Merriam-Webster states that “wild” can be used as an adjective, noun, and adverb. As a noun, “wild” can represent a free state of existence or an untouched region of land. As an adverb, wild can be used to describe the growth of things deviating from the expectation or without regulation. “Wild” can take on the greatest number of meanings when used as an adjective. It is said to describe something in nature that is not subject to direct human influence. It can also describe things which are not restrained or restricted in any way. Literally, it is often used to describe aspects of nature, such as wild plants or animals. The most abstract definitions of “wild” describe the word as emblematic of strong emotion or exceeding past conventional boundaries. “Wild” has also taken on some informal meanings, such as, ironically, both very enthusiastic and very angry. However, this may not be as unexpected as we might think, as “wild” tends to describe extremes; in this case it is being used to convey extremes of different emotions.
In the context of this course, I define “wild” as anything which is not recognized by the society of its time. In order for something to be wild, there needs to be a mainstream societal consensus on what is not wild. A number of factors may affect where this line is drawn, such as religion, culture, and the groups which have the most social influence. Anything outside of that boundary can be considered wild. I would imagine that “wild” things are often stigmatized and met with criticism, shame, and censure by the society of their times.
-Avinash K
I really liked how you discussed the definition of the word “wild” depending on its usage in a sentence. Also, the way you talked about the word “wild” taking on different emotional and informal meanings was really insightful. I thought that was an excellent way to differentiate the various definitions of the word. I also really liked the way that you compared the formal definition to your own perspective of the word “wild.” I liked how you defined it as “anything which is not recognized by the society of its time.” It shows how something is only considered wild when it deviates from the “norm.”
Recognizing that society’s definition of “wild” is really heavily informed by the cultural values of mainstream society in a particular time period is definitely an interesting way to think about this! I like that this perspective implies that the definition of “wild” can change not only across social contexts and cultures but over time as well. That gives me some hope that we can eventually successfully challenge the more problematic or marginalizing interpretations of “wildness” that may be (explicitly or implicitly) causing harm.