Reappropriation of Bastard

Hello all, and once again thank you for coming to my blog.

This week we are seeking to look at reappropriation of words, and essentially how words and meanings evolve and change over time. Because of this reality, there are consequences that are associated with saying a word that once meant one thing--maybe not negative--but recently or contemporarily the word has a different connotation that may be offensive to certain people. For this week I am choosing the word Bastard. As we will find out though, this is a fun word to study and analyze because there is a rich history of the term, as well as multiple meanings.

I chose to use bastard for a number of different reason. First of all, I was shocked to see how old it was and how it has changed meaning over time. Especially in modern culture, bastard is definitely a derogatory term and I know it was overused by friends and individuals I have met in my lifetime.

Let's first start with entomology, that is the history, of the term bastard. According the entomology dictionary, the word bastard comes from the 11th century. As the dictionary states its original meaning was an "'acknowledged child of a nobleman by a woman other than his wife,' probably from fils de bast 'packsaddle son,' meaning a child conceived on an improvised bed (saddles often doubled as beds while traveling)" (Online Etymology Dictionary) As we move to the 13th century It meant "illegitimate child." While these differences are subtle, they totally change the meaning of at least part and correct application of the word. However, we could go even farther and say that a bastard is not a human being. In fact, that's what it is considered outside the politically correct urban centers throughout the world. In Australia it means male dog. Now we can begin to see all of the loaded assumptions that could go with this word if it were used.

Figuratively speaking, bastard has always meant "not pure or genuine" which is already a harsh word when speaking to a person. So the previous connotations of the word were deviant in the sense that back in history bloodlines and lineage was incredibly important to how you were viewed and your status in society, so to be called illegitimate or birthed from an arrangement outside the traditional husband and wife arrangement.

As we look at modern culture today, one could argue that the word hasn't really changed for centuries. While that may be true when discovering how dictionaries, academic authorities, etc. define and view the word, it is certainly not how members of society view the word. I remember when I was in middle school kids would call each other bastards all the time, when really they just meant he/she was being an asshole, smart ass, or deceptive individual. However, this is key to note because as we grow up around our peers, we are socialized by them and we help socialize them. This socializing influence dictates how people will view language, morals, rights, and wrongs until and if they choose to liberate their minds through education and knowledge.

For example, this individual's video has absolutely no purpose, but he begins by asking the question, "what exactly is a bastard" the video proceeds and he makes modern, incorrect applications to the word bastard.



However, the underlying social constructions of using the word bastard as an insult, which is primarily the case are huge. Although the one insulting may not know it, he is calling the insultee a fatherless, illegitimate, impure, ingenuine, or lastly a male dog--if you take all of the meanings I have discussed in this post. Next, very few terms can mean something human and not.

According to Duhaime.org, a bastard is "An illegitimate child, born in a relationship between two persons that are not married (ie. not in wedlock) or who are not married at the time of the child’s birth." Originally speaking that was a huge deal, since being born out of wedlock was the quickest way to lose your inheritance, and it was often the only way to get land (Duhaime.org). That being said, "Bastards were of such a lower caste in medieval England that Latin expressions were developed just for them, labelling them "son of nobody, sons of the people" (Duhaime.org). As you can see, back then they took a much more literal meaning to the word. Even though modern society sees a lot more births before marriage--it is still certainly considered deviant by society to "do it in the wrong order" as I once heard a mother say to her daughter. Society likes graduating, then college, then marriage, and then children. Based on that, people who are defined as bastards can still be ostracized if it is known by his/her peers. The benefit to this label vs. other labels is that it is not worn on their sleeve like other deviant labels have to be.

As I was browsing online I really wasn't able to find communities where people who identify as bastards try and reclaim the correct use of the word. Once again though, this is no surprise to me, although it is considered deviant, there is no quick way to tell if someone is a bastard so it largely goes unrecognized. Next, since it was not their choice to be born a bastard, they likely identify to much different labels, if any at all, that were at least chosen by them. As we discussed in class the second week of the semester, a large part of being deviant or labeled deviant comes from the ability of others to spot your "deviant stamp" - or "A" in the case of the Scarlet Letter.

wordcount: 897

Citations:

"Bastard Definition:." Duhaime Legal Dictionary. Duhaime. Web. 26 Feb. 2012. .

