You can call me Play-dough.

In class yesterday we discussed the term ‘macho’ and the difference between advertising and reality. Disregarding the fact that Guilbalt (the author of “Americanization is tough on Macho”) seems to have a distorted view of how American’s define macho, she provides an interesting starting place for the argument of advertising vs. reality.

The real question in this regard, I think, is not why Americans distort reality, but what the reality of a word is. Without getting too philosophical, it seems to me that the American reality can be something completely different from the Spanish reality, but still be reality (or truth) none the less. The word macho, assuming our definition or perception is different from that of the Spanish, is just as much what we make it as what anybody else makes it. If I say that macho means “girly”, that is my own truth or reality, and cannot be called untrue or a distortion of reality by anyone else. On the other hand, if I were to say that the Spanish definition of macho is “girly”, that would be a distortion of the Spanish reality, and therefore untrue (advertising).

Following the same track, if I were to “advertise” to those around me that the definition of macho is “girly” while another individual told the same people that macho means “manly”, we would both be advertising, and therefore using the same means to reach different ends. Those to whom we advertised (assuming they had no previous knowledge of the word) would have the power to accept either definition, both of which would have the sole endorsement of our claims and therefore equal merit.

My conclusion, I suppose, is that, like children playing with play-dough, we have the power to mold our language in the manner we deem fit. Though we often mimic molds others have made, we maintain the prerogative to create something new and different and to defend it no matter how ugly it may be. That is the beauty of language.