PhilosopherCrip
PhilosopherCrip
Male
Single

The War of the Words

Posted: 10/12/2007 at 01:22 AM

  • share this:
  • Email to a Friend
  • Digg It!
  • StumbleUpon
  • Fark
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine

member(s) liked this post.

The limits of my language means the limits of my world.”  ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

What gives a word its meaning?  I have been studying this question for the past 4 months, reading the work of the Austrian philosopher quoted above.  For someone who is so interested in language, he sure was a COMPLETELY incoherent writer.  One of the few things that I actually understood from my painstaking reading of Wittgenstein is that our words derive their meaning, at least in part, from how we use them within our community.  That is, words by themselves are just collections of symbols or sounds.  Any meaning they have comes from what a community agrees upon.  This seems like a simple and obvious enough idea right?  Well, it gets complicated fast when we start talking about ethics – i.e. try telling me about the common agreement of the meaning of words like “good” or “justice” or “fairness” or “person?”

 

I recently explained this idea to my sister who started reading this blog and asked me why I casually flung around the word “crip” in almost every post.  She knows that I am very sensitive to language issues when it comes to politics, as I have corrected her many times about things like using “people with disabilities” in place of “the handicapped” or “intellectual disability” instead of “retarded.”  So, why in the WORLD would I use a version of the hate filled, oppressive word cripple!?

 

If Wittgenstein is right about both things: 1) words gets their meaning from how they are used in a community and 2) language defines the “limits of our world,” then one of the most radical acts of resistance we can perform is to try and change the meaning of a word.  How we speak about situations and people has everything to do with how we think about them and how we act with them.  So, if we can redefine words, we can go a long way toward freeing ourselves. 

 

The word cripple as it is traditionally used is a terrible, disgusting word.  Every definition in the dictionary is filled with negative connotations.  As it stands, the community’s agreement about the word cripple tells us that whether we are talking about an aircraft carrier or an infant, to be crippled is to be broken, weakened, and, ultimately, devalued. 

 

So the slogan “crip power!” almost seems like a paradox.  How could anything that is crippled be powerful?  According to Wittgenstein, if we, as people with disabilities, take pride in our way of living and DECIDE that the words “crip power!” not only make sense, but are our most central battle-cry, then that is how it will be.  The very meaning of the word crip will change, even if it is only within our community, and we will FINALLY be defining ourselves.  No longer will we be told that we are helpless or damaged, because we will have decided to change the limits of our world by changing the meaning of our words.

162 Views
  • share this:
  • Email to a Friend
  • Digg It!
  • StumbleUpon
  • Fark
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine

Your comment may take up to 15 minutes to appear.

Some HTML is allowed in the comments. See the list.
  • Deaf Mom wrote on Oct 12, 2007 at 5:41 AM

    I like this perspective. Me and some of my friends call ourselves "Deafies," and it is said with a sense of ownership and pride.

  • PhilosopherCrip wrote on Oct 12, 2007 at 7:23 AM

    Exactly!  There are lots of good examples of hurtful words within our community that some people are trying to take back, like "gimp" or "midget."  I used crip as my example in the blog because it is the most widespread in its use because it isn't disability specific.  I know young people who identify as crips with disabilities as wide ranging as deafness, CP, dwarfism, SCI, TBI, bipolar, MD, and dyslexia, and that is just in my small group of friends!

  • BurnThisCube wrote on Oct 12, 2007 at 9:20 AM

    While words have a dictionary definition, their meaning in everyday usage comes from context and intent. The use of cripple or n-gger by the disabled or black/rap communities is a positive activist move to change a negative, hurtful word into a proud badge of identity.

    Thanks for the interesting post PC (and I don't mean Politically Correct!)

    Bruce

  • Tim wrote on Oct 12, 2007 at 9:52 AM

    are you reading early or late Wittgenstein?  As you likely know Wittgenstein's scholarship is split into two parts and was divided by a stint of teaching children in rural Austria; when he finally returned to academics he decided that his earlier views had been misguided and made major revision to his ideas.