"Online Etymology Dictionary." Online Etymology Dictionary. Web. 26 Feb. 2012. .

Google images: http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1366&bih=667&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=DCvkVrpxagw5AM:&imgrefurl=http://garynuke.homestead.com/lostpets.html&docid=cD1PxgvgAgE3GM&imgurl=http://garynuke.homestead.com/lostpets/A_Red_Male_Dog.jpg&w=800&h=679&ei=lKZKT_DrDeajiALgqojbDQ&zoom=1

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=OJfomsaVvXaq7M:&imgrefurl=http://www.webwonks.org/Marathon/BastardChild.html&docid=Vx-zQKXG4ouiEM&imgurl=http://www.webwonks.org/Marathon/Images/BastardChild.jpg&w=409&h=276&ei=uaZKT-e8IufViAL8gZmeAg&zoom=1

Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.

Film Review 2 - Murderball

1.) The main thesis of the movie murderball seemed to be that although society largely believes people who are "handicapped," the film demonstrates through the sport of wheelchair rugby--a very dangerous and intense sport--that society's preconceived notions about people with disabilities are absolutely false. In many cases, they can do just as much or more than "non-disabled" individuals.
2.)The main arguments toward this thesis is demonstrated at the beginning of the film when Zupan talks about being in a bar and almost getting into a fight with a guy, the guy feels bad and Zupan yells "fucking hit me, I'll hit you back" (Murderball, 2005). This is just one of the many statements Zupan and his wheelchair rugby team say that leads us to rethink our preconceived notions about people in wheelchairs. The next example is when the film goes in depth to how people in wheelchairs can have intercourse. Another argument that fortifies the thesis is the intensity of the wheelchair rugby games, these $3000 dollar gladiator wheel chairs are amazingly built. This allows the sport to be even harder contact than one would think is safe.
3.)The thesis aligns with the course goals and the discussions and thoughts we are intended to think and question in our Deviance class. For the past couple of weeks we have had ongoing debates and discussions as to how society views individuals you aren't able bodied. This film does a great job at debunking preconceptions that able bodied people think are correct. Next, the film helps kill the myth that all people in wheel chairs just really want their legs again, when the way it is portrayed by the pararugby community in the movie, that is just not the case and in many ways is offensive. They have become accustomed to who they are and many wouldn't change it.
4.) The point I found most convincing in the film wasn't ever explicitly said, but was eluded to time and time again in the movie. When people get into wheel chairs after their accident, they are incredibly hopeless for the first couple of years, but they are reinvigorated when they discover that they can still do so many things that able-bodied individuals can do; intercourse and sports to name a couple. Not to mention being entirely self sufficient.
5.) I really was awe-struck when I watched this film, and wasn't really skeptical to the points being made. I feel like the audience was getting exclusive interviews discussing their trials, journeys, and accomplishments since being labeled disabled. However, based on their responses and actions in the movie, I do disagree with labeling theory as being applicable to the film. Labeling theory states that "Treating a person as though he were generally rather than specifically deviant produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. It sets in motion several mechanisms which conspire to shape the person in the image people have of him" (Thio, Calhoun, & Conyers). While I know the book wasn't imagining disabled people as part of this equation, but people who are disabled are still viewed as deviant. Despite their cases being ascribed vs. achieved. From the movie we saw a lot of people such as Zupan, where everywhere he went people began rethinking their notions about people in wheelchairs.
6.) If I had to research one point about the film I would love to look further into the various levels of disability paraplegics have as discussed at the beginning of the film. I understand there are distinctions based on arm mobility, but it would be intriguing to delve deeper into it and see if more or less classifications are necessary for other paraplegic sports.

Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.

Rubin, Henry, writ. Murderball. Writ. Dana Shapiro, Jeff Mandel, and Keith Cavill. Thinkfilm, 2005. Film.

