Bigger Than Rush: The Violence of Language and Language of Violence

Bigger Than Rush: The Violence ofLanguage and Language of ViolencebyDavid J. Leonard | NewBlackMan
RushLimbaugh has once again demonstrated the entrenched misogyny of Americanculture.  Calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"and a "prostitute," among other things, is telling of both his own ideologicalfoundation as well as society's.  Unfortunately,the conversation and public outrage has often drifted away from the broaderissues of violence, sexism, and misogyny, away from the broader attack on girlsand women, instead focusing on "politics," on removing Rush from the airwaves,on sponsors, and myriad other issues. Increasingly, as Rush's defenders cite double standards, whether in theform of societal acceptance of sexism within hip-hop or from liberalcommentators, the debate is moving away from the issues of violence.  In focusing on only Rush (he is reprehensible),the politics, and in debating claims about hypocrisy, we are failing to seeRush and his comments as a symptom thereby obscuring the consequences of this language andits place within the broader war against young girls and women. 
RushLimbaugh once again illustrated the reasons we need to "occupy" theairwaves.  As Iwrote last month about Fox News and the soiling of already violent publicdiscourse, the ubiquity of racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia withinthe public square represents a major threat:
Racism, homophobia, immigrant bashing, misogyny and a general tone ofviolent rhetoric is almost commonplace at Fox.  Their motto of "Fair andBalance" seems apt at this point where they are fairly balance with comments ofracism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia.  The saturation has producedan almost normalizing effect whereupon progressives and society at large don'teven notice at this point, simply dismissing as Fox being Fox.  Yet, theconsequence, the pollution of the public discourse, the assault on theepistemology of truth, and an overall souring of the public airwaves with dailymorsels of disgusting, vile, and reprehensible rhetoric, illustrates that "Foxbeing Fox" poses a serious threat to Democracy, not too mention justice andequality. 
Limbaugh'srecent comments are yet another example of "Rush being Rush" and the level ofviolence that "occupies" America's airwaves.   The demonization of women, the criminalization ofblacks and Latinos, and the overall climate of racial/gender pathologizing areas commonplace as the scapegoating of hip-hop within today's media.  This is evident in the language ofeveryday life.   Violent rhetoric has consequencesevident in ubiquity of sexual violence, racial profiling, and job and housingdiscrimination.  They matter notonly because the words themselves are violent, but also because they provide awindow into a larger structural reality; words matter because they hurt andbecause the sources of meaning, the history embedded in our language, and our senseof imagination all emanate from this place. 
Ina recent Daily Beast column, Kirsten Powers,citing examples of misogyny from the likes of Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann andChris Matthews, among others (not surprisingly as a Fox contributor she doesn'tcite any examples from her employer despite the following examples), argues that, "It'stime for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight againstmedia misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the DemocraticParty, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square."   Whilenot buying the narrative that seeks to directly or indirectly excuse Rush'scomments by noting the sexism of the "left" as evidence of both a doublestandard and a selective denunciation of sexism from the right (seehere for example and hereand here and here and here and here), any effort totransform public discourse must account for all forms of violence and the waysthat racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia pollute and define media culture.  Rush's comments are not an isolatedincident (for him or talk radio) given his consistent demonization of MichelleObama (#1, #2).  Yet, Rush's comments must also beunderstood in relationship to the disgusting comments from Michael Moore (amongothers), who responded to Limbaugh with the followingtweets:
I guess Romney knew that Rush, who made the mistakeof saying what most Republicans think (women as sluts), had cost him the Nov.election.
Or after losing 6 sponsors yesterday Rush decided heloved $ more than he loved calling women prostitutes. Musta been a tough call,eh Rush?
Some sponsors don't care how much Limbaughapologizes: mmflint.me/Awf562 (I know – what were they doing there in the 1stplace?)
RT @pattonoswalt Ayn Rand would be very pleased withhow the free market bitch-slapped Limbaugh today.
Dear Rush: Please don't stop! You say what the Rcandidates don't. Voters must hear every day til Nov what Republicans trulythink of women.
Don't give up, Rush! It' s a WAR ON WOMEN & you'rethe Supreme Leader. Keep reminding voters how hate & violence drives theRepublican agenda
Rush – As soon as u started losing the big $$ fromyour hate speech, you caved & obeyed the men who pay u. Who's theprostitute now, bitch?
And BTW Rush, your vile & vicious attacks on meover the years – I wear them as a badge of honor. You are sad & sick &I've always pitied u.
Theuse of "bitch," "bitch-slapped" and prostitute here, just as the sexualizationof women from the likes of Bill Maher, is not a cover for the likes ofLimbaugh.  Sure, the ideologicalunderpinnings and the larger visions of society are different, but that doesn'tsanction the language nor does it limit the consequences.  Limbaugh's comment read inside of alarger context points to the necessity of not simply removing Rush Limbaughfrom the airwaves but transforming a society that needs and props up the Rushesin our mix. 
Hisrecent comments also point to the importance of language and transforming thatlanguage throughout society.  H.Sammy Alim brilliantly articulated the power of language and the necessityof transforming our collective consciousness: "What kinds of issues wouldOccupy Language address? What would taking language back from itsself-appointed "masters" look like?  We might start by looking at thesequestions from the perspective of race and discrimination, and answer with howto foster fairness and equality in that realm," he wrote in The New York Times.  The protest against Rush Limbaugh mustbe a reminder of the power of language and the importance in occupying bothlanguage and airwaves.  It "teachesus that we give words meaning and that discourses are not immutable, and from the way indigenous movementshave contested its use, which teaches us to be ever-mindful about how languageboth empowers and oppresses, unifies and isolates. . . .Pejorative,discriminatory language can have real life consequences."  The language of Rush Limbaugh and thelanguage of Michael Moore, among others, have consequences evident in thesexualization faced by women, the sexual violence endured by girls and women,and the systemic discrimination experienced by women throughout society. 
Moreover,the relative silence regarding the persistent demonization of women of color,on and off the airwaves, illustrates how these consequences extend beyond individualinstances.  What does it tell usthat Sandra Fluke has elicited rightful outrage but the daily assault faced bywomen of color elicits limited outrage from society at large?.  Change will not come simply by denouncing,exposing, and demanding accountability from those who give voice to largersystems of violence.  It is time tooccupy the language and transform the airwaves.  As Dr.Mark Anthony Neal notes, "We need some new strategies—this protest,petition, and wait for the apology, suspension, removal is getting old."  Rush'sabandonment by his sponsors, and his potential removal from the airwaves willnot transform our language nor will it lead to the eradication of sexism unlesswe begin to transform the language, the airwaves, and the institutions that arethe oxygen that sustains Rush Limbaugh and a larger culture that he represents.
***
David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of CriticalCulture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. Hehas written on sport, video games, film, and social movements, appearing inboth popular and academic mediums. His work explores the political economy ofpopular culture, examining the interplay between racism, state violence, andpopular representations through contextual, textual, and subtextual analysis. Leonard's latest book After Artest: Race and the Assault on Blackness will bepublished by SUNY Press in May of 2012.