New Slang
This is not a post about The Shins.
Been thinking about the process by which new slang gains currency:
Slang predominantly originates with young people from marginalized communities (in the US this means Black, queer, poor, criminalized, etc.). It first spreads within this group and gets adopted by the prominent cultural figures (i.e. artists) that form part of this subaltern class. It then moves up the ladder to bigger and bigger cultural figures within the marginalized group, until it “crosses-over.”
The point of “cross-over” occurs when one of the cultural figures from this subaltern class who has influence in the mainstream introduces the slang term to the youth that belong to the dominant class. This introduction can happen either via their sharing (wittingly or unwittingly) the slang term with existing mainstream artists, or it can happen more directly if the subaltern artist has managed to breakthrough into the mainstream. Once exposed to the slang through this “cultural bridge,” young people from the dominant classes begin experimenting with using it within their social settings. Young people, in both the subaltern and in the dominant groups, are more amenible to new trends and fads, as their social identity is in flux and they have a high degree of social plasticity.
Once young people in the dominant class begin using the slang word, the term then travels up the age pyramid, eventually reaching the eldest groups, though this takes a long time (an example of slang that is now so accepted by the mainstream that it is used by the oldest people is the word “cool”, which originates with Black jazz musicians from the 1930s). In some cases, the slang term will not reach the eldest population until the young people who adopt the term get old.
New slang does not always follow the process I have just outlined. Sometimes it’s the local artists from the marginalized community who pioneer a term and spread it with young people in their community. Slang terms also don’t always “cross-over” and sometimes they “cross-over” but only with young people across social classes. Some slang is just a temporary fad that spreads quickly and then burns out, other times it slowly embeds itself into everyday language, and eventually becomes mainstream (and no longer “slang”). But the key point is that is usually originates with the subaltern and then jumps to the mainstream.
This process should sound familiar to anyone who has learned about “cultural appropriation.” The question is: to what degree is this process an example of a dominant class exploiting the cultural “artifacts” of a subaltern class? And to what extent is it the subaltern class making their mark and subverting the cultural power of the dominant class? I believe it's both and the degree to which it’s one or the other depends on the case and the historical moment.
Slang can be seen as a way for marginalized groups to elude and circumvent the mainstream through a coded language that is difficult for the dominant class to comprehend. It’s not for nothing that slang in many countries originates within prisons and gangs, partly as a means of evading authorities but primarily as an identity marker that separates them from the dominant social order. It is also a way of overturning the existing order, as the outsider creates something that makes the insider-group feel excluded (i.e. make them feel “uncool” or not “in the know”).
Beyond this functional purpose, slang is also joyous and fun; an example of verbal ingenuity and cleverness. It’s a little like an inside joke that spreads. Youth from the dominant classes are definitely attracted to this exuberant dimension of slang. They also want to be “in” on it. At the same time, they view the use of coded vocabulary originating in marginalized groups as a way to transgress against their authority figures (their fathers). And this gives it its “coolness” factor. You could also say that these youth are taking coded language from a group their class oppresses and using it (semi-mockingly) as an exotic plaything to make themselves look cool and edgy, and that would be true as well. It should be noted that rarely is this ever the intention; the decision to adopt the slang is attractive on a subconscious level.
The term "slang" itself denotes the introduction of new vocabulary into a language by a subaltern class (this can include disobedient or "alternative" youth, in its broadest sense). Other ways that new words enter our language (whether technical or otherwise) are not seen as "slang" and do not receive the same treatment. Slang is not accepted in "proper" and "educated" social settings, it is only for use in an informal context, when the mask of authority gets taken off. Its resonance with mainstream youth is precisely in the fact that it satisfies the dominant class’s suppressed urges for freedom by straying from the stiff formality of adult figures of authority.
But slang terms bring with them — along with the words — new social meanings and ideas. It is, after all, adopting vocabulary from an outside, disempowered social group. The word “slay” is not simply replacing an existing word with a new one, it is introducing a new idea that is deeply connected to a (subaltern) cultural context. And this is why slang is so often viewed as a threat by the elite (think of the power of the slang term, "woke"). Which somewhat complicates the picture on “cultural appropriation.” Stuff is both being “stolen” (taken from the lower classes, for the social benefit of the upper classes, without any credit or compensation) but that “stuff” are ideas that give greater influence and cultural capital to oppressed groups. In some cases, they are used to spread subversive ideas. Though, it can also be seen as a mechanism by which the mainstream neutralizes potential threats, by taking and defanging a word that is gaining currency within the subaltern.
I am using the example of slang, but you can apply this process to music, dance, fashion, almost any “cultural” product.
The other question is why does this process happen? The short answer is: art is definitionally an activity meant to play with and challenge an existing order (whether that order is sound, or movement, or attire). That can only truly be done by the subaltern. Can the king make art? No, the king must hire someone from a lower rank to produce the art. In the modern era, art is connected to the concept of “the popular,” which exists outside the domain of the dominant class.
I should caveat this with a slight digression, that relates to the book I’m currently reading, Walter J. Ong’s Orality and Literacy. The artforms for which this process applies are oral in nature, and do not apply to literate artforms, which exist on a different plane (you could say that the artform of the dominant classes is those of the written word, such as novels and films, while the artform of the subaltern exist in oral form).
One final digression that requires further elaboration and that I hope to write up in a future post involves the cultural figures involved in the “cross-over.” These are critical actors and exist not just in the world of art but also in the world of politics. Revolutionary leaders tend to be these “cross-over” cultural figures. Individuals with one foot in both worlds, the subaltern and the dominant, who channel the energies and ideas of the lower classes, using the language and tools of the upper classes.
Note of caution: throughout this piece I’m using terms like “subaltern”, “dominant”, “marginalized”, etc. pretty loosely. This is meant as an approximation exercise to get at a broad idea, without worrying too much about specifics and technicalities. Ideally, with more time, I would be able to add some more precision to these general thoughts.