Rap Devil versus Rap God: impoliteness in a rap battle

2.1 What is impoliteness?

The concept of impoliteness is strongly related to the concept of face. Goffman (1955: 5) defines face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact”. Events resulting in a better face than expected would lead to joy and happiness on the part of the individual, while events failing to fulfill face needs would cause negative feelings. Brown and Levinson (1978) label such offenses against face as face-threatening acts; these acts can be against an addressee’s negative or positive face. Negative face refers to a person’s personal freedom, since people want to act freely without being restricted by others. Positive face, on the other hand, refers to a person’s desire to be acknowledged and approved of in society for personal traits, behaviors, ideologies, and so on. Locher and Watts (2008) criticize Brown and Levinson for relying too much on the cognitive nature of face, and Goffman (1955) for focusing merely on the social aspects of face. As an alternative, the authors state that a relational approach could provide a perfect solution by combining both approaches. Locher (2004) similarly argues that relational work considers the dynamism and context of each interaction and covers the whole polite and impolite behavior continuum.

One of the most acknowledged and extensive models based on a relational approach is the Rapport Management Model. Spencer-Oatey (2002) presents face management and social rights management as interactional concepts in the rapport management model. Spencer-Oatey (2002: 540) describes face as something that is “associated with personal/social value, and is concerned with people’s sense of worth, credibility, dignity, honor, reputation, competence and so on”. Thus, for Spencer-Oatey (2007: 644), the concept of face is “associated with positively evaluated attributes that the claimant wants others to acknowledge (explicitly or implicitly) and with negatively evaluated attributes that the claimant wants others not to ascribe to him/her”. In this regard, face threat/loss/gain will only be perceived when there is a mismatch between an attribute claimed (or denied, in the case of negatively-evaluated traits) and an attribute perceived as being ascribed by others.

Face is explained in three interrelated aspects within her model: quality face, social identity face, and relational face. Quality face refers to people’s desire for their personal qualities to be positively evaluated, similar to Brown and Levinson’s positive face (1978). Social identity face refers to people’s desire for their identities or roles to be acknowledged. Relational face (Spencer-Oatey 2007: 647) is linked to the expectations surrounding “the relationship between the participants (e.g., distance–closeness, equality–inequality, perceptions of role rights and obligations), and the ways in which this relationship is managed or negotiated”. Social rights, on the other hand, are “concerned with personal/social entitlements, and reflect people’s concerns over fairness, consideration, social inclusion/exclusion and so on” (Spencer-Oatey 2002: 540). The rapport management model attempts to capture the dynamic relationship between individuals and their social environment (Spencer-Oatey 2005). People have beliefs regarding behaviors, and these beliefs create social norms and expectations. Social appropriateness is then a concept based on people’s expectations. The model proposes two concepts to explain these social expectations: the equity principle and the association principle. The equity principle refers to people’s expectations about being treated fairly, mirroring Brown and Levinson’s (1978) negative face. Cost-benefit considerations, fairness and reciprocity, and autonomy-control are important factors in this principle. The association principle refers to people’s expectations regarding the type of relationship they want to sustain with others. Table 1 summarizes the rapport management model.

While acknowledging the importance of context in impoliteness, Culpeper (2011) also cautions about the danger of overlooking the power of semantics. Brown and Levinson (1978) argue for the existence of intrinsic face-threatening acts, but conventional does not mean intrinsic; Culpeper (2010) rejects the idea of intrinsic face-threatening acts and offers conventionalized impoliteness formulae to examine conventional ways to perform impoliteness. This differs from intrinsic face-threatening acts, since a conventional way to perform an impolite act can be used differently in specific situations. Table 2 shows how these formulae can be used to perform conventionalized impoliteness strategies against face, association rights, and equity rights.

Finally, impoliteness is defined as follows in light of the relational movement and other aforementioned arguments in impoliteness research:

Impoliteness is a negative attitude towards specific behaviors occurring in specific contexts. It is sustained by expectations, desires, and/or beliefs about social organisation, including, in particular, how one person’s or a group’s identities are mediated by others in interaction. (Culpeper 2011: 254)

This definition includes how context and the expectations, desires, or beliefs in that specific context affect a behavior’s categorization as impolite. It is also the definition we adopted since it captures the premise that dynamic interactions between individuals and their social environments are essential factors in defining impoliteness.

2.2 Rap battles as impolite acts

Ritual aggression is a call-response exchange that has been studied for a wide range of phenomena (Jia and Yao 2022), including but not limited to Dutch knights using ritual verbal challenges (Bax 1981), Roma communities using ritual cursing (Kádár and Szalai 2020), “flyting” in old English poetry (Hughes 1998), and playing “the Dozens” in African American communities (Mechling 2004). While all these practices of verbal aggression might have influenced rap battles to some degree, playing the dozens (Wald 2012) is the most influential and can be regarded as the ancestor of the rap battles of today. This African American game involves the exchanging of insults and comebacks between two individuals, which is used to establish social status within the community (Lefever 1981). By showing their ability to handle controversy and their intelligence to counter insults in a smart way, this game allows for the development of verbal skills and the avoidance of violent solutions to conflicts. Similarly, rap music started in the 1970s in America to keep young people away from violence and manage their anger through music (Lipsitz 1994). Since it started as a way of handling anger, words in rap music are usually aggressive. This aggressiveness has often been directed at justified targets such as racism, inequality, and prejudice, but rap tracks also include homophobia, sexism, and violence (Adams and Fuller 2006; Cobb and Boettcher 2007; Johnson et al. 1995). While this often makes the public see hip-hop culture as a source of sexist, homophobic, and misogynist behavior, teenagers associated with this culture can also develop different roles, such as teacher and intellectual (Alim et al. 2018).

Using verbal threats is a common way to start a fight in today’s world, but it was once used more for solving conflicts without physical violence (Bax 1981). This aspect of verbal aggression can still be observed in rap music; although physical violence has become more prominent in rap lyrics (Herd 2009; Mavima 2016) and seen as something glorified (Johnson and Schell-Busey 2016), resorting to actual physical force is denounced and considered a reason to be disqualified in rap battles (Mavima 2016). Most of the time, physical threats are used by both novice and advanced rappers without any real-life intentions (Jia and Yao 2022), except for rare instances involving gang members (Johnson and Schell-Busey 2016). Therefore, battles between rappers are mostly confined to verbal exchanges.