Film Review 1 - Middle Sexes

1.) The main thesis of the film "Middle Sexes" is that in the West transgender and other "middle sex" individuals are harshly discriminated against, in large part due to our Judeo-Christian roots; it contrasts this by visiting other societies throughout the world and notes how differently they are treated.

2.) The main arguments for the thesis were 1- Through the example of Noah, a child in the midwest that is biologically male and chooses to identify as female. His parents point out that children like Noah, nearly 50% of the time will end up committing suicide or being killed. This just demonstrates the scrutiny individuals that are "middle sex" are ostracized, discriminated against, and must always be looking over their shoulder. Next, the film uses India as a great example of how society there handles and treats these individuals.

3.) The thesis of the film relates to the course very strongly in the fact that especially in the West, Middle sex individuals are perceived by in large as highly deviant, and the assumptions that are held by the majority of the population can have catastrophic consequences as we saw in the story at the beginning of the film where several men brutally killed a middle sex who identified as female. This relates to the course when considering labeling theory as well. "A sociological view...defines deviance as the infraction of some agreed upon rule....Such an assumption seems to me to ignore the central fact about deviance: it is created by society" (Thio, Calhoun, Conyers, 39). This simple quote demonstrates how deviance is defined at an institutional level. This is one of the primary concepts of the course and also a large factor as to how and why people react to certain deviance the way they do.

4.) The arguments I found most convincing were the fact that for part of the first trimester, biologically the fetus is still "deciding" what it will be; and as we discussed in class, it is a prescribed attribute in the case of an intersex individual.
5.) The argument I found least convincing was the religion argument. If you take a look at every society they discussed in the film, religion was always at the forefront of how and why that society looked at deviance. Christianity just happens to not have a God with two sexes.
6.) The point that stands out to me is what was largely omitted in the film: the health effects. I would look and observe records of individuals who got sex changes and have died, and compare them with people who had not, to try to ascertain whether there are obvious health effects.

Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.

