“You can’t say that”
The effects of group affiliation on moral condemnation in cases of group self-deprecation
Why does our moral intuition tend to differ when a person uses deprecating speech towards her own affiliation group as
opposed to an outer affiliation group? This paper offers a descriptive mapping of moral intuitions behind group self-deprecation (GSD) as
stemming from two theoretical fields: pragmatics and standing. The first possible explanation to our moral intuition focuses on the moral
flaw in the utterance of condemned (i.e., the person using GSD). Here, I argue our moral intuition suggests the group
affiliation of the condemned affects the utterance’s pragmatic interpretation, thus affecting its offensiveness. An alternative explanation
focuses on the critic. Here, I argue practices of standing lay behind the offhand rejection of critiques from outer-group
members, regardless of their validity.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Explaining the first moral intuition: The condemned’s group identity affects the deprecating implicature
- 2.1Black humor: The case of group self-deprecating humor
- 2.2Phrase reclaiming: The Cases of Queer and Slut
- 3.Explaining the second moral intuition: The critic’s group identity denies the critic standing
- 3.1The non-hypocrisy condition: Group paternalism
- 3.2The non-involvement condition: Enjoying the fruits of deprecation
- 3.3The business condition: An outside group member is not affected by the group deprecation
- 3.4Know thy place condition: Group autonomy
- 4.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References