When a rapper attacks someone with a track, this is called a diss track. If disses are exchanged between two rappers at a live event, we have ourselves a rap battle. In some instances, disses are not exchanged synchronously like in live rap battles, but rappers devote the whole diss tracks to each other, and such exchanges show large overlaps with the characteristics of rap battles. Rather than linear answering sequences, these diss tracks include proposals and responses in a loose way, but these can still be considered insertion sequences (Schegloff 1972), emerging in a distinct form of conversation (Sacks et al. 1978). Therefore, we consider such exchanges as asynchronous rap battles in this study.

In rap battles, two rappers compete against each other on a stage to gain individual benefit (social or economical), and the “winner” is usually determined by the audience and/or a jury (Miner 1993). Borrowing lyrics and thus referring to a part of already-existing rap culture might create a connection between the rapper and the audience (Jia 2022), which can also be used as a way to pay respect to other rappers (Diallo 2019). This is especially important since a rapper without crowd response, i.e., the support of an audience in the form of applause and cheers, would be regarded as useless (Keyes 2004).

Self-face boosting by praising one’s own physical attributes, rapping ability, and morals is licensed in rap battles (Mavima 2016). Inexperienced rappers might excessively focus on their attacks on the opponent and rarely praise themselves, which can indicate a lack of self-confidence (Jia and Yao 2022). In addition to the creativity of lyrics, attacking the opponent’s masculine identity can also help in winning rap battles (Alim et al. 2018); emasculation is a common way to attack the opponent’s gender identity, as femininity is considered a severe insult (Alim et al. 2010). In addition to individualized attacks, insulting the family members of the opponent is common in hip-hop culture (Mavima 2016).

In both synchronous and asynchronous rap battles, rappers should pay attention to lyrics of their rivals, as these might give them an opportunity to come up with creative come-back lines. Conversational tools used by others can be used by the interlocutor to achieve personal communicative goals (Goodwin 2017). This type of intertextuality, also considered as “cooperative action” in this context, can be used in rap battles by reusing verbal and non-verbal tools (e.g., reusing lyrics) from both inside and outside of their immediate environment. Rappers who wait for their turns can evaluate verbal and nonverbal behaviors of their opponents and use some of these materials in their defense, showing a cooperative action (Jia 2022).

Rap battles can partially be seen as a kind of entertaining impoliteness (Bousfield 2008). Culpeper (2011) argues that people like entertainment impoliteness as much as they like boxing and rugby; they feel superior and safe at the same time and enjoy the potential thrill of violence and the creativity in attacks. Although Kienpointner (2008) relates impoliteness to expressing emotions, Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (2009) advocates that impoliteness could also be used strategically. We argue that rap battles are also a form of coercive impoliteness; people use impoliteness to appear superior via insults and to claim higher power positions (Bousfield 2008), just like rappers do in rap battles.

In 2018, an asynchronous rap battle of this kind occurred between Eminem and Machine Gun Kelly. This popular incident offers a good opportunity to analyze impoliteness in rap battles. Before referring to the potential reasons behind this rap battle, however, we turn to investigating the connection of our foci with the concepts of power, authenticity, and identity in rap music.

2.3 Power relations and impoliteness in rap music

A primary concern of relational work in impoliteness research is power. Fairclough (1989) argues that two types of power are essential in language: power in the discourse, and power behind the discourse. Power in the discourse refers to the immediate power enacted in a discourse, while power behind the discourse refers to the argument that societies and social entities and actors are constructed through power relations.

In rap battles (i.e., diss tracks), the power behind the discourse is important to earning the right to challenge an acknowledged rapper. If the challenge is accepted, this gives the challenger the power position of a potential rival. Therefore, rap battles can be used as a way for less-famous rappers to establish the power relations they desire with more popular rappers. After all, power relations can be challenged to create new ones (Spencer-Oatey 2000). Accepting the challenge might indicate that the challenger also has the power to be challenged. Alternatively, the more popular rapper can choose to ignore the challenger by using his advantageous power position to deny the other rapper a position as the rival. Powerful individuals have the option not to respond to power-relations challenges (O’Driscoll 2017). Even so, if the less famous rapper can draw attention through skilled impoliteness acts, the power behind the discourse might still change; the more famous rapper could be seen as weak or incompetent by not answering such well-prepared impoliteness acts.

2.4 Authenticity in hip-hop culture and rap battles

Authenticity is of vital importance in hip-hop culture. Insults are used to attack the authenticity of the opponent, labeling them as fake, while threats are tools to improve the power and authenticity of one’s identity (Jia and Yao 2022). Despite the similarities of hip-hop music across cultures, and although cultural and ethnic differences can sometimes be overlooked through shared hip-hop culture (Cutler 2022), Blackness is still considered the norm in rap music (Alim et al. 2010; Armstrong 2004; Cutler 2022). Therefore, the legitimacy of other races is challenged by the perception that hip-hop is mostly an African American area (Cutler 2010, 2015]).

As African American culture is considered the key to authenticity in hip-hop culture, even the most distant communities adopt the strategies of African American rap music. Taboo words are used as fillers to create a better flow, ascribing negative values and frightening are used to outdiss the opponent, and finally, sarcasm is used as a tool of outwitting (Mavima 2016). In addition to these common strategies using impoliteness to establish superiority, there are cultural differences as well. For example, although Chinese rappers use similar linguistic strategies with African American rappers, they also brag about their own moral qualities while condemning those of their opponent’s by adopting a teacher role (Jia and Yao 2022), as Confucianist morality has an important place in Chinese culture (Jia and Yang 2021). This suggests that cultural differences are likely to affect the way rap music and rap battles are conducted, despite the fact that the norm in hip-hop music is the African American tradition.

Although great geographical distances – such as that between China and the USA – can allow cultural differences to emerge in rap music (see Sykäri 2019 for Finnish rap battles), such differences can also emerge even in the same country across different communities. The Black–White polarity still has an essential influence on individual experiences in the United States (Omi and Winant 1994), and it is often considered normal in the United States to identify people according to race (Cutler 2008). This perception is apparent in rap music as well – even White people living in the same areas as Black people have to strive for their authenticity, as Whiteness has a marked status in hip-hop culture (Cutler 2009: 80).

One way to alleviate this limitation is using certain linguistic features that are vital in establishing authenticity in rap music. These features mostly belong to African American English (AAE), since hip-hop culture is heavily influenced by African American culture and language (see Cutler 2007). Especially when it comes to grammar, hip-hop language and AAE show large similarities (Akande 2012; Cutler 2015; Morgan 2001; Rickford and Rickford 2000), including omitting copula (e.g., we cool), demonstrative them (e.g., them shoes instead of those shoes), using double negatives (e.g., you cannot get nothing), reducing -ing to -in (e.g., playin’ instead of playing), changing diphthongs to monophthongs (e.g., mah instead of my), omitting the /r/ sounds after vowels (e.g., fah instead of far), and more (see Cutler 2002, 2003], 2007], 2008]).

Adopting an authentic street identity is essential in hip-hop music. African American rappers are shown to use much more copula absence in their lyrics compared to their interviews (Alim 2002), and such an overuse indicates how important it is to underline the features of Blackness in rap music. As using such linguistic varieties in music reflects an awareness of AAE for White rappers (Cutler 2007), they similarly use copula absence mainly in their music and not in everyday speech and interviews (Alim 2002; Cutler 2015), and borrow hip-hop language that is usually associated with African Americans to present more masculine and street-authentic identities (Cutler 2002, 2007]). Similarly, the use of AAE by White youth is a way to place themselves within hip-hop culture (Cutler 2015).

Nevertheless, using AAE in a proficient way does not guarantee validation for authenticity, as authenticity in hip-hop culture is also associated with an urban black lifestyle (Cutler 2007). Certain words (e.g., the N-word) have a unidirectional use in rap battles. While Black rappers can use such words against each other and against White rappers, White rappers do not seem to have that license, even if they grew up in a Black neighborhood (Cutler 2022). The acknowledgment of racial and socioeconomic background serves as a defense mechanism against the claims of being inauthentic or fake (Cutler 2007). In an attempt to avoid being considered as fake figures imitating AAE, White rappers often emphasize their race by including “Whiteness” and personal characteristics in their lyrics (Cutler 2007, 2022]). This way, they try to convey the message that they are not identifying themselves as Black, but rather including certain characteristics of AAE in their music. Considering all of these, the use of hip-hop language might be restricted to symbolic use for White rappers, showing their avoidance of a claim for in-group status (Cutler 2007), as overusing such features might also challenge their authenticity in hip-hop culture (Cutler 2015). However, sometimes White rappers can actually use AAE features more than African American rappers, indicating a potential insecurity (Cutler 2015).

The marked status of Whiteness in rap music makes the battle between Eminem and Machine Gun Kelly even more compelling. Despite growing up in a Black neighborhood, Eminem does not seem to have a full license to use certain words that Black rappers can (Cutler 2022), but his upbringing might still give him an advantage in using more AAE and in establishing authenticity. The battle is also an opportunity to see whether common strategies used by Black rappers will also be apparent in an asynchronous rap battle between two White rappers.

2.5 Individual and persona identities in rap music

Although insults in rap music are common and impoliteness is a licensed part of the game, victims of these face attacks may still experience extreme face loss (Culpeper 2005). It is common in rap battles for rappers to assign certain roles to themselves and their opponents based on gender, sexual orientation, street-authenticity, and race (Alim et al. 2011). The insults in rap battles can be aimed at the persona adopted by the opponent, but they can also be intended as direct attacks on the individual (Sykäri 2019). Thus, protecting the faces of their rap music identities is an essential task for rappers.

The name Eminem was created by the rap musician Marshall Mathers by combining his initials (M and M). Eminem emphasizes his Whiteness as a way to acknowledge who he is without seeming fake (Armstrong 2004), and his so-called white trash identity – referring to his financially challenged upbringing – is a way to establish a connection with Black people, underscoring that White people too can be isolated in society (White 2005). Projecting identity can be achieved by using certain linguistic features (Coupland 2007), and lyrics of Eminem include some features of AAE (see above). Huxley (2000) defines three different personas used in Eminem’s tracks: (i) Marshall Mathers, as the persona of his private self, tortured by aggression, doubt, and grief, (ii) Slim Shady, as the persona of his alter ego, who attacks people with evil intentions, and (iii) Eminem, as the persona of his public self who explains the ill behaviors of his other personas. Eminem moved away from his Slim Shady persona in his 2009 album Relapse. He also shared that he stopped using opioids and drugs around that time – in a way, it was an attempt to let go of his “evil side”. An individual might act modestly to receive praise (Goffman 1967), and Eminem might also have wanted to be praised for behaving that way. In 2017, Eminem released an album named Revival, which was a bold attempt to create a new rap era that was more mature and less violent. However, the new identity Eminem tried to adopt received severe criticism.

A young rapper, Richard Colson Baker, also created an identity for his music: Machine Gun Kelly. This identity emphasizes his skills for rapping at a high speed and is also a reference to the infamous criminal, George Machine Gun Kelly, a US prohibition-era gangster. Rappers commonly use references to violence in their tracks and refer to themselves as thugs, criminals, and outlaws (Kubrin 2005). This is like the nicknames in dangerous neighborhoods – some people might claim crime-related dangerous nicknames to appear violent and dangerous to improve their survivability (Anderson 2000). In a similar vein, some rappers claim such nicknames which make them appear dangerous in a world where impoliteness is the norm.

2.6 Background of the rap battle of interest

In 2012, Machine Gun Kelly posted the following tweet, in which he called Eminem’s daughter “hot”:

ok so I just saw a picture of Eminem’s daughter… and I have to say, she is hot as fuck, in the most respectful way possible cuz Em is king.

