We'll have a gay old time.

Language is an interesting entity. Few things of such immense consequence are so uncontrollable and unpredictable. It is the foundation upon which society is built, yet it has all the approximate structural integrity of Jell-O. Despite this, we go on trying to control the monster called English. It is inevitable, however, that the words comprising our language sometimes go awry, taking their own, sometimes mind boggling, path through history. Such is the case of gay.

At this point in our history, gay’s primary denotation is homosexual, as it should be. While I am aware that other usages of gay are common slang, it is my opinion that those usages, though they no longer have a direct association with homosexuality, were born of that usage and therefore rely on its existence in order to remain potent. Without meaning homosexual, gay simply becomes another synonym for stupidity, further cluttering our language with useless words. Under the assumption that gay means homosexual, however, phrases featuring alternative usages inspire thought or reaction, which was their original purpose.

Gay was harmless enough when it came about, typically meaning or having to do with being happy or lighthearted. In this original form, gay found its way into the works of Shakespeare, Chaucer and many others, according to the Oxford English Dictionary; many members of my generation probably remember the ending of the Flinstones theme song, “We’ll have a gay old time.”

Having considered how recently the original definition made its way into pop culture, it is hard to conceive how gay originally came to be associated with homosexuals. A telling consideration, though, may be that the stereotypical homosexual man embodies much of the original meaning of gay; many a portrayal has created an image of the happy, friendly homosexual male in the minds of Americans. Assuming there to be some correlation between the word and the depiction, it is hard to discern whether the term gay was applied to homosexuals because of this image or if the image was created in response to the label, however the former, in my view at least, seems to be the more likely of the two.

During the recent past, the topic of homosexuality has become less taboo due primarily to arguments over rights, such as gay marriage. Terms such as gay pride, gay bashing, gay panic, and the gay gene were born of the public response to the gay movement. Yet another boost in casual talk about homosexuality came from the identification of the AIDS virus in the early 1980’s, at that time also known as the gay plague.

This proliferation of gay related discussion has led to a corresponding rise in the use of the word gay, which may explain why so many different variations have formed. Excessive use of a word or phrase (such as gay) tends to lead to accelerated mutation; such is the case of many of today’s controversial words. Perhaps the simplest explanation for this phenomenon is that once the word has become hackneyed by repeated use, it is more accessible in everyday conversation and therefore more vulnerable to slang.

Though slang terms are often innocuous, they sometimes cause confusion concerning when it’s okay to use what word. In December 2003, the Washington Post ran an article about a homosexual woman in Louisiana whose son was reprimanded at his elementary school for using the word gay to describe his mother. Most administrators supported the disciplinary action, saying that it was inappropriate for a second grader to discuss his mother’s sexuality; the mother, however, saw it as a slight against homosexuals. I doubt the school’s reaction was one of bias against homosexuals (as the article implies), but rather a reaction to what they perceived to be a “bad word”.
The story, however, is telling in that regard; gay is a tricky word. By the article’s admission, use of the word gay towards another student (presumably in a derogatory manner) would be unacceptable and punishable, but the use of gay in describing a homosexual is allowable. The fine line created by this double standard of word usage is the reason for the widespread confusion and reluctance regarding the use of the word gay.

Not all news papers share the interest of ensuring the proliferation of the word gay, however. According to an article in Metro Weekly, a gay and lesbian magazine, a letter sent to the Washington Times containing the word gay was edited by the Washington Times staff to say homosexual instead. Having complained that the alteration changed the meaning of his letter, the author of the letter received an explanatory e-mail from an editor of the newspaper. According to the e-mail, "Per The Times' policy against Orwellian abuse of the English language, the euphemism ‘gay' is not used to describe the homosexual lifestyle." Though ultimately inconsequential, the article illuminates a side of the gay argument that is not often seen, the argument that gay has never meant homosexual, and that using it in that manner is the equivalent of slang. While most forms of media take a traditional approach to language, not many take it to this extent.

Having gone through High School during the most recent evolutionary period of the word gay, I’ve witnessed a number of situations in which the word gay has caused confusion, and heard quite a number of its usages. The most popular use, in my experience, is as a negative or derogatory term. Typically, when directed at a person, gay is applied to a straight man as a term implying stupidity or some other undesirable character trait (“Stop being gay.”). On the other hand, it can be assigned to an inanimate object or activity, typically as an indication of complete contempt or disgust (“That’s so gay.”). Additionally, regional variations occur naturally, such as the expression “Oh my gay” at my High School.

Yet again, the fine line between usages becomes an issue. The implication of gay having a negative connotation is that homosexuality shares those unattractive traits, and is therefore something negative or disagreeable. While those who use gay to describe something negative probably don’t intend for this connection to be made, it is a natural byproduct of the usage.

The rapid evolution of gay has resulted in these simultaneous usage variations. While still in the process of being accepted as a term meaning homosexual, it has been hastily morphed in every day speech, causing bilateral interpretations and controversies, and further confusing the general public as to when and where they can use gay. In order to be coherent and user friendly in today’s society, gay must be understood to mean homosexual.

Though, at times, the monster of English may seem out of control, we must realize that, in fact, we initiate and control its every move, and therefore should take a serious look at the role we play in its growth and development. It is our responsibility to steer the behemoth in the proper direction, and it is not a responsibility we ought to take lightly.

Works Cited

Bugg, Sean. “What’s in a Word?: Holding the Lexical line at the Washington Times.” Metro Weekly 16 January 2003. 8 March 2008 .

Stepp, Laura Sessions. “In La. School, Son of Lesbian Learns ‘Gay’ Is a ‘Bad Wurd’.” The Washington Post 3 December 2003. 8 March 2008 < dids="473779171:473779171&FMT="ABS&FMTS="ABS:FT&date="Dec+3%2C+2003&author="Laura+Sessions+Stepp&pub="The+Washington+Post&edition="&startpage="C.01&desc="In+La.+School%2C+Son+of+Lesbian+Learns+%27Gay%27+Is+a+%27Bad+Wurd%27">.

“Gay.” Def. 3.a. Oxford English Dictionary.

You can call me Play-dough.

In class yesterday we discussed the term ‘macho’ and the difference between advertising and reality. Disregarding the fact that Guilbalt (the author of “Americanization is tough on Macho”) seems to have a distorted view of how American’s define macho, she provides an interesting starting place for the argument of advertising vs. reality.

The real question in this regard, I think, is not why Americans distort reality, but what the reality of a word is. Without getting too philosophical, it seems to me that the American reality can be something completely different from the Spanish reality, but still be reality (or truth) none the less. The word macho, assuming our definition or perception is different from that of the Spanish, is just as much what we make it as what anybody else makes it. If I say that macho means “girly”, that is my own truth or reality, and cannot be called untrue or a distortion of reality by anyone else. On the other hand, if I were to say that the Spanish definition of macho is “girly”, that would be a distortion of the Spanish reality, and therefore untrue (advertising).

Following the same track, if I were to “advertise” to those around me that the definition of macho is “girly” while another individual told the same people that macho means “manly”, we would both be advertising, and therefore using the same means to reach different ends. Those to whom we advertised (assuming they had no previous knowledge of the word) would have the power to accept either definition, both of which would have the sole endorsement of our claims and therefore equal merit.

My conclusion, I suppose, is that, like children playing with play-dough, we have the power to mold our language in the manner we deem fit. Though we often mimic molds others have made, we maintain the prerogative to create something new and different and to defend it no matter how ugly it may be. That is the beauty of language.