Words: Do They Really Carry That Much Meaning?

Words: Do They Really Carry That Much Meaning?

            Words mean things, and the words people choose may carry consequences. While some people try to disregard words as meaningless, the reality is words can cause harm to individuals and carry serious consequences when not chosen correctly. A popular refrain when I was a child was “sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you.” In theory that may be true, but words do in fact hurt and carry serious consequences. Recently, an ESPN employee ran an article about a popular American basketball player entitled “Chink in the Armor: Jeremy Lin’s 9 Turnovers Cost Knicks in Streak-stopping Loss to Hornets”¹ on ESPN’s website. On the surface, the title may seem innocent but unfortunately, the term “Chink” in this case refers to a Chinese American man, and as such, the word “Chink” takes on a new meaning. While Anthony Federico, the author of the article, may have thought he was making an innocent comment, the word “Chink” is a derogatory word used to describe the people in the Chinese community in a negative connotation. In society today, much like throughout history, people continue to deliberately use words meant to offend people and portray them in a disparaging way.     

            Our society provides many examples of words that are used to offend people. A tough guy, for example, would take exception to someone calling him a “fag” as this would mean he was weak, feminine, and not a “real man.” People in society use words like “fag” to create an underclass of individuals. These words are used to empower the person who utters the hurtful refrain while marginalizing the person who is targeted by these words. This word, much like other words in society, carries with it a negative connotations and serious consequences with them. While the word “fag” may instantly conjure up negative images in one’s mind, other words are more subtle, and although many people may not think of the word “fruit” as having negative consequences, the reality is it carries these same negative connotations as the word “fag” in our society.

            The word fruit has multiple meanings, implied and literal. According to Webster’s Dictionary Online, the first definition of the word fruit is, “a product of plant growth,”² which is the meaning that most people in society are familiar with when they hear the word; however, the word also carries implied meanings when used in a certain context. According to the Urban Dictionary, the first definition of the word is, “someone who is a flaming flamboyant homosexual,”³ which is generally not the first definition that comes to one’s mind. The word fruit originates from the Latin and was first introduced in the 12^th century.⁴ The word fruit did not take on a negative connotation until 1931 when it was used to refer to women as easy or willing to have sex with anyone, and it was not until 1935 when the word took on a new meaning, which was to refer to a male as a homosexual.⁵ This phrase is often used among males in today’s society when they are attempting to marginalize other males in society. It is used to imply that certain people are weak and are not the ideal man.   

            Our society today uses words to label people and marginalize individuals who are deemed different. Society does this to create an underclass, which allows for self fulfilling proclamations tolerating the dominant individuals in society to remain the prevailing class. Howard S. Becker provides insight on labeling and how people use labels to demonize individuals. According to Becker (1963), “being caught and branded as a deviant has important consequences for one’s further social participation and self-image. The most important consequence is a drastic change in the individual’s public identity.”⁶ Labels are often used to describe people and are regularly used in general conversation, but when society applies labels to people, these labels have consequences and those consequences become significant when individuals, who had not previously used the label, accept and attach those labels to people. Becker (1963) states that deviance is not defined by the behavior itself, but rather, it becomes defined with the interaction of the person who committed the offense and the people who responded to it.⁷ Thus, when members of society accept the label that one has been given, the label now attaches and has new consequences. As Becker states (1963), “[one] is treated in accordance with the popular diagnosis of why he [or she] is that way.”⁸ The label, therefore, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as people accept that label, and as it attaches to the individual, people treat him or her according to that label.

            While the label fruit is used to marginalize certain people in our society, this label, which is meant to degrade the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, questioning community (LGBTQ), is generally accepted and used among the LGBTQ community although there are still a small segment of the LGBTQ community who find the term offensive. The term fruit in the LGBTQ community has led to the use and acceptance of other words that are derived from that label; one of those new labels is the term fruit fly. According to the Urban Dictionary, the word fruit fly defines a heterosexual attractive woman who hangs out with gay males.⁹ While there may be some people who do not like this term, this term has come to be an acceptable replacement to the term “fag hag,” which was previously used to describe a heterosexual woman who hangs out with gay males.¹⁰ While members of people outside of the LGBTQ may use this word to demean people, the LGBTQ community generally looks at this word as harmless. It does not carry the same stigmatism inside the LGBTQ community as it does outside of the community.

            Words do in fact carry with them consequences. As people in society continue to use words like fruit to marginalize certain individuals, there will continue to be an underclass of people in our society. When Anthony Federico wrote his article regarding the Chinese American basketball player, I doubt he imagined the consequences that lie ahead. The outrage over the title of his article was felt nationwide, and ESPN responded quickly to the public outcry by firing Federico. Even though Federico insisted he meant no harm by his words, the damage was done.¹¹ Words in society have meaning, and when people use words to define people, the labels carry consequences. While the adage, “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” may in theory be true, it is hard to believe the words Federico used are not hurting him and his family today.             

Word Count 1121

1. Gurney, M. (2012). National Post. Retrieved from http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/21/matt-gurney-racially-tinged-slips-of-the-tongue-shouldnt-get-you-fired/

2. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2012). Fruit. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fruit

3. Urban Dictionary. (2012). Fruit. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fruit

4. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2012). Fruit. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fruit

5. Online Etymology Online. (2012). Fruit. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=fruit&searchmode=none

6. Howard S. Becker. (2010). Labeling Theory. In Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers (Eds.), Readings in Deviant Behavior (pp. 39-41). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

7. Howard S. Becker. (2010). Labeling Theory. In Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers (Eds.), Readings in Deviant Behavior (pp. 39-41). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

8. Howard S. Becker. (2010). Labeling Theory. In Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers (Eds.), Readings in Deviant Behavior (pp. 39-41). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

9. Urban Dictionary. (2012). Fruit. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fruit

10. Razzano, T. (April 27, 2011). Creative Loafing. Retrieved from http://cltampa.com/dailyloaf/archives/2011/04/27/back-talk-are-friendships-between-fruit-flies-and-gay-men-the-real-deal#.T0mZhPWimuI

11. Gurney, M. (2012). National Post. Retrieved from http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/21/matt-gurney-racially-tinged-slips-of-the-tongue-shouldnt-get-you-fired/

Murderball: What a Name!