Brown and Levinson (1978) argue for the existence of intrinsic face-threatening acts. Many researchers reject this idea (Culpeper 2010; Holmes and Schnurr 2005; Locher and Watts 2008). Consider Kelly’s tweet calling Eminem’s daughter “hot”: an individual might not aim for impoliteness, while the addressee can still interpret the behavior as such (Locher and Watts 2008). Similarly, some people might consider a face attack the norm in a specific context, while others might not (Culpeper 2008). Kelly and most of his fanbase thought it was not an act of impoliteness, while Eminem and his fans disagreed. The reason Eminem took this tweet as an impolite act might be because of his previous experiences. The addressee of an utterance interprets the meaning in line with their knowledge and expectations about the speaker’s intentions and considers this meaning to be the same as the speaker’s intended meaning (Arundale 2010). Personal experiences create norms and expectations that affect judgments regarding behavior (Locher and Watts 2008). After all, impoliteness is common in rap music, and Eminem has been the target of many direct and implicit impolite behaviors thus far. An impolite reaction to an initial impolite behavior is usually seen as less impolite (Culpeper 2011), but since the status of the first behavior was controversial, Eminem’s later reaction in a track was justified by some, while it was criticized by others. Therefore, as is now commonly accepted in (im)politeness research, it is difficult to come up with utterances that would be perceived as face-threatening by everyone in each and every context.

Machine Gun Kelly also used some controversial lyrics in his guest performance for the track No Reason. Many believed that some words were intended as impolite acts targeting Eminem, who had a hit track named Rap God (the lyrics included a reminder to all rappers that they were not “God”). It was likely then, that Machine Gun Kelly was not a fan of Eminem anymore. He was challenging his ex-role-model in rap music.

After receiving negative reviews for his Revival album and being subjected to the potentially impolite acts aforementioned above, Eminem adopted his alter ego identity Slim Shady once again and released a new album named Kamikaze in 2018. In this album, he dissed^[1] many rappers, including Machine Gun Kelly. Eminem directly referred to Kelly, condemned his “sneaking” diss, and warned him about his comments regarding Hailie (Eminem’s daughter).

Unidirectional impoliteness is often used by more powerful participants against less powerful participants (Culpeper 2008). As the more popular and acknowledged rapper, Eminem was comfortable with this strategy. After Eminem’s unidirectional impoliteness, Machine Gun Kelly published a diss track called Rap Devil aimed at Eminem. Relatively less powerful targets often lack the experience to retaliate impoliteness, as responding to an impolite act with another impolite act is also a challenge to both the current power relations in discourse and the power behind discourse (Culpeper 2008). Spencer-Oatey (2000) similarly points out that people can (strategically) challenge their relationships with someone to create new types of relationships. Kelly responded with unidirectional impoliteness and challenged the current power relations. Although his earlier tweet and lyrics might or might not be interpreted as impoliteness, this time he used unambiguously impolite behavior in context against similarly unambiguous impolite behavior. In doing so, it can be argued that he was trying to establish a more balanced power relationship with Eminem by redistributing the power between the parties. The music video for Rap Devil was watched by millions on YouTube. Individuals with enough assumed/claimed power can freely choose to respond or not to respond at all, depending on the situation and their advantage (O’Driscoll 2017). However, Eminem chose to give a quick response, probably due to realizing that his advantage as a more acknowledged rapper might be overshadowed by the popularity of Rap Devil. He responded with a diss track called Killshot after only 11 days, which was surprisingly fast and resembled more the quick exchanges in synchronous rap battles than the natural coming out of new songs or records in the music world.

4.1 The opening sequences of both tracks

Machine Gun Kelly used several insults to attack Eminem’s quality face, his personal sense of self-esteem (e.g., you sound like a bitch; mad; beard is weird; about to be 46 years old), and his social identity face (e.g., always mad cooped up in the studio, yellin’). Rappers might not know their opponents in rap battles, but for asynchronous rap battles, this limitation is absent. Using this to his advantage, Kelly disassociated Eminem from tough rappers by mentioning his security guards, an attack on his association rights (see line 3). This also challenged Eminem’s masculine identity, which is much needed in winning rap battles (Alim et al. 2018). As they also contain irony, the same line can also be considered as an attack on Eminem’s social identity face and his own sense of public worth as a tough rapper. Early on in the track, Kelly tried to establish a relationship with Eminem as a rival with these lyrics.

In Killshot, Eminem started with a silencer (Shut the fuck up in line 2) and abruptly attacked Kelly’s equity rights by tipping the autonomy imposition scale and asserting control of Kelly’s actions. Since the silencer utterance also contains the F-word – a personalized negative vocative insult – it can be seen as an additional attack on his quality face. By using lyrics from Rap Devil in his track and answering them, Eminem used cooperative action (Jia 2022) – an advantage he used as the responder. He chose not to respond to the rest of the face-threatening acts in Kelly’s opening. Instead, he mocked Kelly’s lyrics to reciprocate and attack his quality face (creativity) and social identity face (a talented rapper). Eminem also attacked Kelly’s association rights and relational face, as he argued Kelly was not a rival, but (an old fan turned into) a hater.

4.2 Acknowledgement

Rather than using impoliteness strategies, Kelly wanted to be acknowledged as a good rapper in this specific conversation on the track. Rappers with less experience might feel insecure about constantly praising themselves in their lyrics (Jia and Yao 2022), but Kelly avoided this in his rap track; he tried to boost his own quality face, social identity face (referring to Eminem’s disses as a way to acknowledge him), relational face (indicating that he was a rival of Eminem and that they were both single fathers), equity rights (demanding fairness), and association rights (demanding respect by saying that he should be either respected or shot). Eminem attacked Kelly’s quality face and social identity face by ignoring Kelly’s presence as a capable rapper, and arguing that his seemingly successful recent appearance was solely due to Eminem’s own popularity. He also challenged the authenticity of Kelly in rap music by mentioning how he belonged with other “pop singers” (e.g., Taylor Swift and Iggy Azalea), attacking his self-claimed social identity face. Eminem attacked Kelly’s equity rights by threatening him by using the word slay and his association rights by disassociating him from skilled rappers. The lyrics also implied that Kelly was not a rival to Eminem (an attack on Kelly’s relational face). By saying let’s talk about it as a response to and an echo of let’s talk about it and we can talk about it in Kelly’s lyrics, Eminem showed another intertextual cooperative action, lamenting the two sets of lyrics together.

