What the *%$k!? Vicar resigns

It is almost enigmatic: Church Times - Brynmawr’s Vicar resigns. Surely there must be more to it than this: "An unnamed cleric told the Western Mail that he had formally complained about Mr Grey. “I was very concerned at the language he used in a conversation he had with me. It is entirely inappropriate for a clergyman to use four-letter words.”"
Can it be that a clergybeing has really been 'encouraged' to resign for swearing; or is that 'cussing'; or even 'profanity'? And there you have it. We can't even agree what to call it because the issue differs according to who is judging and where it's happening. 'Swearing' puts it in the territory of not taking the LORD's name in vain in particular by making some kind of oath or truncated oath (thereby also trespassing onto Jesus' 'Do not swear' from the Sermon on the Mount). 'Cussing' seems to have distinctly dialectal overtones -perhaps even of the wild west and may well be a variant of 'cursing' (certainly would be in Black Country dialect) -which probably means saying nasty things to or about others but possibly God. 'Profanity' seems to be taking the idea that the profane is something that shouldn't be uttered in God's hearing; it's beyond the bounds of decency.

Of course there are all sorts of difficulties here. Taking the LORD's name in vain would, strictly speaking, be nigh on impossible. The Jews of yore did such a good job of protecting the name so that it couldn't be taken in vain, that no-one now knows how to pronounce it. That's why many English Bibles put the word in capitals: to signal that it's "that" name -God's special name -which we don't know how to say.

Quibbles aside, though, we know what is meant here in actual fact. Using 'holy' titles and names to express anger, disgust, surprise and so forth. But this doesn't seem to be the what was being referred to. "Four-letter words" are not generally characteristic of 'swearing' in the sense of using 'holy' words in profane ways: most of those words are not four-letter words. "Four-letter words" geneally refers to a set of allegedly 'Anglo-Saxon' words referring to copulation, excretion or genitalia (mainly female). It is one or more of these which I think we're are supposed to understand to be 'inappropriate for a clergyman to use', or at least to do so as freely as it appears this gentleman is accused of doing. I know clergy who, in moments of extreme frustration (for example) and where they feel safe enough to do so, will use the occasional such word.

What I'm curious about is why such language should be considered 'inappropriate' for clergy. And this may require us to think past our first reactions and our cultural reflexes into places we so take for granted that the mere questioning of them seems almost ridiculous and /or offensive. But there we must go, dear reader.

You see there is a problem with all of this 'swearing' stuff. The stuff to do with invoking God or Christ 'in vain' is one thing: many believers find it jarring to hear words that, for us, have affectionate and devotional connotations being bandied about with aggressive or casual intent. However, the words to do with sexual acts, bodily wastes or genitals are another matter. There isn't a God- or devotion agenda involved with them. It might be understandable that a vicar could be leaned on to reconsider his position if he was in the habit of misusing God-words. But what would be going on with these other words?

Well, I think we need, first, to ask what is offensive, to whom and when? The first is partly answered above, Ttough some more things should be said: we should note that what constitutes offensive language differes from language to language and culture to culture. Broadly speaking it seemss that sex, excreta and the sacred normally provide the referents but which of these is considered most offensive varies. In Quebec French, for example certain catholic symbols are the most offensive, similarly in Spanish (where 'milk' is an offensive thing to say, because it's short for 'milk of the Virgin'). And of course it isn't the word itself; there's nothing mystical about the sounds. Indeed there is amusement to be had in finding innocent words in one language which sound like 'rude' or offensive words in another\ (even if on a visual pun like Thailand's Phuket). We should also note that it isn't the referent either, or at least not on it's own: most of the referents of 'four-letter words' can be expressed with more polite or acceptable words or phrases: "sex" or "poo", for example.So I'm not entirely convinced by Stephen Pinker's neurological explanation regarding the disgust factor. It's not the concepts that are taboo (though I will admit that in some company and circumstances the subject matter may be considered 'indelicate', but that's not really the same though it may be linked to the extent that the Stephen Pinker view works).

