A Man and His Cunt: Analyzing the Worst Word in the English Language

Introduction

Before reading this, please be advised that the word cunt is used uncensored throughout this blog post. It is not intended to insult or offend anyone, but to serve as a subject for academic analysis and understanding.

There is only one word in the English language my mother would smack me for saying, that word is cunt. The word cunt is considered by most to be the worst word one can say, particularly in the Untied States. Because of how offensive and taboo it is, it is consequentially one of my favorite words to use (don’t tell my mom!). And although I and probably most of you have a baseline understanding of what cunt means, I do not know how it originated or why it is the Mount Rushmore of curse words.

In this blog post, I will be analyzing the word cunt, and how it is used in today’s U.S. culture to insult or demean a target population or group of individuals. In order to provide an accurate understanding of the word and its usage, I will provide a brief historical investigation of the word cunt, determining the word’s previous connotations and comparing them to modern day connotations. Based upon this analysis, I will be able to make a prediction of who is more likely to use the word cunt, and determine the underlying social constructions that fuel the word’s continuous use. Throughout this analysis I will examine how members of this deviant group feel about the word cunt; whether they wish for the word’s retirement from society, or whether they feel they should own it and embrace it.

A Brief History of Cunt

To begin, it is important to define what exactly the word cunt means. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, cunt is defined as an obscene reference to the female genital organs; it is also loosely defined as a disparaging and obscene term for a woman (Merriam-webster.com). Now I will explore the history of the word cunt to determine if this definition shares any correlation with past definitions or connotations.

An interesting place to start when looking at the history of the word cunt is that there is basically no consensus as to when or where the word itself actually originated. However, the word cunt has been used in its anatomical meaning since the early 13th century (matthewhunt.com). Also throughout the pre-twentieth century, the word cunt was already making its mark in societies, but throughout time the word was not always as taboo as it is now. For example, in Francis Grose’s 1785 book, A Classical Dictionary of The Vulgar Tongue, he defined the word as, “a nasty name for a nasty thing” (matthewhunt.com).

Its first appearance in the Oxford English Dictionary was in 1972; it cites cunt as having been in use since 1230 in what was supposedly a London street name of "Gropecunte Lane". Gropecunte Lane was originally a street of prostitution, similar to a Red Light District today (matthewhunt.com). But back around 1390, Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, the word cunt is used several times quite openly, without public outcry as the word did not carry a negative connotation at that time (Chaucer).

By Shakespeare’s time (late 1500s – early 1600s) cunt was an obscene word; however, Shakespeare still used the word cunt in a number of his plays, including Hamlet, Henry V, and Twelfth Night (matthewhunt.com). As time progresses, the word keeps its taboo meanings and is used in literature and art that is then quickly considered controversial by the elites, or ruling class of society; such work includes, James Joyce’s Ulysses, D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Henry Millar’s Tropic of Cancer, and Ian McEwan’s Atonement (Wikipedia.org).

Overall, it seems the word cunt is a taboo reference to the female genitals, and therefore, a taboo curse word to describe a woman. We will dive into the social constructions behind this later in the post, as well as cunts use in the world today and how individuals, particularly women, feel about it. In the meantime, here is an interesting and accurate video describing the historic origins of cunt. This can be viewed below:



What’s the Matter with Cunts today?

Now that we have a brief history of the word cunt and how it has been perceived throughout time, we can zero-in on how the word fits into 21st century America. For starters, the main definition of cunt is still a females genital organs, but it is also used as a derogatory term that can refer to anyone today. This usage is relatively recent, dating from the late nineteenth century and defines someone as an unpleasant or stupid person (Oxford English Dictionary).

Today, the word is considered within U.S. culture the worst word one could use (although others have argued that within U.S. culture the word nigger is the most taboo considering America’s history in regards to slavery.) Also, the word generally stirs up much anger, frustration, and debate from women across the country. There are several blogs like this one here, http://jennieblog.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/the-c-word.html, and articles like this, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/the-infamous-c-word_n_1231543.html, that are written by women about their feelings, and often their dislike of the word cunt.

