'Monkey'

I like monkeys. I also like the term ‘monkey’. My main issue with this term is that it is perhaps not as acceptable as I would like it to be, especially in the mischievously pejorative way I would like to use it. I tried to perform a study of what adjectives the word ‘monkey’ could be conditioned with in order to make it acceptable.

Adjective 1:

“You are a cheeky monkey.”

This is by far the most socially acceptable use of adj + monkey in order to describe a human being. It seems as though everyone has come to a consensus that the quintessential behaviour of a monkey could be summed up as cheeky. This is perhaps informed by the swinging and oohing & aahing that monkeys are most stereotypically envisioned as performing. It would be interesting to find out whether the throwing faeces element of monkey behaviour is also considered ‘cheeky’, and I would argue that even if this is ‘cheeky’ in terms of the behaviour of monkeys it would not be considered similarly if it was a human being undertaking the action. In fact it may even be considered incredibly deviant. Although if someone were to lock me in a cage who knows what I would resort to.

Adjective 2:

“You are a sexy monkey.”

This phrase perhaps doesn’t spring so readily to mind as its predecessor (that would be ‘cheeky monkey’ if you’ve forgotten), but it still has the ring of something you could get away with socially. I feel that the phrase ‘Sexy monkey’ would suggest an individual that is impish and adventurous in their sexual tendencies. This is interesting as there are monkeys who are very sexually obsessed (the bonobo for instance – I won’t link any photos), and yet it is not promiscuity that this phrase suggests, at least to my own ear. So with these two acceptable uses of monkey this leads me onto my third possible use.

Adjective 3:

“You actually look like a monkey.”

Now sticklers will point out that there isn’t an adjective per se in the final example, and I think you would be right. But that’s my example and I’m sticking to it, so there. Now direct comparisons to animals without conditioning the term with an adjective is largely depreciatory, although this may depend on social stereotyping of the animal in question and also the context of who is doing the saying and who it is being used to describe. For instance describing someone as a dog is usually bad, and even though puppies seem to be the universal unit of cuteness describing someone as a puppy would by and large be seen as an underhanded snipe. Similarly a cow, a pig, an elephant, a chicken, a turkey or a horse are all negatively charged descriptors.

Intriguingly the only one of these examples I have used, as a flirtatious gambit no less, is the third example. In a mildly drunken state (not an excuse) I spent the evening describing a lady friend as actually looking like a monkey. It is perhaps testimony to her sense of fun that she took these relentless descriptions in good humour, although it is equally as possible that she was unaware just how similar she was in appearance to a monkey. In honesty she didn’t look that much like a monkey. Although she looks enough like a monkey that she could have reacted badly. She is also similar to a monkey in behaviour (see earlier: pooh throwing etc).

Just to be clear, I have never seen anyone throwing their droppings, I err on the side of caution as I do not want to libel anyone.

The clever so-and-sos amongst you will also understand that another reason the term ‘monkey’ is not socially prevalent/acceptable is because of its racist connotations. In order to clarify, and hopefully alleviate worries about the inappropriateness of my ‘look like a monkey’ comments, they were said to an individual of Eastern heritage. In retrospect she may have thought I was comparing her to the character Monkey, from the late 70s TV show Monkey Magic. That is perhaps more questionable than comparing her to an actual monkey. He has awesome sideburns though (which she was lacking)

I suppose the point that I am cack-handedly attempting to make is that negative and ignorant terms are often reclaimed by the groups who they are used against, terms such as ‘queer’ have been reclaimed by the gay community, and there is a continued, though controversial, reclaiming of the term ‘nigger’ by the black community, though it is worth noting that not all members of these groups perhaps desire this reclamation. Although that is a redundant explanation, for there will be members of any group, however strictly defined that group is, that disagree on certain issues with the group as a whole. For instance, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is, vocally at least, not as anti-homosexuality as the Christian establishment as a whole, and yet is forced to kowtow because of the opinion of the group ‘as a whole’.

My question then is this: Can we not reclaim the term ‘monkey’?

I admit that my reasons behind this are purely selfish, I like the term monkey, listen to it, it sounds awesome. I don’t want to have to qualify it with ‘cheeky’ or ‘sexy’ (silly would perhaps work as well).

Can we start using it again?

No, I don’t suppose we can.

For some reason I now really want to go to the zoo.