The Extent to my Deviance

Hello everyone, thanks for visiting my blog. For the blog post regarding deviance this week, I will be splitting my post up into two different yet related parts. First, I will provide a brief overview and background of who I am, how I was raised, where I was raised, and other necessary information to assess whether I am to be considered a deviant in society or not. I will then submit two theories discussed in class (Strain and Differential Association) to explain why I am or am not deviant. In part two of my blog post, I will convey to all of you a social experiment of sorts that I conducted in which I acted as a social deviant in a small way. Let’s dig in.
PART 1:
I was born on January 17, 1991 in Vancouver, WA. My immediate family consists of five people, including myself. My first 6 years of life were spent in Vancouver, WA near Andresen Rd. However, when I was 6 our family moved out into the country on 5 acres between Yacolt and Amboy, WA. Both of my parents were college graduates from the University of Portland. My mother Ronda has been a critical intensive care nurse for 25 years, and my dad owns a small tax firm. By most people I would be considered upper-middle class and in middle school and especially high school many of my friends would refer to me as rich or spoiled.
I played soccer competitively from the time I was 4 years old, and started premier soccer at age 12. I then injured my foot permanently my sophomore year in high school and had to hang up the cleats. After this I largely strayed away from my athletic or “jock” high school friends and began hanging out with people I perceived as intellectuals. It was at this time where I began to become incredibly political and began trying new things, hanging around people much different than I, and ultimately led me to starting the debate team at my high school.
Throughout my adolescence I had always questioned society’s expectations and the reasons for many of them, however most of my life, and even now is spent towing the line of society’s expectations. After all, I grew up in an upper-middle class family, am Caucasian, graduated high school, attending college, working a job, and in large part chasing after that “American Dream” that we are fed so much about in high school. However, I could also make the argument that from the time I stopped playing sports, I was deviant in many ways, since many of my friends in high school after that were intellectuals who smoked pot, were atheists or agnostics, liberal, rebellious, and took pride in their roles as deviants (although they didn’t necessarily see themselves that way). I was undoubtedly influenced rather highly by these individuals, which brings me to the first theory that may explain my subtle deviance in my senior year in high school.
The first theory that I will use to assess my degree of deviance is called Differential Association Theory.
Before using Differential Association Theory to classify my deviance though, I will first explain what the theory says. According to our text, Differential Association Theory rests on the premise that criminal or deviant behavior is not inherited—we are not simply born criminals or conformists—instead it is something that becomes learned by individuals through exposure and intimate, tightly-knit relationships with people who partake in criminal or deviant behavior. This is the case for several reasons; the greatest asset to humans is the mind, which happens to be able to justify its own actions very well. “When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple; and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes” (Thio, Calhoun & Conyers, 27).
Therefore, Differential Association theory would argue that due to my exposure to people that are definitely considered deviant, and the fact that many of them are close friends of mine, I am much more susceptible to criminal behavior; because I have been exposed, and in many ways immersed into that subculture. Now, discounting that period at the end of high school DA theory would also argue that by in large most of my life has been spent with law abiding, non-deviant individuals, and therefore I haven’t been exposed to that subculture and therefore am not susceptible to becoming criminal, at least not for that reason.
The next theory I will discuss is Merton’s Strain Theory. This theory by Merton is my personal favorite out of all of the sociology classes I have taken. The concept of Strain theory is rather elementary, yet the causes and agencies of it are much more complex and are still speculated upon by professionals to this day. Strain theory states that “social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconforming rather than conforming conduct” (Thio, Calhoun & Conyers, 21). Based on this societal pressure—which is different for every individual in society based on race, religion, socioeconomic status, education and countless other factors—individuals are either pushed toward deviance or away from it.
Merton demonstrates in his theory how people can react to this phenomenon in several different ways depending on whether they accept societal goals and means or not. However for the purpose of this post I will just need to classify where I fit. And according to strain theory, the closest adaptation to me that Merton describes is Conformity: I agree with the cultural goals and institutionalized means. I play the game of life legally, so to speak. In the case of myself, strain theory would argue that I have not been pushed towards criminal activity due to the fact that I am not a demographic that gets very much pressure towards criminal activity. (Caucasian, upper-middle class, male, attending college, have health insurance, etc..)
PART II:
For my deviant act, I simply did what I had done before. Hung around individuals that are perceived deviant by society and doing my small part towards contributing to my small part of deviance. One could argue that I was deviant by association. So me and a couple friends (no names) went to the Vancouver Mall dressed in worn out, old, raggedy clothes. I know that smoking cigarettes is definitely considered deviant in society now, so we made sure to smell like Marlboro Reds and body odor that was not conducive to ever getting a date—with anyone. Furthermore, while we were in the mall going through the various stores, we would converse with each other with little discretion for what we were saying; talking about illegal activities intentionally while people were around, laughing inside as they would bee-line to the opposite direction when they overheard us.
However, the most significant and profound part of our social experiment occurred when we went into the jewelers at the mall, as well as upper-scale stores like Nordstroms. The minute we walked in, the three of us looked as out of place as I had ever experienced. Immediately clerks were looking at us and at one point even appeared to be following us. I went up to the woman in jewelry and she had a customer. She focused solely on the well dressed, middle aged woman at the counter without even giving me a greeting. She saw me since I was right in front of her, but the second she glanced at me—without a greeting or any form of communication—she turned quickly back to the woman, occasionally looking at me from the corner of her eye.
It was at this point that I knew I had accomplished what I set out to do—feel ostracized by nearly everyone around me based on my appearance, smell, and stigma. We went to a couple more expensive stores—a customer at the sunglass store tried to hold back his laugh as I glanced at a $200 pair of Oakleys. Once again, everyone in the store seemed to stop what they were doing and make a point to look at me, probably wondering why on earth someone dressed like me was in a place like that, when a simple accessory pair of sunglasses was worth more than 5 times of what I was currently wearing.
The experience was sobering. It made me think back to Shaming theory that we read for class in the text. At that moment, I felt rejected by my peers, businesses, and the society at the mall in general. Most people dress up or make an effort to look good while going to the mall because there is that judgment factor. Even though I instigated it, I still felt excluded. “Shaming that is stigmatizing, in contrast, makes criminal subcultures more attractive because these are in some sense subcultures which reject the rejecors” (Thio, Calhoun & Conyers, 35).

Word Count 1498.

Works Cited:

Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.