The second (offensive to whom) is something of a sociolinguistic issue as is the third (when) which also takes in pragmatics. Asking 'who is offended?' can yield some interesting observations: class differences are often involved: working class swearing hooking middle class offence, for example. This can then act as a group marker expressing solidarity and enacting differentiation: 'we' are the ones who dare to say what 'they' can't bring themselves to say (and the concomitant possibilities for image-building as, say, 'tough'). So was the vicar actually committing social class 'sins' by swearing. I'd guess there is likely to be a big chunk of this aspect in the matter: (I'm guessing on the basis of precedent) a middle class congregation for whom these words are taboo find a vicar using what they associate as 'common' and even 'offensive' terms which are certainly not acceptable in their normal speech. His choice of such language marks him as someone who is not 'one of us' and so suspect of moral deficiency or of allying himself with the 'wrong' sort of people.

And then there's the 'when?' question. There are social circumstances in which it might be considered relatively 'okay' to swear/cuss: sports occasions (see picture above !?) are often such. And some occasions where a word might be shocking (a royal banquet, perhaps). Sometimes the pragmatics of cussing is about enacting a solidary relationship: by greeting someone with an insult, one can be saying, in effect "We're the same, we are (potentially) friends ...". That's why the N-bomb can be used among black people but not in a mixed race conversation, for example. And of course, the words can be used as distancing even repudiative: when we want to express our disgust with or violent  objection to someone or something, the 'profane' words can be very helpful (hence the apostle Paul's use of a word supposed to be such, in one of the epistles).

This latter usage, though also shows up the problem over time. The power of such words tends to lead to their overuse which lessens their impact over time. In my lifetime and experience words like 'bloody' and 'shit' have become so common that their impact is now like 'damn' was when I was a kid (ie no-one thought it heavy duty except for a few older people). This leads to a search for new sufficiently 'offensive' terms to use for the more extreme ranges of emotion and circumstance, hence "motherf****r" seems to be coming into range.


See my previous posts on 'profanity'

cursed profane swear words

I was surprised to see this in 'How stuff works' but it's there and quite useful as an intro.
HowStuffWorks "How Swearing Works":
It picks up a number of points I have already made in posts with the 'profanity' or 'swearing' tag, in particular:
"the use of particular expletives can:
* Establish a group identity
* Establish membership in a group and maintain the group's boundaries
* Express solidarity with other people
* Express trust and intimacy (mostly when women swear in the presence of other women)
* Add humor, emphasis or 'shock value'
* Attempt to camouflage a person's fear or insecurity"
Recall that my main emphasis is to help us understand that the middle class prejudices about this form of language are just that and that they may not connect well with truly Christian concerns. About the only connection, really, is about loving neigbour in presentation of ones ideas, but we need to be wary of im/exporting attitudes cross-culturally.

Offensive language again

TSK has a look at some of the issues around bad language in Christian circles. What he adds to debates already referenced on this very blog is an interesting historical classification.
"In Premodern times, the most offensive http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifwords were excommunicatory in nature. ... In Modern times, which is where many people still live, words that cause most offense affront our personal and private sensibilities. ... In our Post-modern times, as the voices of the margin dwellers and powerless have been given consideration and brought to the center, it is exclusionary language that causes most offence."
I'm actually still thinking about whether I agree; I tend to think that the more productive analysis is still the sociolinguistic one about power and solidarity (and could relate to seminal sociolinguistic work on pronouns of solidarity and power in French etc), which could play into the pomo idea Andrew offers, but would need some tweaking or reworking, I think. I quite like his ethics of speech that he lays out. I think that I would add a biblical model which might be helpful and, I guess, supports my own approach: sometimes we should use the verbal equivalent of Jesus' turning over the tables in the temple. For that to work, though, we would need to be people who don't overuse such words so that they lose their impact. My kids know I'm really cross if I 'swear', for example, because I rarely do. I keep certain words for high impact. Like Andrew, I try to be aware of my audience, and sometimes that means taking account of generational mores and sometimes it might mean realising that some hearers make certain kinds of judgements if they don't hear certain kinds of words (there is a solidarity function in some contexts) ... Can we really be all things to all people even in our speech? Some people find putting aside their own sensibilities for the sake of the other too much. But then we do also have to consider the personal and existential auhenticity of such speech acts.

You might want to refer back to some of my earlier comments. Of course, I tend to home in on the linguistic dimensions. Who gives a ... about profanity, theology of profanity, more on profanity.

TallSkinnyKiwi: Offensive language: I Think My Mother Taught Me: See also a helpful post on Julie Clawson's One hand clapping blog.

