I decided to pick a (perhaps) somewhat less controversial topic to start with. After all, I'm willing to bet that the majority of us have sworn numerous times before, whether taking the Lord's name in vain or uttering one of those four-letter words banned by profanity filters everywhere in a moment of frustration.
All considerations of religious objections aside, we frequently tend to shrink from such obscenities. (I know, one might argue that our European-based, Western civilisation is, by its nature, a religious one, but I'm going to put that aside for the moment, for ease of discussion.) These days, the famed four-letter words (from such mild expletives as "hell" to "fuck", often considered the most taboo word in the English language) have perhaps less power to offend than they once did. I know teachers who will swear in front of students, children who will swear in front of parents. Yet as a society, we still avoid profanities assiduously. "Fuck" and "shit" top the list of words bleeped out on American radio, and I also once saw an extensive list of words that should be avoided, or are even entirely forbidden, on the BBC. Those of you who hail from h2g2 will, I'm sure, have run up against its profanity filter at some point since its inception. One is able to fill a page in one's notebook tallying the profanities of one's history teacher, and yet the fact is that these words still occasion enough notice to be tallied — they are a minor taboo, but a taboo all the same.
It's interesting to consider that, at one point, a thousand years ago, some of the words we now avoid in public were perfectly acceptable — I am particularly considering "fuck" and "shit". While "fuck" is of unknown origin, it was in common use in Anglo-Saxon times, sometimes describing animals' mating procedures and sometimes those of humans as well. "Shit" was the word of common parlance before other euphemisms like "poop", "doodoo", etc. developed. I'm not sure when "shit" fell from favour, but it mustn't have been any later than the Victorian period, when "leg" ranked right up there with the other profanities.
I once read in a linguistics book that profanity can be classified into three categories: the religious ("hell", "damn"), the scatological ("shit", "crap") and the sexual ("fuck", "cunt", "wank"). Sounds fair enough, but what is more intriguing is the degree to which each of these categories is considered taboo in our society. The religious words we say without great concern, unless we are among the devout or our devout ourselves — and even then there's nothing particularly odd in, say, a Christian who says "dammit!" or "what the hell?" If someone says "damn", it seems, it's barely worth looking to see who said it, whether that person is an adult or a child. The only really profane scatological term that I can think of is "shit", and it's true that while that's avoided (often the more benign "crap" is substituted) I wouldn't say it's really shied from in casual parlance. On the other hand, the sexual words like "fuck" and "cunt" would really have to be considered the most taboo words in the English language. It's hardly surprising. We no longer have a state religion that causes devotion, and everybody shits — there's nothing shameful in it, and everyone does it the same way, so why worry about it? But sex — that's a different story. We shy from it and we discourage — particularly in people my age — the practices described by words like "fuck" and "wank". And in doing so, we therefore consider it proper to discourage the words themselves. It is all too tempting to get wrapped up in Western civilisation's condemnation of the sexual, but that's a task for another post or five.
Concerning the use of language: last spring I read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. There's a passage I remember very clearly, where, in an internal monologue, the correct term for the sex act that's occurring between Offred and the Commander is discussed. It's not "copulating", it's decided, and it's not "making love". That would imply willingness, love, sharing, elements that are absent in the occurrences of Handmaid's Tale — which, ultimately, Atwood describes simply as "fucking". That, it seems, is what these profanities stand for: the dirt and grit of life that we can't accurately describe with a more cheerful euphemism.
Or is it? Is profanity something to be encouraged, suppressed or just ignored? Would it be all right for kids to swear, and how about adults when talking to kids? What words should be censored on the radio, TV and in written publications? You know, all that good stuff. Crap, I sound like a middle-school English teacher with a discussion question. Oh well.
I shall try my best this post to be a better discussion leader and stop promoting my opinion after I've made the initial post. Thanks everyone who's commented so far — it's great encouragement for me to write more (though I guess if you're sick of me already you could just stop and then I would get the message).
About Me
- Emily Rutherford
- Princeton, NJ, United States
- I blog avidly, but on WordPress. I'm a teenager from California and I aspire to overcome both these things.
Blog Archive
21 comments:
My doctor once looked at me funny when I was describing possible risk factors for a STD test she wanted me to take. She was thinking making love or having intimacy. I was thinking, if you think you are making love or having sex, and one or the other of you gets an STD, you may think you were making love, but in fact, you were fucking.
I find that most swear words are used as they are sometimes called, epithets. The thing behind the idea of epithet, is that it's another name for something. So, if you can think of fuck, you can also think of making love, dancing the mattress tango, intimate deep touching, and earth-shaking mind-blowing orgasms.
Somebody who has the brainmatter to come up with these other locutions, and who isn't afraid to use them even though it may make their speech less smooth or kewl, gets four stars in my book. This is one of the reasons why I like the BBCi's policy.
Well, swearings not really a big issue once you reach the age of thirteen or so. Once you start living in an adult world, you can use adult words.
