After reading this, and I had to, twice, because it seems at times that Locke is repeating himself, I got a sense that our friend, Mr. Locke, was trying to convey in as simple a thought as possible, that words are extremely powerful and must be used with caution, and wise intellect.
There's a very sociological significance to this piece, because of another book that I am reading for Capstone, entitled "Dude, You're a Fag." by CJ Pascoe. While Pascoe's aim it look at the hypersexuality and hypermasculinity that seems to permeate through our high school years. And, of course, the ostensible use of the word "fag"...
So while Locke would say that the simplest explanation for a word is going to be the best, and the more complex words will tend to get the most deluded messages, the importance of the word still remains.
Coming back to Pascoe this ties in nicely, sociologically, when we think of how the word "fag" is used in the U.S. In England, to say "fag" means a slang term for a cigarette. Locke makes a great point when he says that no one really debates the meaning of the world "gold" because it has such a universal idea to it. Pascoe would argue, at least from a perspective within the United States, that "fag" has very much the same ideal. To be universally leveled at someone is to create a very striking image or caricature of someone. And, I think that this is what Locke is intending with his essay, is to show how we use words purposefully. Or it could still be the hydrocodone talking.
And how Locke ends his essay, with the importance of not abusing words, but using them with reverence, suggests to me that this entire exercise was a discourse about the proper art of persuasion. Tying back into Pascoe's writing, we see that even though the word "fag" is used in different contexts in different situations, it is in the best nature that we take care of how and when to use those words so that we are purposefully and reverently using the words for their intended purpose and not abusing either the word and its definition, nor the person or ideal upon which we lay the identifying marker.
I have read that book! I read it in Social Differences last semester and I thought it was really interesting. When I originally read it, I was fascinated by the way nonverbal communication perpetuates sexual stereotypes. Looking at the male pageant, the clothes the guys wear in order to win and the clothes the girls wear (or don't wear) as "prizes" for the winning boy. Looking at the word "dude" I feel like it functions in a similar way in meaning a multitude of things. I was just reading about this in the atlantic, as the link explains.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/dude-transcends/309528/
Dude has been able to function as a way to both encourage closeness as long as it is not too close. It is interesting to see how we use words intentionally in the ways they were not intended. Such as "dude" or even "gay." More interesting that that is to see how people have then used those words with negative connotations and turned them into academic ideas such as "queer theory." It is amazing what we are doing words.