1.    What is the main thesis of this film?
It seems to me that the main thesis of the film is simple: people in wheelchairs are no different than everyone else in society. That point was made clear when Mark Zupan’s friends stated that Mark was an ass before the wheelchair. The wheelchair did not turn Mark into an ass.

2.    What were the main arguments in support of this thesis?
Some of the main points that support this claim would be the conversation the men were having about sex. It is clear that they can participate in and enjoy sex. They were also all engaged in sports. They were clearly active and were not sulking about their condition, which they do not see as a condition. They were also engaged in everyday activities like joking around. For example, one of the guys hid under a box and the other guys in the room asked some lady to pick up the box at which time the man in the box revealed himself causing the girl to scream. Finally, the individuals in the movie were not looking for sympathy. They were content with their lives. They didn’t want handouts from people. They knew that they were no different than anyone else in society and wanted people to realize and understand that point. For example, when one of the guys was asked if he needed help to his car while he was at the grocery store, he was annoyed. He stated that he wouldn’t come to the store if he couldn’t get back to his car. In other words, he is fine. People do not need to pity him.   
            
3.    How does the thesis of this film relate to the course?

This course is all about deviance, and while we may not think of people in wheelchairs as deviant, we do view them as different. According to Alex Heckert and Druann Maria Heckert (2002) some people can be viewed deviant simply for having an unfortunate condition for which they cannot be held responsible, and according to Alexander B. Smith and Harriet Pollack (2000) in “Deviance as Crime, Sin, and Poor Taste,” Howard Becker defines deviants as outsiders. Our society tends to pity people who are different. The term deviance in Sociological terms deals with anything out of the norm (Heckert 2002). People in wheelchairs would not be considered normal as our society believes that anyone who can walk would want to walk; therefore, people in wheelchairs need our pity and sympathy. People in wheelchairs are not deviant in the sense that they are committing atrocities. They are deviants simply for being different.  

4.   Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?
Some of the most convincing points in the film were the attitudes of the gentlemen in the film. Joe, for example, was an unapologetic tough guy who didn’t back down from anyone. He lost the use of his legs when he fell sick with Polio, but he didn’t look for sympathy. Instead, he became the greatest Murderball player in United States history, he has been married for several years and supports his family, and he has been able to find gainful employment throughout his life. The other part of the movie that was quite convincing came when the guys were having a candid conversation about sex. One gentleman even went as far to show you how he reinvented the doggy style. The men in this film were like most people in society. They had desires, goals, and dreams.  

5.   Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?
I would have liked it if the film had spent more time researching people who did in fact give up. It seems to me that not everyone shares the same outlook as the men portrayed in the movie. While they did provide us a small glimpse into the first days of individuals who were paralyzed, we really did not get a sense of what it was like for people who did give in and decide that life was indeed horrible. Finally, I want to know why this sport is sex segregated. Those wheelchairs look pretty secure. It seems to me that the producers of this film should have asked and researched why women are excluded from this sport. Generally speaking, co-ed sports can take place when there is a third party exception. For example in horse racing, there are women jockeys. In auto racing, there are women drivers. The premise for allowing these exceptions is the horse or the car is doing all the work, and not the woman. Therefore, why don’t women participate in this sport with the premise that the wheelchair is doing all the work? And I don’t accept the premise that it is a contact sport.     

6.   Choose one argument, point or question that most stands out for you from the film. How would you study this point? Briefly design a research study around that point.

The point that stands out to me is how accepting most of these men were of their new life in a wheelchair. I would really like to know if this is the status quo. How many people are just as accepting? How many people decide that life isn’t worth living if it has to be in a wheelchair because of the pressures our society puts on people to be normal? I would like to research people who have been paralyzed and see how their lives have turned out. Does everyone have the same positive outlook? How many individuals, who are in wheelchairs, found it difficult to assimilate back into society after their accident? Were they able to find work? How hard is it to go on dates? If they are married, did their marriage survive? If they have kids, how did their kids react? Do their kids treat them differently? Do the kids get treated differently from their friends at school? Do the individuals in wheelchairs have a sense of hopelessness or do they look to the future as bright? To research this I would make visitations to the hospital where people who are rehabbing from their accidents. I would ask them if I could follow them throughout their rehab and while they attempt to assimilate back into society.

Alexander P. Smith and Harriet Pollack. (2000). Deviance as Crime, Sin, and Poor Taste. In Patricia A. Adler, and Peter Adler (Eds.), Constructions of Deviance: Social Power, Context, and Interaction (pp. 19-28). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.   

Alex Heckert and Druann Maria Heckert. (2010). A New Typology of Deviance: Integrating and Reactivist Definitions of Deviance. In Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers (Eds.), Readings in Deviant Behavior (pp. 11-14). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Who Doesn't Like Stories About Sex?

With our recent discussions regarding deviant behavior, I felt this article was worth posting as many value judgments are made throughout the article and a deviant class is established. 

To find out the story behind the street sign and other stories about what this author considers deviant sexual acts, follow this link:

http://www.cracked.com/article_17098_the-6-strangest-objects-people-were-caught-having-sex-with.html