More on profanity

You may recall my interest in the linguistics of profane speech with regard to what it may do to help us sort out an ethics of speaking in relation to what is commonly called 'swearing'. Well I came across this rather useful little article looking at the biblical texts usually used to argue against using swear words. The passages I have usually taken to refer to habitually 'dirty talk' and speech likely to arouse impure passions rather than the use of the occasional profanity. I think that the writer (Peter J. Leithart) agrees.

Paul says that our talk should also be free of EUTRAPELIA ("crude joking") but rather full of EUCHARISTIA (the pun in v. 4). As noted above, Paul himself appears to use vulgarities in some circumstances; when he encounters crap, he calls it "crap." And the Bible shows no sign of the embarrassment about bodily functions that we often have. But those uses of language have times and places. Paul says our talk as saints should not be characterized by vulgar words, sexual innuendo and jokes, scatological humor. Many people today cannot utter a sentence without using an obscene word, and that kind of speech has no place among Christians. Especially since Freud, some try to make everything into a veiled sexual reference, and that kind of pervasive double-meaning is also excluded.

Incidently I can't quite work out whether quoting a couple of sentences that Peter writes is okay by his licence, but I think that in any case fair use rules and the conventions of citation mean that this should be okay, partcularly as I quite with approval!

Technorati Tags: profanity, swearing, language, linguistics, sociology, theology

A Theology of Profanity

Here's a good set of links about the issue of profanity or swearing with a particular eye to Christian responses. Unhappily it misses my posts and so the perspective that I outline in relation to the sociolinguistics of the matter are not there.

A couple of the posts referenced seem to me to be worth a further look. One of them, from a Reformed perspective, usefully reminds us

these words began to cause negative reactions in some people because they considered them to be offensive. However, there is nothing magical/spiritual in the sounds or meanings of the words themselves that caused this association. Rather, it was the contexts in which these words were generally used. For nearly every profane word usage, there is another non-profane way to say the same thing that does not cause the same negative reactions in those who are more sensitive to profanity. But this does not mean that the words themselves are somehow evil sounds. ... I say this as someone who formerly used profanity extensively, but who now feels uncomfortable even to hear it used. I don't use that language because in my current society people don't appreciate it, and they take it as greatly offensive. I am among those who don't use it, so I don't use it. However, if my situation were reversed, it might be less offensive to use it than to appear "better than" the people whose company I was keeping.

Which pretty much lines up with my own posts.

A more novel, to me, approach is put forward by Richard Beck in Texas.

my analysis is this: Verbal profanity is "vulgar" because it goes from this:
Romantic Love = (Spiritual overlay (physical act of sex = animal reminder = disgust)) = Mixed but generally positive feelings
to this:
F**king = (physical act of sex = animal reminder) = disgust/profanity/vulgarity
where the spiritual overlay is ripped away by the vulgar reference, exposing two animals having intercourse. The vision is insulting (for the reasons I've outlined), thus the F-word is profane.

However, he hasn't factored in the matter of the plain use of 'sacred' words or religiously charged words nor the power dynamics of the sociolinguistic contexts. Nevertheless, I think it does expose one vein of the psychological dimensions -even without having joined that up with class and power dimensions.
two or three . net: A Theology of Profanity
Filed in: profanity, swearing, language, linguistics, sociology, theology

In French-Speaking Canada, the Sacred Is Also Profane

I've blogged about 'profanity' before. I've pointed out that it is usually about the desire to shock the powerful and assert thereby a group solidarity over and against those experienced as oppressive. So 'profanity' or 'swearing' is not a simple issue and Christian attitudes about it often reveal that we're more beholden to the powers that be than the early Christian church might have found believable. But what happens if the oppressor is the church? Well ...

the Quebecois ... adopt commonplace Catholic terms -- and often creative permutations of them -- for swearing. In doing so, their oaths speak volumes about the history of this French province.
"When you get mad, you look for words that attack what represses you," said Louise Lamarre, a Montreal cinematographer who must tread lightly around the language, depending on whether her films are in French or English. "In America, you are so Puritan that the swearing is mostly about sex. Here, since we were repressed so long by the church, people use religious terms."
And the words that are shocking in English -- including the slang for intercourse -- are so mild in Quebecois French they appear routinely in the media.

