Let's talk marginalisation (in general) and semantics. We have numerous terms for the former: weirdo, oddball, pariah, et al and tons of reclaimed words for each specific minority. But I want to focus here on just two: "freak," and "outcast." These are often used interchangeably, like they're synonyms. But as I myself could be called either one I tend to often consider how and why they're used overall, and recently it's thus occurred to me that they're not actually identical in meaning. Not to me, anyway.
"Freak" can primarily be applied to somebody who can socialise and assimilate well enough, but also wields extraordinary skills in certain fields, namely academia or sports. The 1932 film Freaks, about a troupe of circus performers with various physical disabilities, first popularised the term and remains among the most controversial movies ever made.
"Outcast," on the other hand, I think applies primarily to somebody who (for whatever reason) just lacks an adequate sense of social identity and/or confidence and thus leads a very quiet, private existence. For a real-life example, I imagine there's one in at least every suburb; I know one myself but I don't want to violate his privacy or capitalise on his situation.
Of course, both words' meanings can still overlap, and everybody to whom either applies deserves allegiance and support. But all things considered, I really think "freaks" and "outcasts" have distinguishing elements. "Envy" and "jealousy," "speak" and "talk," those are fully synonymous with each other. Not this duo.
No comments:
Post a Comment