This is not an ethics class. We will not be ruminating over why something is bad or what badness really is, even if we may inadvertently answer these questions. Rather, this class explores the discursive construction of identities through figures that are have self-identified, or are identified, as bad. Underlying the materials we will read are the basics of identity-making through linguistic-semiotic work, but you should also expect to encounter questions of marginality, deviance, and failure in identity politics. By looking at a selection of bad identities (queer, fat, woman, speaker, and more), we will consider the language of badness and why badness is managed and configured by those in power.
Classes will be conducted in person unless circumstances change.
A variety of texts will be used in this course. Our primary source of knowledge will be academic texts, but we will also consider other multimodal materials, including excerpts of films, transcripts, and selected media.
There will be no textbook for this class. Instead, there will be key readings and supplementary materials that will help guide our discussions.
This course will, unexpectedly, involve discussions on a range of controversial topics. While these should not be taboo subjects, they are sensitive in nature, sometimes vulgar, and can be uncomfortable for some. If you have concerns about any of the assigned readings or assignments, please speak to me before the relevant week, and we will work something out. Of course, you are also free to excuse yourself at any time during class if you find yourself feeling uncomfortable about the topic; there is no need to ask for permission.
Class attendance and participation: 10%
Attendance will be taken every class. Each student is allowed two unexcused absences, meaning that you do not have to supply me with documentation. Your attendance for each class will count for 0.5%, capped at 5%. The other 5% can be earned through productive participation and discussion in class. You should come to class with at least a brief understanding of the material, though this must be the bare minimum. The class will only be as productive as you make it to be, and you will benefit maximally from having robust discussions with me and your peers.
Annotated bibliography: 20%
Working with about six to eight academic sources, this assignment requires you to select a bad identity of your choice (however you would like to define ‘bad’) and critically engage with its construction with the academic sources you have selected. These sources must be from the fields of socio(cultural) linguistics, linguistic anthropology, or discourse studies, but may also be accompanied with allied fields like sociology, gender studies, cultural studies, media studies, etc. Each annotation for each source should be 200-250 words, and must be accompanied by a short introduction and conclusion (200 words each) that helps me understand thought process.
Project proposal: 10%
In your groups, you will first draft an project proposal that will help you think through your research process as you prepare for the final project. We will start from the beginning – coming up with a thesis and central argument – all the way through the data you want to examine, your method of data collection, and the literature you intend to consult. This proposal will serve as a scaffolding of knowledge, and allow you to receive feedback before you begin working on your final project. There is no word count limit.
Final project: 30%
The final project is unbridled. You may choose a more traditional format (an essay) or a more creative one (a zine, a short podcast episode, an archival compilation). For a formal essay, you should aim for about 2000 words, together with a poster that demonstrates your findings. Creative projects have less structural restrictions, but must be approved by me at the proposal stage, and must be accompanied by a short report on the individual group members’ contributions. Regardless of your project format, they will all be showcased during the last week. More details will be provided at the start of the class.
Weekly reflections: 30%
A discussion prompt will be posed each week (from Week 3 onwards), tailored to the theme of the lectures. You will write a short response to the prompt (300–400 words each), and submit these responses as a compilation at the end of the semester. An overall grade will then be assigned to these responses, yoked to the clarity of thought, quality of writing, and engagement with the course materials.
You should read the assigned reading (‘In-class reading’) before coming to class. The supplementary reading is optional, but encouraged. My lecture will be based on both readings for the week. All the readings will be uploaded on Moodle.
A note on readings. Some of the materials assigned below can be difficult to read, even for experienced academics. I do not expect you to have a complete understanding of each reading, neither must you come to class having read every single line. I encourage you to read through each paper at least once, even if cursorily, and highlight sections that stand out and make sense to you. This way, you will at least have some understanding of the material, and have something to contribute in class.
|
Week |
In-class reading |
Supplementary reading |
|
1: Bad identities |
Goffman, Irving. 1991. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster. [Chapter 1]
|
Foucault, Michel. 1976. The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books. [pp. 41–49]
|
|
2: Language and identity |
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall. 2005. “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614.
|
Edwards, John. 2009. Language and Identity: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Chapter 2]
|
|
3: Institutions and badness |
Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage Books. [pp. 251–256]
|
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1990. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. [pp. 44–48]
|
|
4. Bad woman |
Bogetić, Ksenija, Frazer Heritage, Veronika Koller, and Mark McGlashan. 2023. “Landwhales, Femoids and Sub-Humans: Dehumanising Metaphors in Incel Discourse.” Metaphor and the Social World 13 (2): 178–96.
