Geek-Chic

My friend Sandy and I always end up talking ceaselessly about everything from religion & politics to which books were better than the movies.  The other day, while in the midst of discussing excuses for not putting clothes away and whether or not Harry Potter should have ended up with Ginny Weasley (she maintains steadfastly that Ginny was actually a "fan-girl" and therefore unworthy of our intrepid hero), we got talking about "Geek" vs. "Nerd" definitions. I honestly don't remember what sparked the conversation.  It might have happened about the time David Letterman interrupted us by making us think one of us had sat on the remote, which is really another story, and was partly our fault, anyway, for having the TV on and not paying attention to it.  Whatever sparked it, we soon realized we were understanding the words in different ways.  

It's worth noting, I think, that you are going to get a different definition for each of these depending upon whom you ask.  And then there is the fact that the definitions seem to have changed over time. When I was a kid in the 1980s and 1990s, I remember any smart kid was in danger of falling into the "nerd" category.  Any A/V (that's "audio-visual" to you young'uns out there - as in projectors & VCRs, mostly) kid was more likely to get dubbed "geek".  Therefore, my definition came down to "technology = geek" and "smart = nerd".  I was acutely aware of these labels, too, since I frequently seemed find myself pigeon-holed into the "nerd" department under this definition.  I specifically remember the shock that came over some of my friends in the 8th grade when they realized that this "brain" was beat out on a math test by one of the more athletic boys in our class.  I still define that as the moment of dawning realization that I was much more inclined toward language than mathematics.  

Oh, the need of young people to place labels on each other (and ourselves)!  I myself was many things other than just a "brain" or a "nerd," but found it a bit disconcerting to find my labels slipping.  Not that any of this happens in adult life.  (Please sense HEAVY irony here!) 

So, we, full-grown adults that we now are, proceeded to dissect just what these labels mean now. Sandy made a convincing argument that a "geek" is someone who has a passionate interest in something and brings that into pretty much all areas of their life.  This brought up images of "o-philes" such as anglophiles (people who love all things English or possibly British), techno-philes (people who love all things involving technology), bibliophiles (those who love books and reading), neo-philes (not people who love the Matrix movies,sadly enough, but people who love all things new)...and other "o-phile" labels which maybe don't have it in their names, such as  Janeites (those of us who love all things Jane Austen). I think you get the picture.  So, by all rights, these people could be called Anglo-Geeks or Techno Geeks, too.  I admit it makes sense.  Band Geeks. Theatre Geeks.  Movie Geeks. Science Geeks. Music Geeks. Science Fiction Geeks. Yup...makes sense. 

My only argument that could in any way be said to be against this is the group of people who are "creatively inclined."  The definition I had gotten of this group (in which I must include myself) were also varied, but definitely different. "Hippies", "Beatniks", "Poets","Artists" were among the more genteel labels applied. I always sort of saw myself as a "free-thinker" or a "flower-child."  "Bohemian" is another good one.  I have to admit, though, that maybe these really are just a sub-label of "geek".  Maybe "Word Geek" would fit the writers, poets, and bibliophiles in this group.

That leaves, though, the definition of "Nerd" to ponder.  Sandy's take was that this really related to social interaction.  A "Nerd", by her definition, is someone who is socially awkward. I can't shake the idea of someone who is smart associated with "Nerd", so we can't come to an actual agreement on this one, but we sort of agree there is another category, too.  The type of person who plays video games day and night and never gets out to do anything productive.  We pretty much agreed, and so did my video-game-playing husband, that this person just counts as "loser" for the purposes of this argument. 

So I broke down and looked them up.  Wikipedia says that "Geek" has varying meanings ranging from "computer expert or enthusiast" to "a carnival performer who performs sensationally morbid or disgusting acts." It also suggests someone who is "overly intellectual." Wow. It does agree with my statement that the meaning has changed drastically over time. Apparently, though, the world derives from "freaks." The entry also says there no longer seems to be a true definition of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek

A "nerd", however, appears to be an unsocialized "Geek" according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd

Dictionary.com defines "geek" in much the same way, but suggests a synonym of "eccentric" which probably is the best way would could define geek these days.  Dictionary.com also defines "nerd' as "An intellectual but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit."

So, where does that leave us? Pretty much where we started. Go ahead and continue to use them interchangeably. Even dictionaries can't seem to tell "Nerd-Heaven" from "Geek-Chic" these days. But, as for myself, I'd still like to be considered a Word Geek.