The Cunt Wars

Interestingly, there seems to be throughout the United States of America, a silent war between three camps. A war that divides those that we previously discussed that dislike the word cunt, those who do not find the word cunt offensive, and women who wish to reclaim the word cunt in order to change its meaning from something negative to something positive. These three factions engage and debate, they blog and they broadcast, they strive to achieve victory in what can only be described as, a cunt war. Obviously, it is not as dramatic as I have made it out to be, but make no mistake people have their line in the sand. Take a look at the mixed views about cunt shown below.



Since cunt is generally used and defined as an insult to women, I may not be the most qualified to give input on how the female population is truly effected by the word. However, there are a number of articles like these, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/08/28/why-the-c-word-is-losing-its-bite.html, http://thegloss.com/sex-and-dating/girl-vs-guy-the-c-word/, that are written by females explaining how cunt is losing its harshness or bite within U.S. culture.

Furthermore, as stated above there are those women who are trying to reclaim the word cunt for themselves, in order for to change the connotation from something negative and taboo, to something positive that can be expressed openly. One of the best examples of this is Inga Muscio’s book, Cunt: A Declaration of Independence. In it, she examines the word cunt along with the meaning of the word vagina, explaining that cunt is a powerful, strong word that refers to the whole package of womanhood; as opposed to the vagina which is only a specific part of the female genitalia. Other advocates that try to reclaim the word cunt are Germaine Greer and Eve Ensler from The Vagina Monologues; both of whom can be seen in these videos below.





Discussion and Conclusion

Words are quite simply, a combination of letters with meaning attached to them. It is this meaning which can make a word welcome and useful to us, or make a word taboo and dreadful to our ears. So what is the meaning of cunt? What does it mean to be a cunt or be called a cunt? In today’s society the word cunt means a female’s genitals or someone who irritates or annoys you. Howard Becker’s Labeling Theory states that, “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders…the deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied.”

When we apply this to the analysis of cunt, it becomes clear that we as a society believe that women are deviant members of society. Therefore, we can make the prediction that males would be more likely to use the term against a female. When this is done, one is stating that the female individual is nothing more than a set of sexual organs.
You may be saying to yourself, “Well it’s not my problem.” In Allan Johnson’s Privilege, Power, Difference, and Us he discusses the danger of individualism, the idea that everything is somebody else’s fault. For example, if you subscribe to the belief that all men are sexist, or that “well I’m not sexist, it’s those other guys,” then we can never have a serious discussion about the problem of sexism, and therefore never be able to solve it. When we apply this rationale to the usage of the word cunt, it can be easy to think, “well I don’t use that word,” or “well when I use that word I’m not referring specifically to women,” but in doing this, we are choosing to pass the blame to someone else or another group of individuals instead of coming together to discuss why these social constructions or labels exist in the first place? What is it about our society that finds the symbolic representation of female empowerment so threatening or disgusting?

In Howard Becker’s article, Outsiders: Defining Deviance, he explains that outsiders are those that fail to meet or follow a specified rule created by ones society, or ones who end up breaking a rule when they were previously individuals who enforced it. When we apply this way of thinking, it becomes important to ask ourselves why we keep these words around in the first place. After all, if cunt really is the most terrible word we have at our disposal, then why don’t we dispose of it? We as a society choose to keep the word cunt in circulation, punishing not just women but also punishing anyone who has used the word cunt. It’s easy to think that sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you; sadly the reality is that everyone is hurt by certain words. What’s important is that we learn to recognize that the words we use not only affect an individual directly, but helps support the foundation of the social norms that are put in place to label some as deviant.

In other words, like my mother used to say, “Watch your mouth!”

Word Count: 1,718 words

Film Review: Murderball

I want you to imagine a physically fit and masculine individual. Now put them into a wheelchair. Now I want you to imagine that you’re holding a ball in your hands, and that fit guy in the wheelchair is rolling at you at tremendous velocity in order to knock the ball out of your hands, even if he has to kill you in the process. Now when you think about that situation, are you thinking to yourself, “Oh poor man, I hope one day he walks again,” or are you thinking “Holy f*%king $h^t!”

The film Murderball follows a group of men on the United States Paralympics quad rugby team. The film explores the stigmatisms of quadriplegics and individuals confined to wheelchairs, along with others that society labels as “disabled.” 

