What's in a word?

Sociologists would answer the question posed in the title with this answer: EVERYTHING! Words may just be words to others, but sociologists earn their living analyzing what certain words mean in certain social and historical contexts. Consider the word "dispute." Synonyms for dispute include: argument, controversy, contention, rumpus. Quarrel, bickering, miff, squabble, tiff, wrangle. All words that mean something about discord, about disagreement, but of a rather mild sort. Small children quarrel over who gets to sit next to the window. Long married people squabble over who left dirty socks on the floor again. Close friends get in a tiff when one of them criticizes the other's new hairstyle. Adults engage in controversy over politics. Neighbors get in a dispute over the new fence that may be just a tad over the property line. Sure, there is conflict inplied in the word "dispute", but it's comparably mild and not necessarily violent. Maybe children will tussle in their quarrel, and friends may hang up on each other in a huff. Perhaps neighbors will take each other to court to settle a property line dispute, or adults may raise their voices in a passionate discussion about politics, but ordinarily, no one would expect anyone to pull out a knife or a bomb or a gun to settle a dispute.

Until we insert the word "domestic" in front of dispute.

Under most state laws, "domestic dispute" is simply a quarrel between family members or people who live in the same household. Domestic means household, and in the US, we generally interpret domestic as meaning something about family and the private household.

Read this article about a man who killed four women, wounded three others, and then killed himself: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/07/florida.shooting/index.html?hpt=T2
Note that the police explained the violence as resulting from "some sort of domestic dispute." Critical power conflict theorists would analyze the use of this term as a deliberate ploy to minimize and trivialize the murders. You will recall that critical power conflict theorists interpret social phenomenon like this as evidence that certain groups in society organize to maintain their power over other groups. Feminist conflict theorists understand patriarchy as a social system designed to maintain masculine power over women, children, and less-masculine men. One of the best ways to maintain power is to use violence or the threat of violence against other groups. Recall also that critical power conflict theorists believe that dominant groups invent ideologies that explain and justify their dominance over others. Use of a trivializing and minimizing phrase to explain the mass shooting--"some sort of domestic dispute"--neatly explains and justifies the man's actions as "merely" being a domestic dispute gone bad. Where feminist conflict theorists would claim that the act is an example of gender terrorism, members of the dominant patriarchal group would claim that this is just a sad end to a household quarrel. You have probably also seen dominant group members claim that victims of violence "probably deserved it". "What did she expect?" they might say. "Why didn't she leave him earlier?" is another question commonly posed to victims of gender terrorism.

I have discussed the article, especially the use of the term "domestic dispute", using critical power conflict theory. How could the murders or other aspects of the incident be analyzed using symbolic interactionism? Or structural functionalism? I can think of lots of ways--but it's your turn to step on the soapbox now!
photo above from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/gerardo-regalado-miami-gu_n_603061.html