Last semester, several departments and student organizations on campus hosted an “Are You Ready?” dialogue to discuss the ongoing debate between “#BlackLivesMatter” and “#AllLivesMatter”. Much of the evening’s debate centered on understanding the social implications of the #BlackLivesMatter movement.
As an avid follower of this movement, I was quite intrigued by the repetition of language from both aisles. On the #BlackLivesMatter side, supporters were angered that #AllLivesMatter supporters devalued their right to specify that the black community should be the focus of social advocacy. On the #AllLivesMatter side, supporters were angered that the #BlackLivesMatter supporters promoted a one-sided agenda that explicitly excludes other races. This combative back-and-forth eventually became unbearable, as neither side was willing to put their guns down.
Upon exiting, I began to wonder why the dialogue bothered me so much. Don’t get me wrong; I’m all down for passionate advocacy. You do you. However, I’ve always felt as though continuous arguing indicates an untapped realization. For me, the #BlackLivesMatter versus #AllLivesMatter debate has deeper implications than merely social discrepancy. Part of the reason this debate continues to be such a hot topic is because we have let our use of language bite us in the behind. To illustrate this point, I will give a crash course in literary theory.
Jacques Derrida, a 20th and 21st-century French cultural theorist, formulated the theory of binary opposition. His work emphasizes the idea that related words work in opposition to each other, thus creating a hierarchy between the two terms. As an obvious example, I will illustrate this idea with the terms “black” and “white”. Being opposites (in the minds of many), these words can be seen as perpetual references to the other. The term “white” has been historically associated with the purity, cleanliness and, quite obviously, European supremacy. On the other hand, the term “black” is understood to invoke darkness, dirtiness and mystery. These two terms are contradicting and referencing each other.
How does this relate to the #BlackLivesMatter versus #AllLivesMatter debate? I can explain.
As previously stated, many #AllLivesMatter proponents disagree with the exclusionary language of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. By explicitly saying “black”, the language causes some to think of the term in the way it opposes “white”. This binary opposition makes us believe that one term cancels the other. Thus, the problem lies in our language and our reliance on the linguistic system.
We must learn that words are misleading because of the slippery connotations they carry. This is not to say #BlackLivesMatter is wrong in using such language; of course not. My argument simply shows how language can fail us or how we tend to misinterpret language in hazardous ways.
I do not wish to make this article an end-all, be-all of the #BlackLivesMatter versus #AllLivesMatter debate. That would be a lofty pursuit. However, I do hope this calls us to think more critically about language and how it functions (or fails) in our society.
Kaypounyers Maye is a sophomore education major from Gulfport.
