The transgressiveness of sexual banterâits tendency to report markedly offensive acts or desires in deliberately offensive (or in the mediaâs terms, âlewdâ) language, is not just accidental, a case of men allowing the mask to slip when they think theyâre alone. Itâs deliberate, and itâs part of the bonding process. Like the sharing of secrets, the sharing of transgressive desires, acts and words is a token of intimacy and trust. It says, âI am showing that I trust you by saying things, and using words, that I wouldnât want the whole world to hearâ. Itâs also an invitation to the hearer to reciprocate by offering some kind of affiliative response, whether a token of approval like appreciative laughter, or a matching transgressive comment. (âI trust you, now show that you trust meâ.)
When a private transgressive conversation becomes public, and the speaker who said something misogynist (or racist or homophobic) is publicly named and shamed, he often protests, as Trump did, that it was âjust banterâ, that he is not âreallyâ a bigot, and that his comments have been âtaken out of contextâ. And the rest of us marvel at the barefaced cheek of these claims. How, we wonder, can this person disavow his obvious prejudice by insisting that what he said wasnât, âin contextâ, what he meant?
What Iâve just said about the role of transgressive speech in male bonding suggests an answer (though as Iâll explain in a minute, thatâs not the same as an excuse). Public exposure does literally take this kind of conversation out of its original context (the metaphorical âlocker roomâ, a private, all-male setting). And when the talk is removed from that context, critics will focus on its referential content rather than its interpersonal function. They wonât appreciate (or care) that whatâs primarily motivating the boasting, the misogyny, the offensive language and the laughter isnât so much the speakersâ hatred of women as their investment in their fraternal relationship with each other. Theyâre like fishermen telling tall tales about their catches, or old soldiers exaggerating their exploits on the battlefield: their goal is to impress their male peers, and the women they insult are just a means to that end.
As I said before, though, thatâs not meant to be an excuse: Iâm not suggesting that banter isnât âreallyâ sexist or damaging to women. On the contrary, Iâm trying to suggest that itâs more damaging than most critical discussions acknowledge. Banter is not just what commentators on the Trump tape have mostly treated it asâa window into the mind of an individual sexist or misogynist. Itâs a ritualised social practice which contributes to the maintenance of structural sexual inequality. This effect does not depend on what the individuals involved âreally thinkâ about women. (I have examples of both sexist and homophobic banter where Iâm certain that what some speakers say is not what they really think, because theyâre gay and everyone involved knows that.) Itâs more a case of âall thatâs needed for evil to flourish is for good men to go along with it for the lolzâ. [âŚ]
I said earlier that when Trump and his companions on the bus talked about women, the women were not the real point: they were like the fish in a fishing story or the faceless enemy in a war story. But that wasnât meant to be a consoling thought (âdonât worry, women, itâs nothing personal, theyâre just bonding with each other by talking trash about youâ). When you talk about people it SHOULD be personalâit should involve the recognition of the other as a human being with human feelings like your own. Heterosexual banter is one of the practices that teach men to withhold that recognition from women, treating them as objects rather than persons.
On banter, bonding, and Donald Trump - Deborah Cameron has written a good analysis of the linguistic problems with âjust banterâ on her blog.Â