Of course, there are exceptions. I have nothing against radio networks beeping out choice words and phrases, and of course there are times and places where swearings just innappropriate.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's nothing inherently wrong with the words "fuck", "shit", or "bitch"; but sometimes you have to know when to have a little class and hold your tongue.
the thing that i detest most about the word crap is that even while the media shies away from using any other swear word, crap is ultimately free game. i remember when i stiull had a teen AOL account and all of the silly little articles would say things like "check out the stores, they have craploads."
"other weird crap." like, three or four times minimum on a page.
its in tv shows, magazines, everywhere the little prepubescent sheep are flocking, and the worst part is it actually works, makes whatever it comes with seem more interesting.
I agree with nakedkali. The English language contains so many words and so many ways of saying the same thing, that there is often no particular reason to use a common profanity. There is a world of a difference between really good language and a passage of text that contains expletives everywhere.
The same difference applies when reading a good bit of prose on the internet and comparing that to txtspk. Naturally I gravitate to the former, because I get more out of it.
That said, there are times when profanity is appropriate. As Billy Connolly used to say 'Have you ever seen it written "Fuck Off", he hinted'. At the right time it can elicit great shock value and and it can create emphasis and underline your passion in a subject when used sparingly and appropriately.
I live in a country (Ireland) that is fairly comfortable with words such as "fuck" and "shit" - they are spoken quite often on our radio and TV stations, and it's common to hear people using these words quite liberally in their speech, particularly the word "fucking", i.e. "it's fuckin' great", "un-be-fucking-lieveable". However I still would draw the line if I heard my kids saying it. When they get to be teenagers I doubt if I will be as uncomfortable, but when they are kids, I don't really like it. Parental anxiety, I guess.
Thanks for your comments, all. It seems that there's general agreement that while there's nothing inherently wrong with swearing, it's good to use your imagination to find more creative expressions.
However, what about downright censorship and bowdlerising? The play we're currently working on at my school has a good deal of swearing in it, which underlines the characters' personalities and also their emotions in a series of very tense scenes. The school administration doesn't want us using profanity onstage, so we've been changing "bitch" to "witch", "asshole" to "jerk", "shit!" to "oh no!", that sort of thing. Would you consider such adjustments appropriate for a school setting, or do they tamper with the author's intentions for the play and the audience's perception of the characters?
re origins of words
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-f-word.htm
tjm
I've heard many variations on the origins-of-"fuck" legend — but the OED still lists it as "origin unknown". I hold with the from Dutch or Low German theory, though. I mean, it's such an old, blunt word, it has to be Anglo-Saxon via a Germanic language.
Unfortunatly, some parents don't want their high school kids to see excessive profanity. I know a senior who isn't allowed to watch R-rated movies (albeit for religious reasons).
My personal belief, of course, is that such plays broaden our horizons, and that changing the profanities takes away from the play.
Playing devil's advocate with myself, however, leads to this: I'm sure we can all agree that everyone should have equal opportunities in high school, regardless of our religion. Referring back to the senior I mentioned, who is a Mormon, let's suppose she wishes to audition for our fall play. If we didn't censor it, then she wouldn't be able to because of her religion. Is that not restricting her options, in a certain way?
And I hate to use "the next step" argument (the next step from gay marriage is people marrying dogs), but you have to wonder where to draw the line. Is it ok to say "bitch" but not say "nigger"? Can you say "Jap"? It's a delicate issue, and though I personally believe that our play this year should not be censored, I don't think it's worth fighting over.
I find it odd - why draw the line at kids using strong language? I mean, what's the difference if someone's a teen or a tween, if they know what the word means and when to use it?
It's funny, but different people draw the line in different places. I know a number of families where they won't let their kids use the words 'stupid' or 'pig' or 'jerk' to describe other people. I guess they figure if you're going to say something derogatory about someone, say it nicely.
My parents allow me to swear as long as I don't direct it at someone. I can say "Fuck!" but not "Fuck you!"
Part of the appeal of high-cost religions is that to those who are paying the cost, they see an increased benefit payoff to whatever-it-is that their religion (and, their belief in their religion) makes them do. Nobody is compelled to be both Mormon and an actor, and it isn't like they aren't getting any reward for doing the Mormon-thing they do or they wouldn't be doing it.
Art is similar in that certain non-tangibles are lovingly attributed to it. A naked lady on a plinth or with bunches of grapes (to be pratchett about it) is Ahrt, but if she's surrounded by Flash-ing pop-ups and a slot for you to put your credit card, or has an extremity in one of her orofices it's not. What's special about the price that a Mormon would pay that's different about the price a High School might pay in teaching people the power of dramatized characters who swear?
The reason behind preventing kids using strong language, and why it's more important for teens than others is that such language is liable to get them physically hurt.
Firstly by other teens who are not quite used to them there hormonal surges. This has two parts, a- that they are likely to swear more forcefully than appropriate and b-they are more likely to offer violence. Secondly by other adults whose judgement of their age (or judgement of how much forgiveness they are likely to deal out in general) is off.
Dunno if anyone remembers ET, but the insult 'penis breath' was considered cute and funny because of the relative youth of the kid who played Drew's little brother said it. It's not as much of a big deal if little kids swear as long as they show elsewhere that they are not failing to learn how to speak.
