09.21.04
Posted in culture at 10:05 am by
I’ve been thinking about blogging on this topic, and Hugo’s post really pushed me over the edge. I’m a big believer in swearing. Strange, I know. I think that popular Christian culture has it wrong when it comes to derogatory words. Take this list for example (certianly non-exhaustive):
The F-bomb
the s-word
ass
damn, etc.
These words are, in communication and speech lingo, symbols. Culturally, these symbols have garnered a bit of a taboo. But from where does this taboo arise? To tell the truth I don’t have a good answer to that question. Perhaps it may be helpful to examine the relationship between symbols, references, and referrents. As we said, symbols are words. These symbols bring to mind thoughts (references.) These references or thoughts are inextricably tied to a referrent (the actual thing.)
That’s confusing, let’s look at an example, the concept “table.” The symbol in this case is the word T-A-B-L-E. It is a collection of letters. Of course, these letters have a connection to a reference or a thought. When I say the word table–you can picture in your mind not just the word “table” but also a tangible image of what a table may look like. Now you couldn’t sit down next to this “thought-table” and eat dinner. For that you’d need to find the referent - a table that you can set a plate, silverware, a beer, and possibly a napkin on and eat–and drink copious amounts of beer.
Now let’s apply this construction to a word commonly held to be derogatory by Christian popular culture. Shit. (Let’s use it as a noun.) In order to determine why a word is derogatory, one must examine all three of the conceptual constructs of the particular framework of a word to determine the offending party. The symbol “shit” doesn’t seem to me to be particularly offensive. It is in a sense simply a collection of letters or sounds. If this particular collection of letters or sounds were inherently more offensive than others one should see a common intercultural derogation (despite the temporal framework it appears in) of the symbol “shit.” This is not the case. If I go to France and say “shit” to an exclusively french speaking person, they may be confused–as they don’t understand the language I speak–but they wouldn’t find the word particularly offensive (unless, by chance the symbol “shit” is in French has a different reference and referrent that ARE offensive.) The symbol “shit” is not offensive.
How about the reference. The concept of shit. When I say the word (noun or verb, really) one can conjure up a mental picture of what I mean. Now, your image may be gross, but gross is not on par with derogatory. Most folks think of the reference “vomit” as gross but by no means is the term “vomit” a derogatory concept. Likewise, if the reference of “shit” is what makes the term derogatory, one should not see any homonyms in the english language that are not derogatory. Yet, “poop”, “feces”, “crap”, “terd”, etc. carry far less socio-religious cultural taboo than “shit.”
Finally, the referent. The physical thing, “shit.” Again, gross, perhaps but no more gross than crap or poop or feces. So why the semantic derogation? The best I can come up with is that certain terms have become culturally taboo–even though these terms in their symbolic make up do not have a particularly negative connotation.
Now, I’m not arguing the cultural rules aren’t valuable. But, let’s call a cultural rule a cultural rule. Certain contexts demand adherence to cultural norms. For example, I’m making the toast at my brother’s wedding this Saturday. Were I to drop the F-bomb 10 or 20 times, this would represent a cultural insensitivity. However, there are appropriate conditions to use what I am going to call “terms socio-religiously deemed inappropriate.”
My problem is not with the words, though, that are deemed derogatory as much as the words that aren’t. (Thanks to Hugo for reminding me of this!) You see, these words that Christians rally against the use of are often not used in negative contexts as often as they are to highlight a point. For example, If I say something is F***ing stupid. Here the f-word highlights and intensifies stupid. Cool, appropriate use of the “f-word.” However, if I use the term “f***ing bastard” I’m using that term to derogate a person who, I might add, was created in the image of God (in my opinion.) Inappropriate use. (Check a few posts back to note what were probably several inappropriate uses of this particular derogative…I openly and sheepishly claim self-hypocricy here.)
But, as Hugo points out, there are other words that are commonly used and seen as far less derogative (though probably still seen as less than kosher for use in worship) that are far MORE harmful. The term “pussy” for example has undergone a seriously negative semantic shift. (Bear in mind that this is but one of many examples of a negative semantic shif for words that are associated with the feminine.) This term however is most often applied to a man who people wish to derogate. To make him “less male” to erode from his power, and the way that this is done to utilize a feminine word…because–the conventional wisdom says–women are less powerful than men.
It’s my pet peeve that in the phrase “f***ing pu**y” that the word “f***ing” would be the most offensive word of the phrase, when, in fact, if you think of all the implications of using the term “pu**y” it is probably much more derogative than the word “f***ing,” which simply serves as an amplifier in this case.
I’m not sure, of course, on all this and as always I’d welcome your thoughts–though I do reserve the right to disagree. I’ve really only given a cursory treatment here to the concept of the negative semantic shift of female linked words…as such, I haven’t really done the concept justice. What do you think?
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/21/the_contextual_cuss_word/trackback/
Posted in culture at 10:05 am by
I’ve been thinking about blogging on this topic, and Hugo’s post really pushed me over the edge. I’m a big believer in swearing. Strange, I know. I think that popular Christian culture has it wrong when it comes to derogatory words. Take this list for example (certianly non-exhaustive):
The F-bomb
the s-word
ass
damn, etc.
These words are, in communication and speech lingo, symbols. Culturally, these symbols have garnered a bit of a taboo. But from where does this taboo arise? To tell the truth I don’t have a good answer to that question. Perhaps it may be helpful to examine the relationship between symbols, references, and referrents. As we said, symbols are words. These symbols bring to mind thoughts (references.) These references or thoughts are inextricably tied to a referrent (the actual thing.)
That’s confusing, let’s look at an example, the concept “table.” The symbol in this case is the word T-A-B-L-E. It is a collection of letters. Of course, these letters have a connection to a reference or a thought. When I say the word table–you can picture in your mind not just the word “table” but also a tangible image of what a table may look like. Now you couldn’t sit down next to this “thought-table” and eat dinner. For that you’d need to find the referent - a table that you can set a plate, silverware, a beer, and possibly a napkin on and eat–and drink copious amounts of beer.
Now let’s apply this construction to a word commonly held to be derogatory by Christian popular culture. Shit. (Let’s use it as a noun.) In order to determine why a word is derogatory, one must examine all three of the conceptual constructs of the particular framework of a word to determine the offending party. The symbol “shit” doesn’t seem to me to be particularly offensive. It is in a sense simply a collection of letters or sounds. If this particular collection of letters or sounds were inherently more offensive than others one should see a common intercultural derogation (despite the temporal framework it appears in) of the symbol “shit.” This is not the case. If I go to France and say “shit” to an exclusively french speaking person, they may be confused–as they don’t understand the language I speak–but they wouldn’t find the word particularly offensive (unless, by chance the symbol “shit” is in French has a different reference and referrent that ARE offensive.) The symbol “shit” is not offensive.
How about the reference. The concept of shit. When I say the word (noun or verb, really) one can conjure up a mental picture of what I mean. Now, your image may be gross, but gross is not on par with derogatory. Most folks think of the reference “vomit” as gross but by no means is the term “vomit” a derogatory concept. Likewise, if the reference of “shit” is what makes the term derogatory, one should not see any homonyms in the english language that are not derogatory. Yet, “poop”, “feces”, “crap”, “terd”, etc. carry far less socio-religious cultural taboo than “shit.”
Finally, the referent. The physical thing, “shit.” Again, gross, perhaps but no more gross than crap or poop or feces. So why the semantic derogation? The best I can come up with is that certain terms have become culturally taboo–even though these terms in their symbolic make up do not have a particularly negative connotation.
Now, I’m not arguing the cultural rules aren’t valuable. But, let’s call a cultural rule a cultural rule. Certain contexts demand adherence to cultural norms. For example, I’m making the toast at my brother’s wedding this Saturday. Were I to drop the F-bomb 10 or 20 times, this would represent a cultural insensitivity. However, there are appropriate conditions to use what I am going to call “terms socio-religiously deemed inappropriate.”
My problem is not with the words, though, that are deemed derogatory as much as the words that aren’t. (Thanks to Hugo for reminding me of this!) You see, these words that Christians rally against the use of are often not used in negative contexts as often as they are to highlight a point. For example, If I say something is F***ing stupid. Here the f-word highlights and intensifies stupid. Cool, appropriate use of the “f-word.” However, if I use the term “f***ing bastard” I’m using that term to derogate a person who, I might add, was created in the image of God (in my opinion.) Inappropriate use. (Check a few posts back to note what were probably several inappropriate uses of this particular derogative…I openly and sheepishly claim self-hypocricy here.)
But, as Hugo points out, there are other words that are commonly used and seen as far less derogative (though probably still seen as less than kosher for use in worship) that are far MORE harmful. The term “pussy” for example has undergone a seriously negative semantic shift. (Bear in mind that this is but one of many examples of a negative semantic shif for words that are associated with the feminine.) This term however is most often applied to a man who people wish to derogate. To make him “less male” to erode from his power, and the way that this is done to utilize a feminine word…because–the conventional wisdom says–women are less powerful than men.
It’s my pet peeve that in the phrase “f***ing pu**y” that the word “f***ing” would be the most offensive word of the phrase, when, in fact, if you think of all the implications of using the term “pu**y” it is probably much more derogative than the word “f***ing,” which simply serves as an amplifier in this case.
I’m not sure, of course, on all this and as always I’d welcome your thoughts–though I do reserve the right to disagree. I’ve really only given a cursory treatment here to the concept of the negative semantic shift of female linked words…as such, I haven’t really done the concept justice. What do you think?
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/21/the_contextual_cuss_word/trackback/
Wow said,
September 21, 2004 at 10:30 am
Ya… I’ve thought about this stuff a lot too. There are still words that I find offensive but that’s all it is - *I* find them offensive, because of associations I’ve had… Not because they are in themselves offensive. For instance, I’m ok with most “swearing” most of the time but if someone is angry with me and they begin throwing those words AT me, then it’s not OK anymore. I try not to do that myself. It’s just something I feel strongly about but I’m not saying I think everyone needs to abide by that. Cause why is that any different than when I call the guy on the highway who cut me off an asshole? (because he can’t hear me is it OK?) I’ve moved and lived in christian circles where this was taken to extreme. So, Shit is no different than crap or poop so we will only use the scientific term. (somehow that makes it better) And Darn is really saying DAMN and Goll is really saying GOD and we shouldn’t do that so we will not say those words and we will judge others who do as bad christians.