4.3 Rihanna

Attacking his opponent’s quality face and social identity face, Kelly associated Eminem with a negative trait and emasculated him by labeling him as someone too insecure to talk with girls – a common strategy used by African American rappers to out-diss the opponent (Mavima 2016). This was also an attack on Eminem’s relational face and masculinity, as his relationship with Rihanna was mocked. Eminem countered this attack by using a defensive strategy, implying that he was much more intimate with Rihanna (e.g., I left hickeys on her neck) than Kelly thought, thus enhancing his quality face and relational face (i.e., his relationship with Rihanna). Eminem also tried to strengthen his masculine identity traits with these lines, as they are crucial in rap battles (Alim et al. 2018).

4.4 Age

Rappers, regardless of experience, frequently insult each other’s rap skills in rap battles (Alim et al. 2011). In this section of his track, Kelly attacked Eminem’s quality face and social identity face by using belittlement and ageism by (a) repeating that he was old (e.g., forty-six, pushing fifty), (b) unable to stand up (e.g., knees weak of old age, the real Slim Shady can’t stand up), and (c) not writing good lines anymore (e.g., It’s fine, put down the pen). Put down the pen is also a dismissal and directive, and thus an attack on Eminem’s equity rights. Eminem countered this with both defensive and offensive responses. He defended himself by enhancing his quality face (by referring to his writing skills and enthusiasm and to his success in selling more albums), and attacked Kelly by stating he would not want to be him despite his young age – an attack on Kelly’s quality face and social identity face as a rapper.

4.5 Baby

Kelly disassociated Eminem from the real OGs^[2] and called him a “baby”, attacking his quality face and association rights. This can also be considered an attack on Eminem’s masculine identity. Eminem used denial as a defensive strategy to enhance his quality face, stating that he was an awakening giant. He also attacked Kelly’s quality face and association rights by calling him his offspring and a baby, similarly aiming at the opponent’s masculinity by reciprocating the belittlement.

4.6 Dictionary

Kelly attacked Eminem’s quality face (by insinuating he was boring and socially inept) and social identity face by cursing (e.g., fucking dweeb) and disparaging his work (saying that the only thing Eminem was doing was reading a dictionary). Eminem used a defensive response option as he claimed he needed the dictionary for reading while unloading his bowels into a bowl (referring to the bowl Kelly is holding and eating from in the music video). This can be viewed as another cooperative action, but rather than reusing lyrics, Eminem refers to an object used by the opponent in the music video of Rap Devil.

4.7 Grave

Kelly used a curse word and threatened Eminem (referring to the shovel he is holding in the music video), attacking his social identity face and equity rights. Eminem attacked Kelly’s quality face by making fun of his threats (referring to the nails in his coffin as soft as cotton ear buds). He also made an offensive response and attacked his equity rights by saying the grave was for Kelly. Physical violence references and death threats are common in rap music and rap battles (Jia and Yao 2022), which is well observed in this conversation and the next one.

4.8 Toughness

Bragging about one’s own physical attributes is a well-accepted strategy in rap music (Mavima 2016). Kelly insulted Eminem by referring to him as short and himself as tall (attacking Eminem’s quality face and social identity face). Also, he threatened Eminem with his punches in the music video (attacking his equity rights). Eminem attacked Kelly’s equity rights by threatening him and alluding to his possible death (e.g., Lethal injection; six feet deep), and also Kelly’s social identity face and quality face by indicating that there was asymmetrical power between them, with Eminem in the role of the teacher (e.g., I’ll give you a B). This can also be taken as an attack on Kelly’s relational face, as he saw Eminem and himself as rivals, though the claim is rejected overtly by Eminem. Eminem adopted a teacher role in this conversation, but this was different from the one adopted by Chinese rappers (Jia and Yao 2022), as the goal was to establish superiority alone without teaching any morals. Eminem also stated that although he was shorter, Kelly was the one who was envious of him and would do anything to become like him. As Eminem was disrespectful to Kelly’s rapper identity and disassociated him from capable rappers, this was an attack on Kelly’s association rights, social identity face, and quality face. Eminem thus used both defensive and offensive response strategies in this conversation.

4.9 Fans

Kelly attacked Eminem’s relationship with his fans by stating that Eminem’s fans and territory were now his (an attack on self-claims to possessions and association rights). Eminem defended himself using denial as a strategy and saying that was not the case even in Kelly’s home city, using an offensive response again to retaliate and strike a counterattack on Kelly’s association rights. As the support of fans and audience is essential in rap music (Keyes 2004), both rappers claimed the upper hand in that area.

4.10 Dressing style

At this point in the track, Kelly threatened Eminem’s quality face by making fun of the way he dressed and looked (e.g., I’m sick of them sweatsuits and them corny hats). This can also be interpreted as an attack on Eminem’s social identity face – not as a rapper, but as an individual with no sense of style. Eminem accepted this in a sarcastic way, only to deny the common ground with Kelly in terms of talents. By indicating their rapping skills were not comparable and they were not rivals at all, Eminem attacked Kelly’s quality face, association rights, and relational face (e.g., You dress better, I rap better). This is a direct attack on Kelly’s social identity as a skilled rapper.

4.11 Stan

Stan was a character in Eminem’s music video Stan. The character tried to be just like Eminem by copying his looks and lyrics, but his obsession led him to suicide. Kelly insulted Eminem by calling him a Stan of himself (attacking his quality face and social identity face). Eminem referred to Kelly as Stan and used several lines to ignore Kelly’s rapper identity, thus attacking his social identity face and association rights. He used patronizing behavior (e.g., Dad isn’t mad) and attacked Kelly’s equity rights. Using the word “dad” is also an attack on Kelly’s relational face. Eminem further mocked Kelly’s looks by mentioning his man bun, attacking Kelly’s quality face and social identity face.

4.12 Kim

Attacking the opponent’s family is a common strategy in rap music (Mavima 2016), and Kelly attempted an attack on Eminem’s equity rights by threatening his family group face by insulting his ex-wife. However, Eminem ignored this impolite act by denying his ex-wife as a part of his family group face (probably because of their troubled past). He again attacked Kelly’s social identity face, relational face, quality face, and association rights by ignoring his presence and labeling him as a mere copycat living in his shadow.

4.13 Previous albums

The opponent’s prior performances can also be the target of the rapper in a rap battle (Jia and Yao 2022). Kelly insulted Eminem’s last albums and attacked his social identity face and quality face. This was countered by an offensive response – Eminem mocked Kelly’s claims by referring to the mistake he made regarding the chronological order of Eminem’s album tracks, blatantly attacking his quality face (e.g., Oops, know your facts before you come at me, lil’goof).

4.14 Wealth

Kelly used condescending behavior and assigned Eminem the negative roles of “being rich” and “still mad” (an attack on his social identity face). Mocking the luxury style and earthly possessions of rappers in songs can be taken as a mockery of rap culture itself (see Cutler 2015). Therefore, Eminem accepted this role and offered offensive responses. He cursed and referred to Kelly as “broke”, attacking Kelly’s social identity face. It is interesting how both rappers insulted each other with words that had exactly the opposite meanings (rich versus poor). An attempted impolite act is denied effect by taking the proposition as valid and referring to it as nothing to be ashamed of.

4.15 Hailey

Kelly denied that his tweet was an impolite act and attacked Eminem’s quality face and social identity face by associating Eminem with negative traits, depicting him as a bully who has no sense of humour (e.g., the big bad bully of the rap game can’t take a fuckin’ joke). He also implied that Eminem attacked his equity rights by being unfair. Although attacks on family can be a strategy in rap battles, children seem to be off limits. Operating in an honor culture, Eminem insisted that the act was impolite behavior against his family. He cursed and used dismissals (e.g., bitch, get off me) as an offensive response, attacking Kelly’s social identity face and equity rights.

4.16 Dr. Dre

Kelly attacked Eminem’s quality face and social identity face by saying that Eminem was incapable of producing albums without (acknowledged rapper and producer) Dre’s help, ignoring his presence as a capable rapper in his own right. Although it is not a popular opinion, similar arguments have been made before. Armstrong (2004) suggests that the success of Eminem is partially related to Dr. Dre, and the way in which black music is presented to a White audience through a White artist. The attack can also be seen as an attack on association rights. Eminem used similar attacks in his offensive response to propose that Kelly was the incapable one, and his boss must have been using pills to not see that, thus attacking his opponent’s quality face and social identity face.

4.17 The gunner

Kelly insulted Eminem’s performer name (comparing his name to the candy brand M&M) and threatened him by using “gun” and “gangster” references (attacking Eminem’s social identity face and equity rights). The attacks were also aimed at the opponent’s masculinity and street identity. Eminem cast back offensive responses. He used condescending behavior and mocked the claim of Kelly being a gunner (stating that he was not even a bow and arrow) and his name “Machine Gun”, by stating that he was a machine gun without ammo (i.e., useless). Eminem also associated him with an additional negative trait of being “one who misses his shots” (e.g., you grazed me), attacking Kelly’s quality face and social identity face in both instances.

4.18 Blocking career

Kelly accused Eminem of attacking his association rights (blocking his career) and equity rights (attacking his autonomy by exerting control). This was also a quality face and a social identity face attack since he associated Eminem with a negative self-aspect. Eminem used denial as a defensive strategy (e.g., somethin’ I don’t really do). He also attacked Kelly’s quality face and social identity face by indicating that he would do anything to get into his channel, using a common strategy in rap music by ascribing a negative aspect to the opponent (e.g., lick a ballsack to get on my channel).

4.19 A diss or not?

Kelly acknowledged Eminem’s success in more than one line, enhancing his social identity face and quality face. Eminem used condescending behavior and attacked Kelly’s quality face by making fun of the controversy in the diss track Rap Devil. For Eminem, Kelly acknowledged him as the greatest of all time (GOAT) in this track, but also attempted to diss him at the same time.

5.1 Impoliteness used by the rappers

Both rappers used curse words, insults, dismissals, silencers, encroachment strategies, patronizing behaviors, dissociation strategies, negative aspects, irony, and mocking in their lyrics. The associated degree of impoliteness for these verbal strategies is high – the impolite strategies were always explicit (Table 3) and were noticed and taken up by both rappers. There were also some impolite behaviors rejected by both rappers. Eminem rejected that he had used power to exclude Kelly from rapping activities and to reduce his income, while Kelly rejected that his comment about Eminem’s daughter was impolite. The reason for this avoidance is related to the amount of prescribed–proscribed power play/abuse, and a behavior’s situated cultural value and markedness in a group (Culpeper 2011). Attacking someone’s child and banning a rapper from the events he deserved by using power are condemned out-group behaviors in rap music. Table 3 shows the distribution of impoliteness strategies used in the rap battle.

The two rappers mostly attacked each other’s quality face and social identity face. The more value attached to a face, the more likely it is to be attacked (Goffman 1967). Since both rappers valued their quality and social identity faces, the attacks were primarily aimed at these. Note that although Kelly attacked Eminem’s other individual traits occasionally (e.g., being old), the rappers usually aimed at each other’s social identity faces as “skilled rappers” and “tough individuals”, a common pattern in rap music (Alim et al. 2010, 2011]). Spencer-Oatey (2009) argues that an evaluation of face sensitivities requires consideration of contextual and individual factors. People may ascribe varying values to different attributes in different contexts, and rap music culture values certain attributes related to rapping skills and being tough. Ruhi and Işık-Güler (2007) underline that the sensitivities regarding face might be different in varying (sub)cultures. While social image might be essential in one society, another society might value affective aspects more. Therefore, it can be argued that the aforementioned targets in the asynchronous rap battle are once again proven to be highly valued in hip-hop culture.

Although attacks on social identity face and equity rights were comparable in number between the two rappers, Eminem used more attacks on quality face, relational face, and association rights in the 19 conversations. People usually avoid destroying each other’s faces to sustain their relationships (Goffman 1967). Kelly wanted a rivalry with Eminem and tried to obtain it with his rap track. His aim was to create and sustain a new relationship, which was explicitly stated in his lyrics. Eminem, on the other hand, had no problem with aiming to destroy Kelly’s relational face and association rights since he objected to sustaining a worthy rival relationship with Kelly. For the same reason, he attacked Kelly’s rapping skills without giving him any credit.