The film’s main message or thesis is to show that individuals in wheelchairs or ones who have some impairment are not weak, struggling or depressed individuals, but are individuals who can be as equally able, capable, or tough (if not tougher) as you or me. Because of this, the film does not follow or adhere to the typical depiction of disabled people, unlike the blog Good Cripple, which describes a disabled person as being a sweet, happy person who can overcome any odds. This film shows gritty, rude, and unapologetic men competing, criticizing, and smashing each other to pieces.

This view of labeling anyone in a wheelchair “disabled” ties right into our classroom discussion about deviant bodies. Those in a wheelchair or those who are paraplegic are considered deviant because they cannot walk; they receive pity and sympathy when they would rather receive equality and understanding.

Some of the points that I found most was based on their overall attitudes (as described above) and on how they rank each other in terms of athleticism or “fitness.” Depending on how much movement they have, as well as other physical ailments determines the points they are worth on the field. This was surprising as it shows us that there is more than one way to label or rank an individuals fitness or “ability.” This is a system that could rate everyone’s ability, and could show that while some people may be able to walk or not appear to have any physical handicaps, they are not as physically capable as those we classify as “handicapped.”

A good topic to research is how infusing athletic programs or training into physical therapy or recovery affects an individuals overall transition, recovery and state of mind. Overall, Murderball is an excellent documentary which shows how individuals, who are confined to a chair, are not confined to a set philosophy or personality. Many can be sweet and have a loving heart, and some can be real sons-of-bitches. In the end you are left questioning the idea of the “master status” and how the surface of an individual is just that, the surface. Underneath ones damaged arms or lifeless legs can burn an animosity for athletic achievement, or simply a desperate need to level another dude.

Murderball.

Word Count: 508

"Middle Sexes" Film Review

"Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She" is the personal documentation of intersex individuals whom have both male and/or female sex organs from birth, as well as individuals who simply do not subscribe to the classical gender roles society has set for them. In the film we see the challenges of intersex and transgender persons, as well as how views about transgenders or Intersex individuals vary across the globe. According to Dr. Cary Gabriel Costello in her blog "The Intersex Roadshow" she states, "While it is common to believe that sex is binary—that is, that all people are born either male or female—in fact, sexual characteristics exist as a spectrum. There is a great deal of variation in chromosomes (XX, XY, XXY, XYY, etc.), hormones (relative levels of estrogen, progesterone and testosterone), secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, hair distribution, etc.) genital configurations, and gonads (ovaries, ovotestes, testes). Intersex people are individuals whose sexual characteristics fall toward the middle of the spectrum. Approximately 1 in 200 people are intersexed according to medical diagnostic criteria. Most are very private about this status, though some are public about it." (https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1E37BB054E3C46C2A62E056B3753C45D)

Some of the arguments in support for the general thesis of the film come from the personal accounts of many transgender and intersex individuals throughout the world. Many of the individuals outside the Christian, Western Civilizations do not look upon transgender or intersex individuals nearly as negative or strongly as European nations do. Also, many individuals who are intersex or transgender have faced challenges, even among family and friends. Some parents fear greatly for their children, whom they love, but know that society does not or would not classify them as "normal."

You can see how this film relates to this course through the story of Noah in the film. Noah is a young boy who identifies and is raised as a female. He lives a happy life, but his parents are often concerned for Noah, and what might await for him in his future. Noah is often asked by other classmates if he is wearing girl clothes, but his parents often fear that as he grows older that the harassement may worsen. Noah, being someone outside the normal gender indentity, also runs the risk of being murdered or committing suicide at some point in his life.

An Argument or point I found to be most convincing was when the film visited a number of other countries that were not Western European societies. What they found was that while intersex and transgender individuals still have challenges and problems in their life, they are not demonized by society and in fact are glorified and respected in many areas of the world. I will admit my own iggnorance and state that I felt that intersex or transgender individuals were demonized almost everywhere in the world. I am happy to report that this is not completely the case.

An argument or point I would take issue with was this that this film does very little to address why western society has the anamosity it does towards transgenders or intersex individuals? I would have liked to see a bit more on the history we have hear, any policies or legislaton that has been put forth, and what we as individiauls can do to break down the social barriers.