    While this view of language does much to enable marginalized groups I'm not sure that I'm convinced that one community's adoption and transfiguration of a word results in a new definition for that word.  I think it may be able to change the effect of that word for that particular community, but in society at large the word's original meaning remains relatively unchanged (I'm speaking generally here, not necessarily about the word 'crip.').  

    It's not a bad thing to rob a word of its negative connotations in the community it normally has the most power in, however sometimes I worry that turning the definition on its head may have the negative efect of confusing society at large and give them greater ground on which to use a word that for them has never experienced a change in meaning.

    somewhat obtuse writing from me here, so I hope you get where I'm coming from.  What do you think?

  • Debbie wrote on Oct 12, 2007 at 10:29 AM

    i don't take offense on what word is being said really. if it is said in a demeaning way or hurtful, then that is a different story. i'm not exactly sure what is rhe politically correct words are anyways..handicapped, disabled handicapable, cripple, ect..pick one, it doesn't matter to me .

  • Debbie wrote on Oct 12, 2007 at 10:32 AM

    hey poinexter, anyway to put an edit button so i can fix that totally bad phrasing i just wrote? lol you know what i meant right?

  • PhilosopherCrip wrote on Oct 12, 2007 at 10:53 AM

    Bruce,  that is exactly what i am getting at and i think the N word is nearly a perfect analogue to what I'm describing here.

    Joe

  • PhilosopherCrip wrote on Oct 12, 2007 at 11:14 AM

    Tim,

    I'm reading mostly late Witt (The Philosophical Investigations, especially the portion on "rule following"), with a nod to the Tractatus in so far as it serves as a foil for the later rule following stuff.  The idea that language is social is late, while the idea that it defines what we can think is common to both periods i'd say.

    The main thrust of your comment is something that I have grappled with.  While I do think it is possible for a marginalized group to redefine a word amongst the larger community, it sure as heck is tough.  The question is: does this mean that we should refrain from trying to take away it's ability to harm at least amongst ourselves?

    I think Bruce's analogy to the N Word is informative.  It has been "empowered" by hip-hop culture, but still retains its harmful meaning in larger society.  This is especially true if we consider that it is not JUST enlightened, progressive hip-hop artists that use it, but also those that promote negative stereotypes of the african american community with songs that are deeply materialistic, sexist, and needlessly violent.

    I am not sure what Wittgenstein would say about any of this -- surely even his late view of the meaning of language cuts much deeper than MERE social construct anyway.  However, I do think that as long as WE use crip in a way that is clearly empowering, we will (and have) become more empowered.  I think this is especially true within the movement itself, but i think it transcends it.   By using it in a paradoxical way (like a CRIP PWR vanity liscence plate on a lift van), it may take generations to slowly chip away at the accepted dictionary definition, but we can at least get people to start thinking more critically about the   stereotypes associated with our community.

    Did any of that make sense?

    Joe

  • PhilosopherCrip wrote on Oct 12, 2007 at 11:28 AM

    Debbie,

    You are also very right.  Whether you are hurt by a word has a lot to do with how much you LET it hurt you.  You can deny words their harmful effects in your everyday life just by refusing to internalize their harm.

    Joe

  • luckyirish226 wrote on Oct 12, 2007 at 12:14 PM

    Thanks for such an insightful post! It certainly starts an interesting discussion...I think it definitely can be difficult to redefine the word. Like you said, some people in the community will try to use the word to change its definition for the better, and some will use it in a derogatory way (not even necessarily always meaning it, maybe for cracking jokes or as a weird form of affection?) I think therefore for those outside that particular community who actually are trying to avoid using harmful words, it can become confusing. For example, I'm currently reading the book What's Eating Gilbert Grape, about a young man who's younger brother, Arnie, has some mental disabilities. Gilbert would do anything for his brother and is extremely protective of him, yet all he calls him most of the time is "the retard." This was interesting to me, and I haven't been able to figure out his reasoning yet.