Here, though, we're assuming that swearing is only used in vindictiveness. "Oh my god, this book is so fucking long!" is the sort of typical comment from a kid that wouldn't necessarily provoke violence, and yet would occasion a "Hey! Watch your language!" at best or possibly a detention when said in front of a teacher, or other discipline when said in front of a parent. Would different rules apply in this eventuality?
(Woodpigeon)
There is a world of a difference between really good language and a passage of text that contains expletives everywhere.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. In my opinion, one of the finest prose sentences I have read is from 'Trainspotting' by Irvine Welsh:
"Yis could just fuckin' tell that some fuckin' cunt wis goantae fuck that cunt."
Have you ever seen such magnificent invention within such constraining lexical boundaries?
The word cunt is an interesting one. In the UK, it's regarded as the most taboo word. John Lydon caused a bizarre furore when he used it on TV just a couple of years ago. Germaine Greer, amongst others, (daft auld trout that she is), advocates that it should be re-claimed as the word for female genitalia. I agree. There's no suitable word to describe (ahem) the whole shooting match. Vagina refers to only the internal cavity...plus it is Latin for 'scabbard' - a place to hide one's sword. The default word pussy is just silly - and it makes little sense given the (lamentable!) fashion for pubic depilation. The British English fanny causes confusion for Americans. So we're left with cunt...or twat.
"The C-word refers to a perfectly respectable part of the female anatomy, and it is totally unacceptable for men to use it as a term of insult or abuse. On the other hand...how are we supposed to drive?"
(Jeremy Hardy)
re 'enis breath'...
I've just remembered...we used to live in quite a rough neighbourhood. My son, then 3 0r 4, told me that a girl at the play park had called him 'a burger'. :)
It's odd that in UK English, 'bugger' is very while 'fuck' is relatively extreme.
And 'jerk' is mild wheras 'wanker' isn't. Would 'jerk off' be considered mild?
'wanker' seems to have finally entered the American language. I remember how amused we all were when a character appeared in Happy Days called 'Mr Wanker'. Then, in the 80's Phil Colins guested in Miami Vice and his dialogue was peppered with it, beneath the censors' radar.
About vindictiveness that EMR has mentioned, I have a response that is laden with cultural values.
I disagree that the usage is unintentional. Your example is a case in which the expletive excess is used in an attempt to violate the power structure in a way, and to a presumably power-constrained person, that will presumably not get the speaker hurt. The ritualized response is to show the speaker that he (yep, usually a guy) will get hurt, in a manner that society has marked as safe, ie. detention.
Whether or not he is smart enough to get this is a different matter entirely. Equality of education is an ideal that gets rough around the edges when it clonks itself up against reality.
Language is redundant. Furthermore, since most things people are talking about is other people and culture is redundant, you can insert an amazing amount of 'fucks' or 'cunts' or whatever in a sentence, in any grammatical position you choose, and the person who likes you enough to still listen to you will understand. Psychologists furthermore tell us that 90% of what people say is nonverbal.
So, why talk at all?
The presupposition, and perhaps it's every bit a deprecated and degraded one as the presupposition that presumes that theater is a valuable and required part of the cultural education of young people, is that even though speech acts are not necessarily something you need to be schooled about, that we will teach it to you anyways.
Rhetoric may very well be dead and gone, and I know that speech class was rather rarefied at my HS, but the idea that people need to learn how to speak is still a valid one. You are not obligated to make the world a better place, but this doesn't mean that you can stop trying.
nakedkali:
The ritualized response is to show the speaker that he (yep, usually a guy) will get hurt, in a manner that society has marked as safe, ie. detention.
I don't agree that this is used as a "learning tool" or a way to prevent the speaker from getting hurt in later life. I'd argue that, rather, we just have a societal perception that swearing = bad, so any behaviour that falls outside of that perception is condemned. In my experience it rarely has to do with anything else more concerned with the future well-being of the adolescent in question.
In terms of levels of profanity, I think it’s really how threatening they are. Catholic clergy have been damning people to hell for hundreds of years, but it doesn’t bother those who subscribe to other belief systems. Sex, though, is supposed to be a personal choice, and 'fuck you' is the verbal equivalent of rape.
At any rate, it doesn’t matter. Language is language. You don’t need Pygmalion to show you that how you speak demonstrates your class. It doesn’t hurt to speak clean the vast majority of the time, and many have lived into old age without screaming ‘fuck!’ every time they stubbed their toe.
For that matter, here’s what I find odd: you question why perfectly good words should be off-limits, but you don’t question the linguistic propriety of using them as adjectives and adverbs in every other sentence (or every other word). They usually don’t suit the context in terms of their dictionary definition—so why do people use them?
"Psychologists furthermore tell us that 90% of what people say is nonverbal."
Last time I heard that half-baked tosh it wa at a management seminar. I stuck up my hand and politely enquired:
"So does that mean that if I stick my fingers in my ears I'll only miss 10%?"
For heavens sake...what does it mean? Apart from anything else...what units are used to measure 'communication'?
Post a Comment