It is true that some linguistic minorities use words to swear that come from the majority language community, and perhaps, assuming that is true, it is about showing a degree of contempt ...? I suspect that the psychological dimension is using words contemptuously that would shock and distress members of an oppressive community. I recall that Iberian Spanish uses some religious words in a way similar to the Quebecois.

It's not the words, it's there sociolinguistic impact that's the issue. If we are to have an ethic of profanity we need to situate it accurately in terms of the performative value it has. I note that the Apostle Paul used strong language in order to get a strong point across strongly. Sometimes language should be used shockingly; the verbal equivalent of turning over tables in the temple. Sometimes, probably more often, we need to remember the sensibilities of others and the impression we leave ...
In French-Speaking Canada, the Sacred Is Also Profane - washingtonpost.com:Filed in: profanity, swearing, language, linguistics, sociology, Quebec, French

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

swearing

Maybe you recall on the fourth of the Alien films -the one set on the penal colony full of wierd fundamentalist Christians- the convicts although professing a religious faith swore quite a lot and this was explicitly okayed on the basis that it was not blaspheming. I was brought up in a household where swearing was disaproved of and to this day the only time I swear is when it is an expressing of the most extreme anger or distress [so about twice a year on average!]. Now I see this as a personal/cultural thing because, as a linguist I had long arrived at the point where I saw things like at 'BadChristian':
"Their vulgarity is completely a cultural construct. These words don't derogate any group of people. Most often they refer to fecal matter or sexual function. I don't believe that limiting my vocabulary to words deemed culturally acceptable makes me any more holy".
I actually agree, though associating swearwords with potential holiness is a piece of mental flexibility I have yet to attain at a gut-level. For this reason I wasn't all that shook up about the language on the Jerry Springer-the Opera programme. I've been in circles where that kind of language is normal and I can't really condemn people for speaking in the idiom and style to which they have become accostumed and are known in. In fact in terms of what seems to lie in the heads and hearts of the speaker it seems to me that far more unrighteousness is possible behind mild words such as "Get lost" than might be behind "F**k you!" [See: I can't even bring myself to write it!]. Echoes of Jesus' words about murder in the heart and 'it's not what what goes into of your mouth .... unclean' might be as easily in our culture 'it's not what comes out of your mouth...'

Where I draw the line is speech that is contemptuous or belittling of others [including much so-called humour] and of God. For the rest I would say that it is better not to swear because it offends some, perhaps many people and it is better to cultivate habits that mean you are less likely to unnecessarily offend others... On the other hand perhaps they need to lighten up ... In my clergy role I constantly deal with people who apologise for their use of 'bad' language. I'm still trying to find the best reply to convey that I'm not offended and that I suffer no great distress from hearing them use those words.

On a more discursive note: I think that a lot of it has to do with culture. On the other hand it is interesting to note how fashions in swearing change. Quite clearly at the turn of the 20th century words like 'damn' were pretty heavy duty -which surprised me a a child because quite clearly they were just a bunch of phonemes to express crossness with something. Words that were considered heavy duty swearing when I was young [eg 'bloody' and 'shit' -this is in the UK] now seem to have a similar status to 'blimey' and 'blast' [both of which were probably 'racy' in their day] and we're finding new [to me] words like 'motherfuck~' and cognates [apologies] to carry force. Now this ongoing evolution seems to point to a factor that is worth thinking about: power to shock; once usage wears it out they start being relatively acceptable and more 'respectable' people use them and so shocking enough words have to be coined to 'exclude' [?is that what's happening?] 'classier' people ...

It's interesting to note that linguistic minority languages, allegedly, often use the swearwords from the 'dominant' language: in Basque the swearwords are Spanish for example; it may have been that the Saxons used Norman French swearwords. perhaps. Though that implies a convoluted history to be using Anglo-Saxon words to swear with now -I guess once the elite started using a Normanised Anglo-Saxon /proto-English then the words most redolant of 'common-ness' would be most likely candidates.

Cross culturally there are interesting issues to be looked at: I am told that Russian, at least in the Soviet era, used 'hell' [khui] as one of the worst swearwords; atheist regime and all. Swedish is reputed to use words connected ith the devil to swear with ...

It seems to come down to what counts as shocking to the 'respectable' in English that is the key factor. And 'not /respectable' is a pretty culturally shaped concept.
a badchristian blog... - the swearing thing: