By Dr Selwyn R. Cudjoe
October 23, 2024
Two weeks ago, I responded to Nigel Seenathsingh’s letter that appeared in the Express. I wrote: “When I warned…about the dangers inherent in the Leader of Our Grief’s statements about women, I was not trying to demonise him or Stuart Young. I was only alerting my readers to be on guard about the violence against women [I emphasised women] that exists in our society and the role that language plays in this regard.”
Two weeks later, Minister Stuart Young spoke and washed away all doubts about the misogyny of most of our male parliamentarians. When citizens “made out Young” on social media for his coarse sexual language, he tried to pass it off as “cross-talk” between colleagues (Express, October 17). It was more than that. It revealed the garbage in his mind that must be discarded if we are to tackle the larger question of violence against women.
This is why House Speaker Bridget Annisette-George rejected his underwhelming apology: “I am of the view that it [Stuart’s statement] does not satisfy that which is required of him to purge himself of his despicable behaviour in this House.
“I rule that the Member for Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West at the appropriate time shall unreservedly withdraw the parliamentary, offensive, and insulting language which he used and apologise to this House and its members for not respecting the dignity and decorum of this House.”
Speaking from her own womanist framework (see Alice Walker’s definition of the term) she declaimed:
“As a woman I am naturally led to condemn statements which seek to indecently portray another woman; statements which trivialise criminal activities which exploit women; or statements which impute improper conduct on behalf of other members..
“On Thursday I expressed my condemnation of the use of language which was not reflective of the civility expected of this House. I once again direct members to refrain from misogynistic, homophobic and disparaging remarks in this House.”
After the Speaker’s reprimand, Young offered a more comprehensive apology for words which he said he “uttered sotto voce [that is in a quiet voice], which included colloquial terms”. Whether his words were uttered quietly or loudly it smelled to high heaven. He never apologised to the Leader of the Opposition, the object of his venom.
Young has not grasped the offensive nature of what he said and what it says about himself and his male colleagues on both sides of the House. Language is never innocent. It reveals more than it conceals. A person is her or his language and vice versa.
Jacques Lacan (1901–1981), one of the most influential psychoanalysts of the twentieth century, developed Sigmund Freud’s theory of the unconscious. He said: “The unconscious is structured like a language,” which led other psychoanalysts and psychologists to refine that concept to say “language is a script of the unconscious”. Language makes a person. Lacan notes: “The subject [or person] is constituted in language itself.”
When Young says, “Yeah, she going and zami,” he is not using a colloquial term. He is using phrases and settings that are meant to demean one of our most honourable women: Kamla Persad-Bissessar. Words do not stand in isolation. “To read the language of the unconscious is to grasp the structure of language and speech itself.” Ferdinand de Saussure, the father of modern linguistics, suggested “the word is part of a system and is coated not only with a meaning but also, and above all, with a value”. (Gabriella Yanes, Psychoanalysis: The Language of the Unconscious, 2023.)
With regard to Young’s allusion to his colourful use of colloquial language within the intellectual and cultural tradition of Trinidad and Tobago, he may want to glance at my book, Beyond Boundaries, Chapter 5, “Jammettization of the Culture, 1838–1851”. Footnote one may be especially important for him.
Deputy Speaker Esmond Forde, a male member of the House, belongs to Young’s party. The final decision on Young’s fate fell to him. With all the majesty of his office, he ruled: “The Member has unreservedly apologised for his behaviour and withdrawn his unparliamentary comments…I rule that the matter referred to me…does not warrant any further action by this House.”
And just like that it done. To the Deputy Speaker, it seems to be much ado about nothing. It happens that these two young members of Parliament, without a scintilla of wisdom or the necessary intellectual capacity to understand what was at stake in this high-powered issue, pronounced that Young “has shown remorse”, and that is good enough.
These two men really have no place in the House, nor should they hold any leadership position in our country. On this occasion we should give flowers to our lady Speaker for her eloquence and sympathetic understanding of the issue. Her perspicacity and wisdom brightened the bleakness of our day.