|
Gay, Roxane. 2012. “Bad Feminist.” VQR: A National Journal of Literature & Discussion. Online access here. |
|
5. Bad fat bodies |
Eberhardt, Maeve. 2024. “‘You Probably Have a Parasite’: Neoliberal Risk and the Discursive Construction of the Body in the Wellness Industry.” Language in Society 53 (1): 47–69.
|
Bordo, Susan. 1993. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western culture, and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press. [pp. 191–198] |
|
6. Bad sexed bodies |
King, Brian W. 2016. “Becoming the Intelligible Other: Speaking Intersex Bodies against the Grain.” Critical Discourse Studies 13 (4): 359–78.
|
Valentine, David, and Riki Anne Wilchins. 1997. “One Percent on the Burn Chart: Gender, Genitals, and Hermaphrodites with Attitude.” Social Text 15 (3/4): 215–22.
|
|
Reading week |
|
|
|
7. Bad racial other |
Cushing, Ian. 2023. “Word Rich or Word Poor? Deficit Discourses, Raciolinguistic Ideologies and the Resurgence of the ‘Word Gap’ in England’s Education Policy.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 20 (4): 305–31.
|
Pak, Vincent. 2023. “(De)coupling Race and Language: The State Listening Subject and Its Rearticulation of Antiracism as Racism in Singapore.” Language in Society 52 (1): 151–72.
|
|
8. Bad speaker |
Chau, Dennis. 2021. “Spreading Language Ideologies through Social Media: Enregistering the ‘Fake ABC’ Variety in Hong Kong.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 25 (4): 596–616.
|
Inoue, Miyako. 2003. “The Listening Subject of Japanese Modernity and His Auditory Double: Citing, Sighting, and Siting the Modern Japanese Woman.” Cultural Anthropology 18 (2): 156–93.
|
|
9. Bad queer |
Pak, Vincent. 2025. Queer Correctives: Discursive Neo-Homophobia, Sexuality, and Christianity in Singapore. London: Bloomsbury. [pp. 41–60] |
Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York and London: Routledge. [pp. 76–82] |
|
10. Bad trans |
Tao, Kimberly. 2025. “Claiming Transgender Identity: Contextualising Linguistic Tensions over the Term Transgender in Hong Kong.” Gender and Language 18 (3): 285–305.
|
Heyes, Cressida. 2007. Self-Transformations: Foucault, Ethics, and Normalized Bodies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Chapter 2]
|
|
11. Bad human |
Halberstam, Judith. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham: Duke University Press. [pp. 1–18]
|
None. |
|
12. Concluding lecture and creative showcase
|
None. |
None.
|
Beyond what is already stated, if you need to miss class for any reason, please inform me as soon as you can. I would prefer to operate on the basis of trust – if you have used up both of your unexcused absences, you should try to supply some form of documentation that constitutes an excusable absence, and I will accept it. Of course, if you choose to doctor, edit, or alter your documentation with dishonest intentions, that would be on you.
There will be no make-up lectures.
I only hold office hours by appointment. Please email me about having a chat at least one week in advance, so I can plan ahead. You’ll have the option of doing this over Zoom or in my office. Each session should take no longer than 30-45 minutes; this is in the interest of other students who would also like to meet with me.
I reply to my emails quite quickly, usually within 24 hours. You should feel free to reach out to me about the course, but I also welcome unstructured conversations about my research areas or academia in general. If you encounter any difficulties during the semester, please reach out as soon as you can, so we can work together to help you.
As above, this class will discuss a range of topics that might be considered controversial. I realise that this can be contentious for some, and I will not pretend that this field can be taught outside of politics. You should expect differing opinions and viewpoints during discussions, and these are all welcome. What I will not excuse is discriminatory, abusive, and intolerant behaviour: this is regardless of your politics. I must impress upon all students the need to be civil and respectful.
There is no tolerance for academic dishonesty of any kind.
Academic dishonesty is defined broadly, and can include anything from improper citation (and claiming credit for yourself) to passing off someone else’s work as your own (including resubmission of your past work). If you have even the slightest doubt as to whether a certain practice is dishonest, come to me and we can have a chat.
Any use of generative AI tools to wholly complete an assignment is not allowed. You are permitted to use these tools to brainstorm ideas or conduct editing or proofreading, but this must be acknowledged in the assignment. AI usage and plagiarism is monitored for all submissions on Moodle.