Machine Gun Kelly used the defensive response only once to reject that his tweet was an impolite act (compared to 39 offensive acts), while Eminem used it 7 times (compared to 53 offensive acts) in the conversations. The use of more defensive responses by Eminem was expected, since he was in the position of a responder in this exchange and had many opportunities to use defensive responses and cooperative action (see below). “Powerful people” have the luxury of being selective when responding to impolite behavior (O’Driscoll 2017). Despite using more defensive responses than Kelly, Eminem used much more offensive acts in his lyrics and chose not to respond to each and every claim, probably due to his strong power position and better-established authenticity in hip-hop culture. Nevertheless, a successful face attack requires an offended addressee (Bousfield 2008). Eminem’s first diss in his Not Alike rap track, Kelly’s diss track Rap Devil, and Eminem’s diss track Killshot (especially the defensive responses in it) are proof that the face attacks between the two rappers were successful (i.e., face attacks were taken up by both rappers).

5.2 Rap track/battle strategies used by the rappers

In terms of strategies adopted, both rappers utilized strategies commonly observed in rap battles and rap tracks involving African American rappers. References to physical violence and threats were explicit in conversations (see Sections 4.2, 4.17 and 4.18) as expected in rap music (Herd 2009; Johnson and Schell-Busey 2016). Although both rappers did not frequently use taboo words to enhance their flow (each used “damn” only once to create a better flow), they often ascribed negative values (see Sections 4.3, 4.15 and 4.17) in attempts to out-diss each other (Mavima 2016). Eminem resorted to sarcasm once (see Section 4.10), when he said Kelly dressed better but he himself had better rapping skills – a regular strategy used by African American rappers to outwit the opponent (Mavima 2016). Attacks on masculinity were common (see Sections 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5), and both rappers praised their own physical strength and rapping abilities (see Sections 4.4 and 4.8) in various conversations, reflecting the usual pattern in mainstream rap tracks and battles (Alim et al. 2010; Mavima 2016). As using insults is a useful tool for challenging the authenticity of the opponent in rap music (Alim et al. 2011; Jia and Yao 2022), both the veteran rapper and the less-experienced rapper constantly insulted each other’s rap skills (see Sections 4.11, 4.16 and 4.17). Although Kelly acknowledged the rap skills of Eminem more than once (see Section 4.19), he referred to them as a thing of the past (seen in Sections 4.4 and 4.13). Eminem, on the other hand, denied that Kelly’s rap skills had ever existed, and attacked his authenticity in hip-hop culture by placing him among pop singers (see Sections 4.2 and 4.4).

The analyses also revealed compelling patterns regarding attacks on family honor, cooperative actions, and adopting a teacher role in rap battles. Kelly attacked Eminem’s family by referring to his ex-wife (seen in Section 4.12), but denied using any impoliteness against his daughter, which can be seen in Section 4.15. This shows that although attacking family can be a routine strategy in rap music (Mavima 2016), verbal attacks on children can be frowned upon. Eminem used cooperative action more than once by reusing the lyrics and referring to visual objects in Kelly’s video clip (see Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.6), using the advantage of being the respondent. While both rappers can use cooperative action in rap battles (Jia 2022), asynchronous rap battles require more than a single exchange of rap tracks for the first rapper to exhibit such behavior, thereby giving an advantage to the responder in the battles consisting of only one exchange. Although Eminem adopted a teacher role in one of the lines (e.g., I’ll give you a B for the effort, seen in Section 4.8), this was not similar to Chinese rap battles, in which teacher roles are adopted to teach moral qualities (Jia and Yao 2022). Instead, Eminem just insulted Kelly’s rapping skills by referring to himself as the superior authority in rap music (see Sections 4.4, 4.8 and 4.10 for examples). Overall, strategies used by both rappers mostly overlapped with those used by African American rappers, except for the use of AAE language, which is discussed in the next sub-section.

5.3 Local identities and authenticity

Eminem and Machine Gun Kelly challenged the roles adopted by each other. As positions can be both self-asserted and other-asserted (Anton and Peterson 2003), a mismatch between them usually results in conflict. Burke and Stets (2009) similarly argue for the vital importance of identity verification. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich et al. (2013) state that refusing to verify the identities adopted by people leads to anger and perceived face threats. Machine Gun Kelly and Eminem adopted roles that were contradictory to the roles asserted by each other. Kelly adopted the role of a challenger and the future of the genre, and referred to Eminem as the ghost of the past. Eminem rejected these self-asserted and other-asserted identities altogether, positioning himself as a skilled rapper who can still write good lyrics, while categorizing Kelly as a “pop singer”.

In addition to using insults aimed at the opponent’s authenticity, both rappers also used threats to enhance their own power position and authenticity, which is a regular phenomenon in rap music (Jia and Yao 2022). This kind of strategy is largely related to the essential role of masculine identity in hip-hop culture, and for the same reason, attacks on masculinity help undermine the opponent’s authenticity and win rap battles (Alim et al. 2018). This, however, might not be sufficient, since proving your authenticity also necessitates showing cultural and linguistic awareness of hip-hop culture in your lyrics, especially for White rappers as the marked members of hip-hop culture.

Using hip-hop language – which largely overlaps with AAE – is an important way to validate your rapper identity and establish your authenticity (see Cutler 2007, 2015]). White rappers need to be extra careful with the language they use, as overusing AAE might make them appear fake, and they may not have a license to use each and every slang used by African American rappers. Table 4 lists examples of AAE/hip-hop language used by Eminem in his rap track.

As the linguistic analysis above shows, Eminem adopted different linguistic features of AAE without worrying about getting labeled as fake. This self-confidence might stem from his stronger position in rap music or from the fact that he grew up in a Black neighborhood, if not both. Surprisingly, Eminem even emphasized the marked status of Kelly by calling him a white toothpick, mocking his physical appearance while at the same time underscoring his whiteness. These lines would be expected from an African American rapper against a White rapper (see an example in Mavima 2016). Their use by Eminem indicates how confident he is with his in-group status in rap music despite his own Whiteness.

Kelly, on the other hand, showed a limited use of AAE, mostly using “demonstrative them” (Akande 2012) in the chorus of this rap track and reducing -ing endings to -in (Cutler 2015). He might not have acquired the license to use AAE as much as Eminem, as this usually requires growing up or living in an African American neighborhood (e.g., Sweetland 2002). In addition, the authenticity established by the younger rapper might not be as strong as that of Eminem, who is widely acknowledged as a capable rapper in hip-hop culture. Considering these two potential reasons, Kelly might have refrained from using more AAE language in his lyrics to avoid sounding fake and inauthentic.

