Were They Actually On a Break?


When reading “Words Don’t Mean What They Mean” this week, the one thing I could just not get out of my head was the show, Friends. In the piece, Pinker mentions the episode of Seinfeld where George is asked up by his date for coffee and later finds out that coffee doesn’t really mean coffee. This allusion led directly to the infamous episode of Friends where Rachel breaks up with Ross and he cheats on her. What is his excuse for cheating on her? “We were on a break!” Ross’s excuse is far from accepted by Rachel and thus begins the seasons-long game of will they or won’t they.

I saw two perspectives from this episode. First, Rachel would very much agree with Pinker’s assertion that words don’t really mean what they mean. Rachel may have said she didn’t want to be with Ross anymore but that was because in the moment, she was upset and wanted nothing to do with the jealous monster he had become. Despite this, she still loved him and wanted to be with him, just as soon as she had calmed down. To Rachel, the words she spoke meant nothing in regards to their relationship.

Ross, on the other hand, would take one look at Pinker’s statement and do that annoying thing Ross does when he thinks he’s right (I can’t think of a way to describe it but, if you’ve seen Friends, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about). Being the only doctor (Ph.D in paleontology) in the group and perhaps the smartest (in his opinion), Ross would shake off Pinker’s claim and say that there’s no way words can’t mean what they mean. It’s irrational to take something that’s been previously said and completely spin it in a way that was not its original intention. Ross would highly disagree with Pinker and say that him and Rachel were in fact on a break and that break meant to him “a pause in work or during an activity or event” (definition from Google).

Regardless of whether you consider yourself Team Rachel or Team Ross, there is much to take into account when thinking about the writers of Friends and Seinfeld. Perhaps the writers of these beloved sitcoms were doing exactly what Pinker stated in his essay. No one wants to experience a break up due to its uncomfortable nature. Not a single person wants to be the one to suggest sex when they’re not sure if it will be well received. Perhaps we use words as “a means of saving face” (Pinker). Words can be our savior because they often save us from uncomfortable situations. This has been even more accelerated by the invention of texting and smartphones, where Ross and Rachel’s night-long argument could turn into a simple ten minute text chain. So, in the long run, shouldn’t we be thanking words? If not for words, (I warn you, spoiler alert ahead) then Rachel would have never gotten off the plane to Paris to be with Ross seven seasons later.

Comments

  1. Wow Maddy I love how you associated the class discussions with the show "Friends." I also really like the structure of your blog through the two different perspectives. I completely agree with your ideas, good job!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love the way you connected a piece we read in class to something outside of school. Although we, like Rachel, see indirect speech as something that exists in our day to day lives, there are many Ross's in the world that would strongly oppose the idea and argue that indirect speech leads to confusion -- an idea you incorporated well in your post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is so cool! The way you always connect what we read in class to something in your daily life is awesome. I feel like you have perfectly captured the purpose of blogs and ran with it. Thanks for the fun read :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I love friends! But also this blog, because it fits in perfectly into what we read this week! When I first watched the episode I was team Ross all the way, but after I re-watched the show, I realized that I was team Rachel. I think its interesting the way words have the ability to both inflict pain and remedy it at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I love how you referenced Rachel and Ross almost like they were two different sources in a synthesis. It's also such a perfect comparison to Pinker's examples! So many arguments in real life like your examples and even, now that I think about it: everything, from politics to english class involve misunderstanding or misinterpretation of words. People are always disagreeing on what the constitution implies just like Ross and Rachel disagreed on what Rachel's words implied haha!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Veganism & How It Almost Destroyed My Best Friend’s Life

What is Privilege?