Imagine someone saying: “It’s my middle finger. Your interpretation of it is independent of what I believe it to mean. You see it as ‘fuck you’ and find it offensive, but to me, it’s just a finger.”

Mister rogers middle finger gif - from Giphy

This raises an important question: Is the person denying a widely accepted social fact to prioritize their own viewpoint? Or are they genuinely unaware of the public meaning? And if they are aware, are they simply choosing to reject it?

The Nature of Shared Meaning

Society relies on shared symbols to communicate, yet these symbols are not universal. What one culture or group understands in a specific way may mean something entirely different elsewhere. The middle finger, for example, is considered an obscene gesture in many cultures, but without prior knowledge of this meaning, it is merely a body part.

Consider a village student who moves to a city and instinctively removes their shoes before entering a mall. In their hometown, this might be a sign of respect, but in an urban setting, it may be unnecessary or even odd. Similarly, imagine someone wearing a bikini to an early morning lecture. Are they making a statement, or are they simply unaware of how their choice will be perceived?

At what point do we, as individuals, accept or reject these shared understandings? Who determines what is and isn’t appropriate? And what happens when someone deliberately defies the consensus?

Modern Perspectives on Meaning

Modern philosophers continue to explore the complexities of meaning and mutual understanding, particularly in the context of language, culture, and individual agency. Jordan Peterson, in Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, argues that shared symbols and narratives are essential for social cohesion, as they provide a framework for interpreting reality and guiding behavior. He suggests that when these frameworks break down or are deliberately ignored, societal discord and existential confusion can follow. Similarly, Slavoj Žižek examines meaning through the lens of ideology, contending that what we perceive as “common sense” is often shaped by hidden ideological structures that dictate how we interpret symbols and gestures. Both thinkers highlight the delicate balance between personal interpretation and collective understanding, raising the question: when we reject established meanings, are we exercising freedom, or merely destabilizing the very foundations that make communication possible?

Breaking from the Norm: Ignorance, Defiance, or Justification?

There are generally three possibilities when someone challenges an established social norm:

1. They are unaware of the meaning.

   The village student does not realize that shoe removal is unnecessary in a mall.

   A foreign traveler may unknowingly use an offensive gesture in a new country.

2. They are aware but choose to ignore it.

   The person flashing the middle finger may fully understand its offensive meaning but dismisses it as “just a finger.”

   Someone may wear unconventional clothing to class to express individuality, disregarding social expectations.

3. They justify their actions by shifting the context.

   “If there were an emergency, normal social rules wouldn’t apply.”

   “Language and gestures evolve—why should we be bound by old interpretations?”

While all three cases are possible, the third is the most intriguing. It suggests a conscious choice to question societal norms. But how far can this argument go before it becomes mere provocation?

Do We Need to Agree?

A tricky but fundamental question arises: When did we ever formally agree on these meanings? Did we all sign an invisible contract stating that the middle finger must mean “fuck you”? Or did we inherit these interpretations over time without question?

Furthermore, does agreement even matter? If an overwhelming majority recognizes a gesture, a word, or a behavior as having a particular meaning, does individual disagreement invalidate that meaning? Or does personal interpretation only matter when it aligns with the collective understanding?

Language itself is not universal—many words and symbols have evolved differently across cultures and generations. Yet, for the sake of efficient communication, we often conform to commonly accepted definitions. If everyone starts redefining things based on personal perception alone, does communication break down?

Implications of Denial

What happens when someone persistently denies what is commonly understood? Are they engaging in an intellectual exercise, testing the boundaries of meaning? Or are they simply playing dumb to provoke a reaction?

In some cases, this rejection may indicate a refusal to conform to societal norms, an act of rebellion. In others, it may stem from a genuine belief that social constructs are arbitrary and should not dictate personal expression. But at what cost? If a person disregards social norms too frequently, they may find themselves isolated or misunderstood.

A more practical concern arises: Are they in the wrong environment? If someone insists on ignoring social conventions, are they in a place where such defiance is accepted? Every community, whether cultural, academic, or professional, operates on a shared set of expectations. Those who refuse to acknowledge them may find it harder to function within that space.

Conclusion: Choosing When to Challenge Norms

Sometimes, it is okay to challenge social assumptions, to question why things are the way they are. Other times, there is little benefit in resisting a widely accepted meaning—especially if doing so creates unnecessary friction.

The key may lie in knowing when to challenge and when to conform. If the goal is effective communication, defying shared meanings serves little purpose. But if the goal is to provoke thought, to encourage change, or to challenge outdated assumptions, then questioning these norms can be a powerful tool.

Ultimately, the question remains: Is the rejection of shared meaning a form of genuine individualism, or is it just a game of pretending not to understand? And if it is just a game, how long before others stop playing along?