I think that I wonder a lot about “coarse talk” as it is spoken of in the bible… I think that we should be careful in our words and that there’s power there… but I don’t know honestly if there needs to be rules about WORDS. We all know the difference between if I call myself a dumbass (which I do because I think it sounds funny when I’ve done something ridiculously stupid - we all know I don’t REALLY think I’m a dumbass.) or if I call YOU a dumbass because I think you’re being a jerk. There’s a difference in the heart, I think. Am I making sense??? So ya, that’s my 1.5 cents.
Visiting Atheist said,
September 21, 2004 at 2:09 pm
I’ve never understood the point of calling words “bad” in and of themselves, apart from context. I can’t think of a single social setting where a traditional four-letter insult can’t be surpassed by a carefully-worded “clean” insult.
One thing that irks me to no end is that many people (particularly in our grandparents’ generation) tend to be more offended by foul language than by language used for foul purposes. One of the more memorable church services of my childhood was the day there was more uproar over the youth minister’s use of “crap” in communion meditation than over the preacher’s suggestion that we should ask people who don’t like America to leave the country.
However, I do think “swearing” is something that you absolutely do not do if you’re trying to come across as professional, which is why I sometimes swear in my writings to remind people that my thoughts really aren’t as polished as they might be, dammit.
Cheers,
VA
Streak said,
September 21, 2004 at 5:59 pm
Good post. I can appreciate that words can be abusive and Wow’s point that swearing in anger AT someone is much different than someone swearing in a humorous story or swearing about something stupid. My frustration with the church on this point is the ranking they give to swearwords. They often seem to care more about the f-bomb than they do about poverty, environmental or social justice, etc. Good people I know are more put off by swearing than they are by some acts of evil. I don’t get that.
Just Pat said,
September 21, 2004 at 6:11 pm
I don’t have much to offer on this one. I think communication is important. I think communicating in love and in truth is important. I love adjectives, and sometimes “vulgar” adjectives do the best job of describing our intent and our thoughts. Sometimes not.
VA is right. No matter what we lay on the Church on this topic, much of the secular professional world puts vulgarity in a box that must be very carefully opened, or one is labeled low brow. Hmmm.
Benjamin said,
September 21, 2004 at 11:50 pm
I spent a summer working on a dairy when I was in college. The owner was very, very, very Christian - no smoking, no chewing, and definitely no swearing. He also worked the piss out of us, and when I put in 90+ hours the first week, I knew I was getting screwed on pay.
Anyways, I still remember the time he dropped a very large pipe full of water on his foot. Myself, I might have let fly with some fine anglo-saxon verbiage - fuck fuckety fuck perhaps, with a mother- or two dropped in for good measure. All he said was “Oh you dirty wallaby”. So, very Christian. Particularly when he threatened to withhold my wages for the month of August because he saw me smoking while I was driving a tractor.
My current pet peeve is when newspapers or commentators resort to euphemism when someone uses the fuck-word *cough* Dick *cough* Cheney *cough* in front of a camera and it needs to be talked about - I guess if we only use the first letter, Granny in Ohio won’t think it when she hears it.
And then there was the summer I spent working with truck drivers, where I really learned how to swear….
Levi Durham said,
June 6, 2005 at 8:14 am
Long ago, I remember seeing a book of funny/odd facts (actually I was helping the church’s choir director move), that did posit an explanation for why these words are taboo. According to this book, It all goes back to 1066, with the Norse/French invasion of England by William the Conqueror. So, England, at this time, had a working class speaking its own language (Anglo-Saxon(Old English?)), a clergy that spoke another language (Latin), and finally, a government with it’s own language (French). Ultimately, it was the French influence that drove these words into ill repute, (e.g. piss becomes urine). So, the words are bad because of their Germanic origin.
OK (or is that “Aux Ques”?), I actually just found this page while looking for information on contextual markup with xhtml, and just kinda went off on this rant….I’ll be going now.
graham said,
June 7, 2005 at 6:22 pm
Good thoughts on “fucking p**sy.” Thanks.
Kay said,
July 25, 2005 at 1:22 am
I hate GD…but what the fuck is wrong with an idiot?
U know better, ur A FUCKING IDIOT!
THANKS BUNCHES, KAY
Brian said,
May 8, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Well, I think that the reason why Christians should not swear is because the bible says that we are to live like Christ. Did Christ swear?
Also, I believe that as Christians, we are to serve as examples to all of humanity. We often associate “cussing” with “bad” or “hateful” people. Do we as Christians want to appear to be this way by associating with people of that nature? No. Why would anyone want to be a Christian if they can be equated with such people?