The story that stuck with me the most after viewing the film was Noah's.  In Emily Manuel's "Why does the media show transgender children more sympathetically?" she notes that the media, as well as individuals look at transgender children sympathetically, and that they can't help who they are. She continues by stating that people like to call this type of behavior a phase, and that the child will just grow out of it. They feel like it is their job to protect children from being something not normal. When I look at it, it sounds like adults are really saying, "We have to find a way to help you...before you grow up and we hate you!"https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1E37BB054E3C46C2A62E056B3753C45D


Or to put it another way...

Rich John / Poor John

This week’s blog post will be broken down into two parts. For part 1, I will analyze who I am as an individual to determine if I am considered a deviant member of society. I will give an overview of two theories about deviance, and how these theories apply to me. Part 2 of this post involved me going out in public and behaving in a way that society would consider deviant; during this time, I evaluated individuals and how they responded to my deviant behavior. My deviant behavior involved disguising myself as a poor panhandler. I will conclude by examining the reactions individuals had towards my deviant behavior, as well as examining why this type of behavior from the poor is considered deviant within our society.

Part 1: Rich John

To begin, I will provide a brief description about who I am, as well as a personal history of my upbringing, concluding with how the two theories (Control Theory and Differential Association Theory) apply to me. In doing so I will either be labeled deviant or non-deviant in the eyes of society. For those of you who do not know me, my name is John Consiglio. I am 21 years old, and I am, and considered by society, a White heterosexual male.

I was born in San Jose, California on June 27th, 1990 and I am the youngest of three children. My family moved to Battle Ground, Washington when I was five years old. My father is/was the primary breadwinner for my family, working in the electronics field designing circuit boards. My mother works as a bank teller for Bank of America. I’ve never really had to want for anything in my life. I still live with my dad in an upper-middle class house, in an upper-middle class neighborhood. My car was completely paid for by my dad. The same can also be said for my insurance, as well as my entire college tuition. I only pay a fraction of my cell phone bill, as well as only paying for half of my gasoline. I have often been labeled by many of my friends as a “rich boy.”

My friends and neighbors have been predominantly White or Caucasian. I grew up in the Catholic Church, many of those years participating in church activities, including being an alter boy for several years (I have since abandoned church, and all religious beliefs.) I have wanted to “fight crime” as a profession ever since I was a child reading Superman and Batman comics. Presently, I am the first one in my immediate family to attend a four-year university, obtaining a Bachelor’s in Social Science with a major in Criminal Justice. I currently work as a Security Officer at the KeyBank Tower in Portland, OR. The job requires me to wear a suit and tie (I spend 15% of my week in a suit!). I also am currently interning with Washington State’s Department of Corrections.

Now that we know who I am, we can take a look at our theories and determine if I am considered deviant by society’s standards. To begin, let us examine Travis Hirschi’s Control Theory. A loose definition of Control Theory is that the controls and bonds that one has growing up throughout life will influence whether he or she will be deviant. More specifically, Hirschi breaks down Social Theory into commitments, involvements, attachment, and beliefs. Looking at myself in regards to Control Theory, I see many controls and bonds I’ve grown up with that would label me as a non-deviant. For example, I am very close with my family and friends; therefore I would not run the risk of doing something that would distance me from them. In terms of commitment, I cannot run the risk of doing something deviant that WSU would like appreciate and expel me from the school. Being involved in school, work, my internship, plus time with my girlfriend make it so I have little time to be deviant even if I wanted to be. Consequently, my urge to work in law enforcement has given me a strong sense of belief in right and wrong, and has conditioned me to live to the norms society adheres to.

The second theory is Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey’s Differential Association Theory. Differential Association states that deviant behavior is learned, usually by interaction with others; the learning of deviant behavior occurs within intimate personal groups; when behavior is learned, one learns the techniques involved and the motives behind it; the motives and drives are learned based on the social norms and social deviance assigned by society; a person becomes deviant when the cost of being deviant outweighs the cost of conforming to societies norms. When we apply this theory to me, we again find evidence that this describes me more as a non-deviant individual. This is because while I may have friends who are deviant, I do not follow and apply all their deviant behaviors; I still adhere to the social norms and would rather follow the path of least resistance by following the social norms. The groups I do associate with closer are generally considered non-deviant as well.

Part 2: Poor John

Part 1 of this analysis showed us that I am by most accounts, not a deviant individual, but instead a fairly non-deviant individual who comes from an economically decent household. So for this segment of the assignment I decided to experience what it is like to be someone on the bottom of the economic spectrum, an impoverished panhandler. I panhandled at school, and off an I-5 exit-ramp. I will give a brief description of my experience panhandling and what it’s like to be considered a deviant member of society.

When I parked my car at school and headed for my class, I immediately felt disgusting and out of place. As I walked across the parking lot with my panhandler sign and my ripped garbage bag filled with school supplies, I noticed a security guard in the lot not 50 yards away. I carefully walked as far away from him as humanly possible, not because I didn’t belong in the school, but because I was afraid he would take one look at the shabby, mismatched clothes I was wearing, or my dirty unwashed face, and think I was lying or trying to con my way inside.

I reached class a tad early, so I decided to sit on the ground and set up shop right outside the classroom. For roughly fifteen minutes I sat motionless with my sign as students walked by me. I distinctly remember people looking down at me, and then quickly looking away from me, as if they were looking for anything that had nothing to do with me. I described it to someone as being totally apparent yet completely invisible all at once. Only one individual at school came up to me and asked if I was hungry, and only one individual openly laughed at me as they walked by.

After school I headed towards 99th Ave in Vancouver. I parked two blocks away at McDonalds and headed towards the Northbound Exit 5 off-ramp across from 99th Ave. When I arrived I did what I have seen so many others do at that ramp, I held up a sign and hoped someone would take pity on me. I can tell you right now, I have never felt more invisible or unimportant in my life as I did for that hour of panhandling. As cars came off the freeway and stopped at the light, they would look over and see me holding that sign. Just like the students at school, they looked around for anything else that could distract them from my presence. I felt as though I had somehow ruined their day for simply existing there on that corner off-ramp. After an hour of feeling like an outsider, I walked away without my pride and only eight dollars to call my own.

What is it about panhandlers that individuals find so uncomfortable? Why are these individuals who ask for your money shunned while corporations or politicians who ask for your money are accepted? I believe the answer can be seen in Howard Becker’s Article, Outsiders-Defining Deviance. In it, Becker explains that social groups make rules, and that those rules are enforced by society. Those who deviate from those norms are marked as “outsiders” and considered deviant members of society. Regarding panhandlers, our society believes that one should work to make ends meet, and that asking others to lend them a hand means that they do not want to work, and only want to leech off of others. They are therefore labeled as outsiders, with many individuals preferring to think of them as something less than human. In conclusion, I would ask you to see others not by what they do or how they look, but as the people they are, no matter how rich or poor they may be.

Word Count: 1500 (Ha!)

All money made during this experiment was donated to the Ronald McDonald House Charity…because every child deserves Big Macs.

Sources:

Becker, (1963). Outsiders, Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. (Pgs 1-18). The Free Press.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Control Theory. “Readings in Deviant Behavior sixth edition.” (Pgs 30-32). Pearson Education Inc.

Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1977). Differential Association Theory. “Readings in Deviant Behavior sixth edition.” (Pgs 27-29). Pearson Education Inc.

Photos taken by John Consiglio

Come On Down to My Post, and Meet Some Friends of Mine

For this first blog post, I have been given the task of determining who, in U.S. culture, is considered deviant. Because this is the first official blog post of this class, I will be conducting only a very small experiment for this research question. My experiment will begin by selecting a population to examine, followed by selecting a sample from the selected population to research, concluding with a content analysis based upon the research obtained by observing the selected sample.

The hardest part of this research question was determining a selected population to examine. After all, if the goal is to determine who is considered deviant in U.S. Culture, it therefore becomes imperative to examine a population that can serve as a microcosm to the United States. I struggled on finding a suitable population until I realized there was a town I knew of that fit the microcosm I was looking for, a town that best exemplifies U.S. culture, and my favorite town that ever never was, South Park.

South Park is a small town located in the South Park basin in the Rocky Mountains of central Colorado. The town is composed of mostly lower to upper-income families and individuals. The town of South Park contains operations in science and industry, such as an observatory and a geology research lab, as well as farming and agriculture, such as Rancher Bob’s cattle farm. Because of this, the town of South Park is broken up into a dichotomy of white-collar and blue-collar individuals.
The town contains a majority of White/Caucasian, sisgender and sexually straight individuals. However, South Park is home to a number of gays and lesbians, who are generally well received and included in the community (the town even contains a tasteful lesbian bar called Les Bos.) As far as race and ethnicity are concerned, South Park is also home to a handful of individuals of different races and ethnicities, including the African-American elementary school chef Chef (until he fell off a cliff and was ripped apart by a bear and mountain lion) and fourth grade student Tokin Black, as well as Chinese Immigrant Mr. Lu Kim, the owner and operator of City Wok Restaurant. Mr. Herbert Garrison, the elementary school’s fourth grade teacher, had once identified as transgender and underwent a sex change operation. After the operation, she had changed her name to Ms. Janet Garrison, until she realized she wanted to be a man again and had the sex operation reversed after she paid scientists to grow a new penis for her, and is once again Mr. Garrison (he now identifies himself as sisgender.)

This research is about monitoring individuals human behaviors, and about whom individuals (in U.S. culture) label as deviant. I chose to observe a sample of individuals I know in South Park, and to watch and listen to their day to day interactions and conversations, so I could determine who these individuals label as deviant. These groups were labeled as deviant based upon language, action and particular context used by a person or persons towards them. NOTE: There are many groups and individuals that are targeted and labeled as deviant in South Park, but due to the parameters of the assignment my sample may only contain a short list. Those that were chosen were chosen based on the last few occasions I had when I visited the town of South Park.

To begin, I examined the often louder, angrier, and outspoken group of people who make up half of the town of South Park. I am referring to the more rural, conservative members of the South Park Community. These individuals are almost if not entirely all White/Caucasian, sisgender males (although there are a number of females that reside in this group as well.) I spent a great deal of time listening to them, and they did indeed speak out against certain groups of people. In fact, most of what this group did was speak ill of other types of individuals.
The groups these individuals labeled as deviant were usually individuals who had a more liberal worldview, and who stood for more liberal policies and ideologies. On more than one occasion, I observed these blue-collared members of South Park engaging in debates with the more liberal, white-collared members. These debates have on occasion become so heated that the two groups will physically engage each other, erupting in a bloody and violent riot.

The other groups these individuals often label as deviant are immigrants, usually ones who enter the country illegally or by some unethical means. For example, I saw many members of this rural community volunteered to be border agents so they could keep immigrants from coming over and to quote one man, “Take r jobbs!” I also observed them organizing and protesting against individuals that teleported from the future, so they could attain jobs to provide for their families by collecting interest on the funds they would leave in bank accounts in our time. These rural individuals expressed much outrage of these future individuals “Takin thur Jobbs”, and quickly labeled these individuals as deviant, going so far as to create the slur “Goobacks” when referring to them. It seemed clear to me that these individuals were most concerned about anyone who could threaten the dominance that white men have carried over the years in our country, and will quickly label ANYONE as deviant who stands to change any policy that distributes power or opportunity.
I was able to obtain pieces of footage from a number of their rallies and political debates:



I decided after engaging with the rural, blue-collar individuals of South Park, I needed to hear what the suburban, white-collar individuals had to say, and specifically, who they considered to be deviant. These individuals were again mostly White and/or Caucasian but did include more minorities than the rural white-collard group. They were predominantly straight but included more members of the gay community, and contained more women than the rural group did. (However they are still mostly all sisgender individuals.)
The first thing I noticed about the suburban, white-collard individuals is that they definitely kept their conversations about deviant groups quieter, and more inside their own circles as the rural groups. But that’s not to say there weren’t people being ridiculed, judged, and feared by these white-collared individuals; in fact they seemed to be more meticulous about who they consider deviant than the blue-collar group did. For starters I overheard them making judgments about senior citizens, going as far as to proposing legislation in their community that would ban seniors from driving vehicles. They also did not seem to keen on loud or rambunctious individuals. I came to this conclusion after observing a large portion of the community rallying against individuals who had moved to South Park from New Jersey.
They seemed to take issue with environmentalist to a certain extent, when they openly criticized a member of their community for acting smug while driving his new Prius. I have also overheard them criticizing others religions, stating some as nonsense and at one time had suggested that the Jewish members of the community apologize for killing Jesus. On one of my last visits to South Park the townspeople were losing their minds in fear do to the influx of the homeless population in the city, suggesting that they behave more like zombies than actual people. I found a clip someone put together of the incident that shows an individual running for his life from the growing number homeless individuals.



