On Four-Letter Words
Dean
Eugene Volokh has an interesting discussion on use of swear words that you might want to read.
My own take? It's mostly a class issue. At one time, religion was also a part but that's all but gone. The truth is, if you're religious, saying "damn you" or "go to hell" should be seen as vastly more upsetting and nasty than some crude suggestion regarding defacation or coition. Yet these days "damn" and "hell" barely raise eyebrows, but I still feel the need on this weblog to partially censor "f**k" and "s**t" because (a) I know they offend some uptight people, and (b) a lot of home and business systems actually block web sites that contain those words.
The question is, why do they offend, why are they blocked? My view is that it's a holdover from the idea that people of "good breeding" and "the right sort" simply don't say certain words. It's the only explanation that's ever made sense to me. It's not about anger because people can express horrible anger without swearing. Nor is it about "lack of creativity" or "lack of education," because there are many eloquent, well-educated people who nevertheless do not hesitate to use four-letter words.
It's all about class. People who refuse to swear are setting themselves up as better than people who don't. Smarter, better educated, more virtuous, etc. They simply think they're superior, that refusing to use everyday vulgar terms makes them better than the rest of us.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More On Cuss Words
- On Four-Letter Words
I grew up in predominantly blue-collar white neighborhoods, where the n-word was used casually on a daily basis. As an adult I have also lived and worked in predominantly black neighborhoods, often being the only white face in large groups of black people, and I heard the n-word even more there than I did growing up in tough white neighborhoods.
As a result of all this, for me the word does not hold the electric charge that it does for others. The first time I saw Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, where the characters let fly with the n-word on a non-stop basis, I was mostly just amused. Indeed, it was a bit refreshing, since *all* the black people I knew used that word regularly, and it always struck me as funny how Hollywood was so afraid of it. It seemed like Tarantino was going out of his way to notice a certain hypocrisy in Hollywood, which trades in many racial stereotypes but pretends to be virtuous by refusing to use that word much.
I don't use it because I know it deeply offends some of my friends, but I don't usually get upset when I hear it. Indeed, people who are clearly racist but who make a big show of condemning the N-word bug the crap out of me. It also bugs me that so many middle class and wealthy black rap artists will use the word but then condemn poor white trash for using it.
It's clearly a class issue; lots of black people use that word on a daily basis and only look down on it when it's uttered by someone who isn't part of their group--"Okay for me but not for thee."
If it were a just world, terms like "cracker" and "redneck" would be seen as equally offenisive; indeed, a "redneck" is merely a poor, ill-educated person who happens to be white. But people seem to feel it's okay to heap all kinds of abuse on that person's head. The most reviled group in America is the "redneck." But almost no one finds that word offensive. Funny huh?
I would say that's not exactly the right emphasis. I would say they think that they're "better than that", not that they're better than me. They might also think that people who swear too much are vulgar, but people judge each other all the time.
I would suggest that they think, "You're better than that" rather than, "I'm better than you."
And I say **** people who're like that! ;-) Seriously though, I tend to use several different levels of swearitude as the situation calls for. I use different language in the office than I do out on the nursing floors, and different language still at home or amongst friends.
(On the floor or on the phone @ work)Yes, ma'am. Thank you and have a good evening.
(In the office) G-----n f--kwits couldn't wipe their own a-- without you holding their hands over the phone.
(Describing the call to a friend outside of work) Then the baka s--t-for-brains goat f---hing f--kt--d realizes that I mean the g-----ned button on the f--kin' box, not the one on the g-ds-rotted monitor. Oy, what a Kusoyaro!
Class? Eh. You gotta remember this here is a typed medium, so swearin' is yea 'bout as classy as mispellin' or typing wit a speechified affectAtion.
But it gives a kind of character to yer posts, Dean! Different from swearing or mispelling, which are far too common [and therefore base - sniff!]
Both "fuck" and "shit" come from Old German everyday words, the modern equivalents of which, in infinitive form are "ficken" and "scheissen".
These are, after all, common and natural activities involving both sexes of most animal species, including humans. And in that aspect, they are little different from descriptions of eating, drinking, sleeping, walking, dying, etc.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Supposedly. It's a bunch of crap. As is the notion that people swear because they're inarticulate. Total rubbish. I've met inarticulate people who never swear and some articulate motherfuckers who swear like muleskinners. Indeed, I consider the creative and proper use of good old fashioned anglo-saxon words like "shit" and "fuck" to be a sign of high education.
"Fuck" is the most interesting word in the English language. I've never come across a word that is more flexible and versatile in its usage.
Doctor glares at you. "Well, yes you do, and watch your language!"
That is, can bloody ever have its literal meaning? If not, what synonym do British people use? I kinda need to know, because I'm studying abroad in Leicester in the fall, and the topic might come up.
I agree with the medieval proverb (quoted by Oswald Spengler):
"God hath shapen lives three:
Boor and knight and priest they be."
I know that puts me to the Far, Far Right of the John Birch Society, and so be it.
I like expletives only when they are used in anger. I like an angry man, I usually identify with him. I'm an angry man myself. I like Dean when he cusses, because I observed that when he cusses he cusses out of anger, anger at those who deserve anger (e.g., murdering dictators, trolls). I admire Dean when he openly expresses hate. I, too, am a man of hate, even more so, as you've probably noticed.
But, as I say, I believe in taboos. Expletives lose their meaning when used casually or in print, as they are today. As a couple of Volokh's commenters noted, it's part of the general egalitarianism and levelling that is corrupting today's culture, like the fad in tattoos (formerly reserved for the more "rough-hewn" men) and piercings (formerly reserved for savages). It's an attempt to break down taboos and hierarchies, the structures of civilization, a deliberate flaunting of ugliness and vulgarity. I blame Rousseau and de Sade and Marcuse and their followers.
There was a time when the lower classes tried to imitate their "betters", and in the process, suppressed "vulgar" language. Now, soi-disant "intellectuals" try to imitate the "proletariat" or "lumpen-proletariat" by wearing dirty jeans and "Che" T-shirts and saturating their language with what we used to call "vulgarities". It's phony as a $3.00 bill with Donald Duck on it, and I have no respect for it. Especially not when these same "intellectuals" insist on "sensitivity" and Political Correctness.
As to the words themselves: Dean is right about the ancient significance of religious words. In Exodus 20:7 we read:
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless thst taketh His name in vain."
Therefore, in those days, the holy name of YHVH was not spoken outside the Holy of Holies, the sanctum sanctorium, the inner chambers of the Temple, which only the priests were allowed to enter. The Egyptians, Babylonians, etc., no doubt had similar taboos regarding the holy names of their Deities. To this day, Orthodox Jews will never write out the full name of the Deity but instead write it as "G-d". Perhaps I myself should write "-o-" or "-o--ess". But, then, if I did, nobody would know what I was talking about. Interesting idea, anyway.
We therefore speak of "profanity", "profane" language, a profane use of sacred terms. We also speak of "cussing", a corruption of "cursing", and "swearing". The words "--- d--- you!" are a literal curse, calling upon the Deity to sentence the hated one to eternal perdition. "I swear to --- I'll get you for that!" likewise invokes the Deity with a vengeful intent. In Christian theology, this is a sin against what is known as the virtue of charity.
Sins against chastity are expressed in profane use of sexual terms. I loathe the use of that word "f---" as a synonym for the sexual embrace. I am proud that I absolutely never use it in that context. It looks and sounds ugly and it is meant to be ugly. It, too, is a profaning of the sacred.
As I've noted a number of times in the past in various threads here, it is historically related to the infamous middle-finger gesture and to expressions like "up yours", "-ss", "-sshole", and the like. "F---" and the like refer to rape, primarily, male-on-male anal rape. In ancient times, it was the standard practice of warriors to anally rape their defeated enemies in order to degrade them and thus express their utter subjugation. This, as you well know, continues to be the practice in American prisons. This is the meaning of the story of Sodom in Genesis 19. There is a reference to this profane practice in an Egyptian myth as well. Like "d--- you!", therefore, "f--- you!" has long been considered the ultimate curse, the ultimate symbolic expression of contempt and hate.
"F---" as a synonym for sex expresses a view of sex as rape, or little better than rape, as low, vulgar, degrading. The "progressives" of today, the "hippies", the Naturalists, urge us to adopt such language in our parlance as a way to break down the distinction between the sacred and the profane, between the holy and the mundane, dissolving all boundaries and distinctions, levelling down all hierarchies, horiontalizing all that is vertical (J. A. Laponce). "Oh, come on," they say, "it's merely natural. Get used to it. There's nothing special about it. Why must you be so up-tight about it?" For precisely the same reason, they promote public nudity, and also sex education in public schools, beginning as early as possible. I'm against that. I'm a Jehovanistic-style Gnostic.
A thing can be "taboo" for one of two reasons: Either it is perceived as below the level of "everyday reality" -- or above it. Excretion is experienced as unpleasant and disgusting. Having to interrupt myself in the middle of something (such as typing this comment) in order to go to the bathroom literally "p---es me off". And "sh-t" is even more disgusting, in every way. It is fouler than mud, and yet it comes out of our own bodies (out of the anus, which, as I noted, was also the favorite target for rape). It is therefore regarded as intrinsically low.
Sex can be regarded as either low or high, below or above "everyday reality", profane or sacred, depending on one's entire philosophy or religion, one's whole Weltanschauung -- fundamentally, one's view of oneself. As Friedrich Nietzsche said:
"The degree and kind of one's sexuality reaches up into the very pinnacle of one's spirit."
(The Joyful Wisdom)
and:
"....The noble soul has reverence for itself."
(Beyond Good and Evil)
Ayn Rand once wrote:
"Sex either has a high spiritual base and source, or else it is nothing but an evil perversion."
(Journals of Ayn Rand)
Both express, in different ways, a Gnostic view of sex. A pure Jehovanist would say that it is essentially nothing but an evil perversion and thus try to suppress it as much as possible (e.g., by restricting it to reproduction). A Jehovanistic-style Gnostic such as holy Dawn would, like Ayn Rand, insist that sex absolutely must have a high spiritual base and source. A Naturalistic-style Gnostic such as wicked Wanda would revel in the idea of it being nothing but an evil perversion. A pure Naturalist would try to make it nothing, nothing at all, not even an evil perversion, merely banal. I'm against that.
That, after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 A.D., the vulgar word "f---" continued to be used by the "boors", or "villeins", indicates, I think, their rather ignoble view of themselves, of their women, of sex (similar to the way street thugs of today refer to their women as "bitches" and "hos" [whores]). Latinate words like "coitus" were used by the knights, the "noblemen", the "gentlemen", to express a rather higher view of themselves, of their women, their "ladies", and of the "chivalrous", "courtly" love they made to their ladies. The priests and nuns did not marry but instead consecrated themselves to God (the Trinity) and to His Virgin Mother (the Queen of Heaven).
I have always admired John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia, who said:
"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty. I hate equality."
The greatest corruption is, as I noted on another occasion recently, what I call the inverted elite, i.e., when the elites, or those who are supposed to be the elites, fall below, rather than rise above, the level of the majority. When the farmer in Idaho (as a friend of mine liked to say) restrains his tongue, while the professor at Berkeley pretentiously punctuates his every sentence with vulgarities and profanities, something is wrong with our culture.
As for me, I must begin to discipline myself to be "better than that". I must wash my mouth out with soap, if not literally then figuratively.
This is not always the case, as for example, I read Misha a couple times a week. But I suspect he's more of the exception that proves teh rule, than vice versa. Indeed, I think most of his commenters don't swear.
Let us consider point the first, the professor said getting out his pipe. Inarticulateness. Which gets across your point more precisely, a long string of cursewords, or a precise turn of phrase. If one uses vulgarity for minor annoyances, and for major trauma then they are merely the next step up from "UH", "Um", and so forth. Verbal placefillers signifying little. Yes, its versatile. That is the problem. There is a difference between angry and enraged, and while not everyone needs precision of thought its not a good thing to denigrate excellence.
Point the second. All too frequently, inherently boring people use vulgarity to try to spice up their dull thoughts. Rather as teenage girls used to say "Like", and other catchphrases to make themselves sound cooler than they are.
Point the third is not professorial, so I'll doff the donnish hat. Someone swears at me, and I'm not thinking logic or reason, I'm checking out how big their muscles are in case I have to punch their head in. This is the opposite of civility creating behavior.
And if they have really long legs, they can outrun you if you pull a knife.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
An unfair generalization? No moreso than the silliness Eric is peddling.
As for the notion that you constantly need more words to use as intensifiers: I've never found it to be so.
"Fuck the fucking fuckers!"
I shall have to point out that I have quite long arms, but they are rather skinny. What now? (laughs).
Dean,
Elitist snob? Hmmh, don't think so. I find good points in both elitism and populism, and can never decide which I favor as a general principle. Limited personal world? Well, there you got me. I live in a hollow and my backyard is five miles of hunting preserve. And I'm a writer/novelist/game designer/blogger so I'm usually planted in front of a computer. Plus, while I am now okay socially, I still have little problem sitting with a book and ignoring everyone else except as a pleasant background buzz.
Vulgarity, especially frequent vulgarity, is a waste of oxygen, and time that could be used to convey more information. Unless one is truly that outraged and furious that the only thought in one's mind is screaming frenzy..which I refuse to believe most people who do this are...I think they are poseurs. Of course, I think most people are poseurs.
I have to stand by my comments in the previous post. And its not necessarily that a person who frequently cusses is dumb, but inarticulate at least compared to a person with a more standardized English. A person can be of great intelligence and be quite poor with words; your typical Science nerd is such an example. I don't require everyone to be a Speech major, or a Professor of Logic, and in fact, I would be against everyone pursuing such a goal. But, we do need Professors of Logic, and we do need a certain basic level of clarity in regular conversation.
However, if a person from say Florida has one word, which they use to describe Snow, how then is that person more articulate regarding falling white stuff than an Eskimo who has 30 plus words for snow? Indeed the average Northerner is more articulate about Snow than someone from my area of the country, to use a lesser example.
Even if a Floridian knows more words for Snow than one, will he use it fluently, and does he no as many as the Eskimo? No, of course not.
Returning to basic clarity of conversation, I have to say as a SF writer, we are as a society heading toward more clarity in conversation. As society changes, speeds up, and so forth, more clear terms become needed. Also, I think computer programmers are to blame for this with their computer languages that mean just one thing, precisely defined.
It is my impression that discussions about the nature of language, and the definitions of terms have entered an extreme boom market. Perhaps it is my limited world, but I don't think America was so enthused about "what is the precise definition of X?" arguements ten, twenty years ago. In fact, I would have said that language precisionists were falling into extreme disfavor, but they have rallied and conquered with great power.
This precision of terms for various reasons militates against overly versatile terms.
I could yammer on further, but as the Megatrends writer said ...social change occurs at the intersection of economic and moral reasons. The move away from verbal vulgarity is well established economically. All we need is a strong moral case, and you will see a significant change in the production of vulgarity.
That one was "gods-rotted", which I think I picked up from C.J. Cherryh's "Chanur" series of books. I'd have been clearer had I stuck with asterixes for the bolwderization.
I am not equating inarticulate with dumb, because they don't necessarily go together. I'm saying that inarticulate is 'unable to express oneself clearly'. I'm saying that frequent usage of only swear words, where the level of anger must then be divined by the listener, makes conversation difficult. Sure, sometimes it's perfectly clear, but not every time. Dean mentions the 'creative and proper uses' of such epithets, but those aren't the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the overuse of such, non-creatively and constant.
M at U, a good long fighter will nevertheless stop a good short fighter from closing in. The strategy for shorty is to tire his bigger opponent, while keeping his distance from gloved ends of those big rifles.
Tim, a fuck by any other name is only copulation.
Dean, all discerning folk have limited personal worlds. The names for those who get too expansive are "liberal", or "blogger gone mad".
Cyberludite, "asterices for the bowdlerization"?
Everyone, we live in an age in which entire populations routinely are fucked by their own governments, their political parties, their religious institutions, and in which a scam waits to ambush almost anybody who opens an e-mail. All of which I suppose could give the classic definition of an orgy a whole new meaning. (But maybe that's always been a secondary meaning of the word.) So what began as good clean joyful sex lost its meaning to activities related mostly to wholesale chicanery.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
As for the modern world requiring less use of verbally flexible linguistic intensifiers: that's got to be the silliest thing I've heard in some time. Grammarians are no more common today than in the past from what I've seen, nor do I see how effective and precise communications are harmed by harmless verbal intensifiers. Moreover, everybody knows precisely what words like "asshole," "bullshit," and "fucker" mean, and clear communications are in no wise hampered by use of these terms.
Let's face it: Some people don't like the words because they think it makes them morally superior, or makes those of us who use them morally inferior. It doesn't, but they enjoy the feeling.
I know three rich guys among the gaming geeks, hillbillies, and Christian fundamentalists that make up my life. The rich guys all swear. Few of the others (most middle and lower class...i.e. regular everyday people) do.
"Irrational"???
I'm not discussing grammarians. That's structure; this is definitional as in Daniel Webster.
Perhaps, you're right about it being silly, but I think society is becoming much more precise and emotionally cool (although politics, perhaps by way of relief is heating up...although once Donkey Delenda Est, I think it will cool down considerably). In fact some people spend a lot of effort arguing the definition of terms like "liberal."
Certainly "asshole" can be clear, and it is also is a great way to end a conversation, or start a fight. Since you support more civility in politics, how does that go with supporting less civility in private life?
This discussion has been clarifying. I'd have to say, yes, civility in general is morally superior to vulgarity. Its more effective for a society.
Also, I hold to the view that the man in charge, truly in charge, doesn't have to yell. If you're truly in charge, you can whisper.
I really don't give a rat's ass if people are using "bad language" around me, unless they're swearing at me in a way that indicates hostility. And I use such language from time to time ... but if I want to live in a world in which people are nice to each other, it's certainly in my interest do contribute to that by being nice in return; and that means eschewing certain language outside of limited situations.
As for civility in politics: Why are you changing the subjec to civility? Well then, if we are now to discuss civility, I merely note the following uncivil statements:
"Most of the time, vulgarity is a sign of inarticulateness."
This is a most uncivil and impolite thing for you to say.
You also said it is "a sign of someone trying to draw attention to something inherently boring."
This is also a rude, boorish, and by the way, utterly irrational thing to say.
So why would you come in here, say a bunch of rather boorish and uncivil things, and then complain about civility?
As for the man who is "truly in charge" -- such a man doesn't sweat small shit. Especially trivial things like a little salt in someone else's language.
I use these words and I don't care who knows it.
BUT,
I'd rather YOU avoid these words, thus pretending to limit yourself to cool, rational discourse.
Obviously, this isn't a very accurate way of figuring out who is calm and rational but it has its merits. The internet has a LOT of hysterical nuts, and avoiding bad words decreases your chance of encountering them.
Real life is similar.
The system works fairly well, so why fix it?
(Naturally, I avoid these words when talking to others because many other people have the same approach as I do)
So... to each his own.
I stand by every word I wrote, whether anybody likes it or not. I'm not swearing off "swearing" where I think it's called for. But I've concluded that "profane" language was called that for a good reason. I stand by every word I wrote about sex, and I'll say it again: The sexuality of an individual can stand no higher and no lower in the scale of Creation than stands that individual.
I think the word you're looking for is "incorrect" since one can be false as you say, and still quite rational.
Your analogy of a gymnast, and mine of placefillers are both correct. Used skillfully, Glenn's "Heh" and "Indeed" can quite clearly mean different things, but used not skillfully, which is considerably easier, they can be verge toward meaninglessness.
As to politics and changing 1)There are a lot of reasons why vulgarity is not great, straws in the balance, each not sufficient by itself. 2)In my initial post I alluded to politics and subtlety. But the question is, if its not good for GWB to cuss out Barbara Walters on national TV for being an idiot, then why is is ok to cuss out someone in private?
Yes, there are a lot of people who are quite articulate and swear a lot. There are also a lot of people who take the lazy path and substitute placefillers for more precise words.
You're a writer Dean. Its easier to write "The man walked to the park." But its usually better to write "The gangbanger, by turns, strolled and strutted to the lush, riverfront sward." But it requires more energy and thought to do the second.
And I've seen people use swear words to try to draw attention to themselves, attention they otherwise did not deserve. No, not everyone who swears is doing it as such, in fact, many people do it as utterly natural as breathing. I suspect that most people who swear are not such blatant frauds as that.
No doubt some people do dislike vulgarity for the exact reasons you have said. Lets assume that those who claim to have other reasons (of the about dozen reasons given) are also telling the truth. That means my theory that vulgarity is not generally good for society is true.
Your general theory reminds me of grievance liberals, the modern-day liberal, not the classical liberal you aspire to. And that is my harshest comment. The others are really not meant to insult you personally which is the way you seem to have taken it.
What can I say, despite or perhaps because of my avoiding vulgarity, I am afflicted with imprecision. Maybe I shouldn't have said "most" instead "a lot of". I make up my arguements on the spot, dredging up old theories by the half-dozen from previous years. But this game is not much fun when the other party is getting red in the face. And if I had avoided it, I would have had at least one more short story written. Time to be responsible.
Okay, one last point. While I'm reasonably sure its not reciprocated, I do hold you in a great deal of respect for your character, intellect, and wide range of interesting topics which are all a very large part of why I come to Dean's World.