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.
Showing posts with label swearing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label swearing. Show all posts
05 August 2010
09 June 2007
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.
"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.
22 February 2007
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
21 January 2007
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
A more novel, to me, approach is put forward by Richard Beck in Texas.
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
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
07 December 2006
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 ...
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
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
06 April 2006
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
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
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
12 January 2005
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:
"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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)