And although racism did not appear on the surface to be something of an issue with the white-collar community, there were times when racial subjects were brought up that created quite a bit of tension in the room. One such event occurred when I went to watch my friend Randy when he went on Wheel of Fortune: NAGGERS VIDEO
What stood out about these individuals was that it seemed like they wanted to say more, but were often afraid about what everyone else in the group might think. For example, I believe that many of these people carried a more cynical view of minorities than they were actually letting on.

After engaging with the adults of South Park from the rural, blue-collard and suburban, white-collard perspective, I decided I should engage the youth of South Park and listen to their interactions. After all, children are usually more open and less reserved than adults, and therefore I could collect a more genuine account of who they labeled as deviant. The children I listened to varied between ages, once again most appeared to be sisgender males and females, and nearly all of them where White and/or Caucasian (one 4th grader was African-American or Black.)
While listening to these children, I noticed that they were indeed more critical of people, and were indeed more open about it. In terms of labeling deviance, the school kids targeted the nerdy kids, ugly loners, the ginger kids, and the Goth kids while I was within earshot. Meanwhile, some of the words or phrases used to put others down were often attributed to either homosexual or feminine concepts; terms like fag, faggot, pussy, and douche were all used frequently, meaning that in a society dominated by men, to be labeled as someone feminine is to be labeled someone of less importance or respect.

To conclude this sample I decided to engage with one of the children I was listening to at the school who had by far the most negative and critical things to say about individuals or groups of people. Since he is under legal age I will refer to him only as Cartman. Cartman is a fourth grade student at South Park Elementary. He is a straight, sisgender male, and identifies himself as white.
Cartman, even more so than his schoolmates, is openly critical of many groups; he most often labels one of his friends as deviant for being Jewish, and one of his closest friends for being poor. Cartman has openly criticized a number of religious groups including Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology. Cartman has also criticized people based on race and skin tone. One example I saw was when a classmate asked him if he thinks he is going to go to heaven, Cartman responded with “Of course I’m not going to hell Butters, I’m not black.” On another occasion, I witnessed Cartman giving a presentation to his class about the dangers of ginger kids, that being kids with red hair, light skin and freckles. I was able to videotape his presentation and have posted it below for you to observe:



Like his classmates, Cartman also uses homosexual and feminine references to belittle those around him with the phrases I stated previously. Cartman also seems to label women as deviant, or inferior regardless of their age or gender; an instance of this occurred when I saw him give another presentation mocking breast cancer, as well as treating his mother more as a maid than a parental caregiver. What I learned from Cartman was that he most clearly emphasized his opinion of those he labeled as deviant, and did so in the most blunt and critical way. However, I do believe he was genuine about how he felt more so than anyone else I encountered which leads me to speculate that perhaps these groups of people he labels as deviant, are those others would label as deviant but are to afraid to say out loud or out in public.

We have loosely defined deviance in our class is any behavior or action that goes against social norms. What we as individuals must remember is that people are different all over the place, even in your own backyard. Meaning the values and beliefs that you define in your life as normal, may not in fact be the values and beliefs your neighbor believes are normal. Therefore, you may look upon them as deviant even if you share a number of similar views or beliefs; as long as there is a substantial enough difference in social norms, you will continue to see the other as deviant. For example if there is a person who is a heavily religious individual and attends church every Sunday, if he or she has a neighbor who is someone who does not believe in God, that person will see there neighbor as a deviant individual. This does not mean that the religious person will think the neighbor is as a bad person, just that the social norms he or she lives by do not equate to the social norms the neighbor lives by.
In the United States, we stand proud as a nation that considers itself a giant melting pot of the world. With that, come many different ideals, principles, beliefs, and behaviors that will inevitably differ from one individual to another. After spending some time in the town of South Park, I believe I did indeed find a town that is a microcosm of U.S. culture. I will conclude this blog post by examining three sociological ideas that have been presented to us so far in class, and connect them to what it means to be a deviant in U.S. culture.