5.4 Power-in and power-behind discourse

Although they have not gotten into another rap battle until this day, both rappers have continued to diss each other in their tracks. Eminem dissed Kelly in his two rap tracks, Zeus and Gnat. Machine Gun Kelly responded to these two impolite acts with another impolite act in his single, Bullets with Names. Thus, one might propose that the initial attempt by Kelly to establish a power relationship with Eminem as a rival was a success – the more experienced and acknowledged rapper tried to challenge the power position of the younger challenger. However, Kelly started publishing pop-funk songs with his 2020 album Tickets to my Downfall, and continued this tradition with his later 2022 album Mainstream Sellout. Given his limited use of AAE in the rap battle, Kelly might have felt more comfortable moving into an area where he can get accepted more easily, without worrying about a license to use AAE or establishing an authentic hip-hop identity.

5.5 Asynchronous rap battles

The analyses and discussions above helped us define asynchronous rap battles. First, we argue that conversations do not always necessitate immediate exchanges, in line with Sacks et al. (1978). Exchanges in the lyrics show that asynchronous rap battles are a distinct form of conversation in which insertion sequences are loosely placed. As shown in the analyses, each exchange formed a conservation based on a specific topic. Therefore, diss track exchanges between rap battles can be regarded as asynchronous rap battles, and mutual insults and attacks on specific topics can be examined as conversations.

As rituals in hip-hop culture, these battles show identical characteristics to synchronous rap battles, and the norms and traditions of hip-hop culture apply to rap battles regardless of their type. The impoliteness used in these battles is almost always explicit and usually aimed at each other’s rapping skills, masculinity, and authenticity. Similar to rap battles, asynchronous rap battles are a type of ritual aggression in which verbal threats are common and glorified (Herd 2009; Johnson and Schell-Busey 2016; Mavima 2016), but these are limited to verbal exchanges without real-life intentions (Jia and Yao 2022). Both Eminem and Kelly have not taken any actions to provoke physical attacks on each other, and although there are a few cases of rap battles leading to real-life violence (Johnson and Schell-Busey 2016), such intentions are not welcomed in today’s hip-hop culture. With this feature, asynchronous and synchronous rap battles resemble the way verbal threats were used in older times: solving conflicts without consulting physical violence (Bax 1981). Without the involvement of actual violence, the emphasis is on the creativity and cleverness of how impoliteness is used in rap battles.

Verbal aggression is also related to entertainment impoliteness. Such impoliteness created through mediated verbal aggression is a good way to draw attention, and is the reason behind the success of reality shows (Garcés-Conejos Blitvich et al. 2013). In like manner, we believe that mediated verbal aggression is an important reason for the popularity of the asynchronous rap battle between Eminem and Machine Gun Kelly. Similar to why the “mean judge” Simon Cowell is an undeniable factor in the TV show Idol’s success, rap battles and diss tracks are irreplaceable in rap music for obvious reasons – feeling thrilled, joyful, secure, and safe by witnessing somebody attacked by creative impoliteness strategies is what people want (Culpeper 2011). Synchronous rap battles offer the same entertainment, but to a rather narrower audience group. Going to live rap battle competitions or watching them on the internet attracts many hip-hop listeners, but asynchronous rap battles by famous artists, such as the one discussed in this paper, draw the attention of hundreds of millions of people, even the ones that are not fans of the hip-hop genre. Since responses in asynchronous rap battles take some time, people learn more about the insults and attacks in the tracks, analyze them in more detail, choose sides, and discuss these with other people in real life and on the internet. Expectations and thrills rise, and thus, asynchronous rap battles have the potential to reach a wider audience and draw more attention. The battle between Eminem and Kelly, for example, inspired hundreds of videos and discussion posts on the internet.

Approval and popularity are important in any kind of entertainment impoliteness, but arguably, they are even more important in rap battles. Audience and/or a jury usually determine who the winner is in a rap battle (Miner 1993), and a rapper without the support of an audience in the form of applause and cheers (Keyes 2004) would be regarded as the loser. The applause in live rap battles is replaced with likes on the internet for asynchronous rap battles, and for the battle of our interest, the audience consists of hundreds of millions of people. As of May 2024, Rap Devil has been watched more than 379 million times on YouTube and listened to 208 million times on Spotify, compared to more than 478 million YouTube views and 409 million Spotify listens for Killshot. In addition to more views, Killshot also had more likes (6.6 million) than Rap Devil (3.3 million) on Youtube. Therefore, the rappers were both successful in receiving widespread approval and increasing their popularity, but Eminem seemed to be one step ahead.

Both synchronous and asynchronous rap battles, however, are beyond merely tools to get more popularity, as rappers try to get the upper hand by using insults and asserting superiority, in line with coercive impoliteness (Bousfield 2008). Kelly’s overall goal might seem limited to having a rival relationship with Eminem, but most of the time, people achieve relational goals to progress toward their larger transactional goals (Ruhi 2009; Spencer-Oatey 2005). Kelly’s attempt to win a rap battle against Eminem was also an attempt to verify his adopted identity as a skilled rapper and claim in-group status. This was a risky move, since Culpeper (2011) warns that although coercive impoliteness might be beneficial in the short term, it might also be costly in the long run. Kelly increased his popularity, making him regarded as a successful artist. However, he did not respond to Eminem’s Killshot with another diss track, and although his 2020 and 2022 albums became number one albums in their opening weeks, they were considered pop-punk albums. Eminem, on the other hand, used the advantage of having a more authentic in-group identity by including more hip-hop language and relying on his strong power position. In the end, Kelly could not establish a long-term rival position to Eminem in rap music.

All in all, asynchronous rap battles involve both entertaining and coercive impoliteness, both of which require skillful use of verbal aggression and impoliteness strategies without asserting actual physical violence. While increasing popularity and entertaining people are part of the battles, the main goal is establishing an identity as a skilled rapper and claiming in-group status in hip-hop culture. This might necessitate time, especially for White rappers who have little life experience with the African American lifestyle and struggle to obtain a full license to use hip-hop language, which is crucial in establishing a rapper’s identity and authenticity in rap music (see Cutler 2007, 2015]). Rushing through the steps and attacking people on the top can bring popularity, but the power positions of such individuals are difficult to challenge, and it can cost the hard-earned rapper identity of the challenger altogether.