legislation? I wonder if there are conflicts raised by its connotations - its connections - to parts of the black community that are so divested of political and economic power that some might see its disuse is seen as a way of fragmenting the "uberblackness" that theoretically keeps people trapped in the poverty cycle. I don't have such a view myself, but the legislation seems to insinuate that it is language that is the problem - a language often used as a form of self-identity.

Language frames agency. Words hurt. But will such a ban have clearly practical consequences? It might, however, help us understand the relationship of the "n" word to the social construction of blackness, which could help clarify some of the growing divisions between the black community. In my european protestant view of the world, all movement toward individuality, toward more precise forms of identity, is good.

The rejoinder is that identity is where true agency starts. The ban seems to be a way of being intentional about what black identity is, and it seems not to include whatever the "n" word conveys.