Who gives a @#$% about profanity? - Mar 28, 2006

In my circles it tends to be called 'swearing', but mostly and more precisely what is meant is 'crude' words, 'shocking' words, words that offend, most of them in English have four letters and Anglo-saxon origins. The referenced article from CNN seems to be hinting at a 'ain't it awful?' undertow but without conviction because, as the figures in the article show, many of their potential audience might actually get shirty about the finger-wagging at them.
It makes me wonder about this topic. I don't habitually use 'profanity': I do tend to find that my emotional reaction to hearing such words is one of shock or annoyance and disapproval. It's about my upbringing and a sense that 'nice' people don't use such words. But why?

Well, I think that nice people don't use them because they can offend others. Of course this is a bit of a self-fulfilling cycle thing. However, our language is full of fossils of words that once were offensive but are no longer; showing that this effect

"Everybody is pretending they aren't shocked," Martin says, "and gradually people WON'T be shocked. And then those who want to be offensive will find another way."

has already been taking place for some considerable time. Middle class victorians baulked at 'hell', 'damn' etc, and produced sanitised versions of them such as 'heck', 'dash' and so forth. But now, no one worries about 'hell' and 'damn' in speech or writing and the sanitisers are rather quaint. And the quote is right, as such words become unshocking new ones are produced. Where they are produced from is the interesting thing and tells us something about our culture. In English they are words to do with sexual acts or excretory bodily functions and the words are ones that are considered [by middle classes, powerful social groups] to be crude, perhaps childish almost. I suspect part of the point of such words is to shock powerful social groups as a kind of act of revenge for being marginalised. It also acts as a social marker: the fact that you are willing and able without embarrassment to use such language marks you out as being 'tough' [not like those mealy mouthed middle classes]. It is a statement about social position and your attitude to it. That's why it is important to invent new ones when the old ones lose their edge; ways to mark solidarity and resistance are needed beyond the cooption of the words by ever 'politer' society. A bit like music and fashion, really.

Of course, there is also the issue that some of this is a kind of verbal tic for some people. A way of not saying 'er' or 'um', of slowing down speech to thinking speed and buying thinking time.

Is it a Christian issue? Yes, what isn't? But not in the way that those who unthinkingly take Christian mores from 'respectable' society. I tend to think that not swearing when there are people who might take unnecessary offence around is an exercise in loving your neighbour. On the other hand, it may be important to make solidary links with less 'respectable' people, and the odd profanity might help.

We should recall that the words are not good or bad in themselves. There is nothing 'magical' about the string of phonemes. It is only their effect on others that matters. God is not offended by the sounds, only by the intention on our part to offend others whom God loves.

CNN.com - Who gives a @#$% about profanity? - Mar 28, 2006:
Filed in: language, profanity, swearing