The first idea I would like to express is taken from the article Power, Privilege, Difference and Us by Allan Johnson. On page 81 and 82 of his article Johnson writes:

“What we experience as social life happens through a complex dynamic between all kinds of systems – families, schools, workplaces, communities, entire societies – and the choices people make as they participate in them and help make them happen. How we experience the world and ourselves, our sense of other people, and the ongoing reality of the systems themselves all arise, take shape, and happen through this dynamic.” (Johnson, 81-82).

This means that the world you surround yourself in, the community you are apart of, has a direct influence on the social norms you yourself will attain, and therefore, who you will label as deviant. It is also important to note that while these social norms are indeed imbedded into ones worldview or society, that does not mean that such norms and ideas of deviance cannot change. Take Cartman for instance, many of the groups he labels as deviant may appall us such openly discriminating blacks or women, yet years ago it was considered the social norm to think of blacks and/ or women as inferior (in regards to a white man), but over time the societies, communities, and individuals grew to change their opinion on both blacks and women. This shows that while the community around you may shape whom you consider to be deviant, it does not mean that community cannot change its views on deviance.

The next idea that pertains to deviance is the idea of a master status. The concept of a master status is when something becomes your master status, it then becomes the first thing about you people notice. Take for example the ridiculed ginger kids in South Park. While they are all individual people with thoughts, feelings, talents, and opinions, the first thing about them when they notice them is their red hair, pale skin, and freckles (and perhaps the notion that that have no souls) and because of that one creates a pre-conceived idea that ginger kids are somehow creepy, perhaps even evil. Because of master statuses, many people do not see individuals as they truly are, but instead as a cookie-cutter cutout of what they believe that person is.

I will conclude with briefly discussing the idea of being an outsider. As stated by Howard Becker in his article Outsiders: Defining Deviance, he states, “When a rule is enforced, the person who is supposed to have broken it may be seen as a special kind of person, one who cannot be trusted to live by the rules agreed upon by society” (Becker, 1). These individuals are called outsiders. As we perceive them, outsiders usually are considered bad, or negative. This is because the social norms that society follows, these individuals have questioned or rejected. Because of this, we are quick to disassociate from them, and on occasion, they are equally quick to disassociate from us. Take for example this video of the Goth kids in South Park being interviewed



Deviance is without a doubt, a social construction that is used to define what we perceive as normal, and to discredit and distance ourselves from what we believe is not. Because of this, mankind has divided itself in order to attain feelings or perceptions of superiority. The downside is, we will never get rid of the idea of labeling individuals or groups as deviant, it may change from one group to another, but difference, paranoia and envy will always keep people divided. Now for the upside, YOU can always make your own choice; it’s the freewill that nobody can take away from you. You can choose to see people not as a label, but as the individual they are. You can choose to remember that people differ in their ideals and beliefs, and that it’s better to embrace than to divide. In regards to humanity embracing that idea, I don’t think it’ll ever come.

But if you can embrace it, you should come on down to South Park, and meet some friends of mine.

Word Count: 2,893


Photos provided by southparkstudios.com
Videos provided by youtube.com

The town of South Park is fictional, as are the individuals are stories told. If you didn’t know that….wow.

16 and Butthead (Non-Class Related)

So my best friend Brandon (Who I love very much and is much a brother to me as my real brother) found himself a couple years ago on a show called "16 and Pregnant" with his now ex-girlfriend/wife Aubrey. They gave birth to a son, Austin, who is a real good for nothing piece of-- Kidding, he's adorable and great! Brandon and Aubrey ended up calling it quits (which was for the best) and since their episode aired on television it has become a running joke between our friends and family.

Present day...I was sitting at work when I get a text from my brother. "Dude I just saw Brandon on Beavis and Butthead!" As it turns out, Beavis and Butthead took time out of watching rock videos and pissing of teachers to take some stabs at the show "16 and Pregnant." In the season 9 episode titled "Time Machine" there is a short clip of Beavis and Butthead tearing into nonother than my best friend Brandon and his ex Aubrey.

And between you and me...it's HILARIOUS!!! (Sorry Brandon)

I couldn't grab a whole episode but this clip will give you a brief taste of what these two slackers have to say.

Put on your smartfaces...

Blaire from G4's "X-Play" Sizes Me Up (Non-Class Related)

Wow...this is getting personal.