Profanity, vulgarity and me (and you too)
I’m a faithful fellow. I don’t blog about it too much, mostly because I’m no theologian or prophet (and because I don’t blog often in general). But I believe in God, and Jesus and his resurrection, all that good stuff. (And it is good stuff.)
Anyway, I haven’t always been a faithful person, nor did I throw off all my pre-Christian habits when I came into the fold. One of those is cursing/swearing/profanity — all of which, in my view, are loaded words. To be sure, my wife Shelley tries to discourage me; generally speaking, I’m not coarse in casual conversation. Truth be told, most of it goes on inside my head, though occasionally it spills onto the page (or the post), and when it does I’m pretty defensive and unapologetic.
You see, I’m of the mindset — rare indeed in Christian circles — that using profanity isn’t necessarily sinful; in fact, at times I think it’s entirely appropriate. That’s not to say my F-bombs dropped at someone cutting me off in traffic are from a righteous place; they’re not and I shouldn’t. But sometimes a character in a book or a particularly strong point can be emphasized with a well-placed harsh word, and I for one think that’s the whole point.
I mention all this because the Supreme Court has decided that not only can the FCC fine broadcasters for programming that contains systematic use of “dirty words” — there used to be a list, though it seems to have dwindled somewhat — but that even one-off, spontaneous utterances of the words ____ and ____ will incur fines.
What words? you ask. Well, the Supreme Court wouldn’t even write them in its opinion, but I’ll give you a hint: One starts with a whisper and ends with IT, while the other starts with FUH and rhymes with truck. They call it the “Bono rule,” because the U2 singer likes to use the F-word as an adjective — not, mind you, any kind of verb describing a physical act.
Anyway, it’s a bad call. But don’t take it from me: This column in the New York Times makes the case much better that these two banned words have become something less than vulgar:
Writing for the majority last week, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that it was “entirely rational” for the F.C.C. to conclude, as it did, that one particular curse “invariably invokes a coarse sexual image.”
Does it? The evidence is mixed. Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary and the author of a book on swearing, described the F.C.C.’s argument as “rubbish.” Although the word in question originally referred to a sexual act, Mr. Sheidlower argued, it has now taken on an independent “emotional” sense. The nonsexual use of the word can be seen in countless contemporary examples, as when Vice President Dick Cheney used it in 2004 to recommend that Senator Patrick Leahy do something that is, strictly speaking, anatomically impossible. …
In 1623, the English Parliament passed legislation to prohibit “profane swearing and cursing.” Under that law, people could be fined for uttering oaths like “upon my life” or “on my troth.” In the Victorian era, the word “bull” was considered too strong for mixed company; instead, one referred to “gentlemen cows.” Times change, notwithstanding the fervent wishes of prescriptivists to keep dirty words dirty. [bolds mine-R]
This entry was posted on Saturday, May 2nd, 2009 at 10.29 pm and is filed under media, pop culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
SUBSCRIBE TO 
EMAIL THE 
May 3rd, 2009 at 8.34 pm
I never really understood the big hullabaloo about profanity anyway. Does it actually say in the Bible that people shouldn’t swear, aside from the whole “do not take my name in vain” thing? Sure, people sound stupid when they swear every other word, but I’m with you — a well-timed profanity can make ‘em laugh, make ‘em think, or just plain vent some feelings.
May 29th, 2009 at 6.23 am
Justin,not usually one who comments, I must say nice post tags.
May 30th, 2009 at 7.53 am
There’s a part of me that agrees with you, although I am not sure that part of me isn’t the self-aggrandizing, “dont-tell-me-how-to-use-my-mouth” ego. I think languages will always gravitate toward abrasive language, because its humans who speak them, and humans themselves gravitate toward the abrasive, the vulgar, and the profane. I recognize that profanity can be very effective when used sparingly, but it is pretty difficult to ensure that its use will have the desired effect, especially when much of our culture has serious hang-ups with certain words.
The curse word, as a sound, is simply that, and despite what some ancient western clergy thought, there are no sounds inherently sinful or satanic. The world of sound is simply one part of this material world, all of which was created by God, the Holy Mighty and Holy Immortal, and all of which is capable of being offered back unto God by humans as a royal priesthood.
I always thought Danielson, though perhaps a bit naïve, was on the right track when he encouraged his listeners to “shake hands with that middle finger.” In other words, our bodies, words and thoughts are to be transformed from the “worldly,” profane uses we have devised for them in our iniquity, and offer them as sacrament to the living God who is all and in all.
I am inclined to agree with Wendell Berry when he said, “There are no unsacred places; There are only sacred places. And desecrated places.” The same could be said for words.
May 30th, 2009 at 12.41 pm
I guess what I’m getting at is that, by “banning” the words, all the FCC is doing is ensuring the continued perception that these words are really rough, really pushing the envelope. Maybe it’s good that they stay that way? I’m not convinced…
I’m reminded of the scene in “A Christmas Story” when Ralphie utters the F-word and what horrors follow because of it. Yet he heard the word, from his own father at that! There’s surely a double standard there. It echoes what the NYT writer alludes to: a federal government whose highest officials use such words in public acts of rage in places and during hours that we are paying for, and yet this same government is going to decide for people whether “their children” (read a certain segment of society that gets way too bent out of shape over bad words on TV) could be allowed to hear those words.
Meanwhile, parents can turn off TVs; viewers can choose their own morality, and not have it dictated by government, and make their own impact by not watching “NYPD Blue” or whatever else… After the first couple of years, that show’s ratings tanked; they kept “pushing the envelope” but the actual content lacked, and the marketplace (read everyday TV viewers) saw fit to get rid of it. Let people decide, for heaven’s sake, what they feel comfortable watching.
May 30th, 2009 at 12.45 pm
I should add: You may respond with, “But what about pornography?” The difference, though, is obvious, where pornography truly harms not only viewer but participant; it exploits women and leads to violence and destabilizes culture, whereas profanity does none of these things.
May 31st, 2009 at 2.39 pm
I should add: I didn’t respond with anything. But I could suggest that the line between pornography and the everyday tube intake has become, and is becoming ever more indistinguishable. Profanity in television may only be part in parcel of the gentle ravine that now separates the two.
I should note I am not necessarily in favor of the FCC’s decision. It is relatively irrelevant. Rather, my point above was that language can be a sacred thing, and arguing for the normalization of a word – by all accounts still a vulgar word, regardless of it’s semantic use (and I am speaking here of “fuck,” not “shit”) – seems to me nothing more than an argument for the wanton desecration of language. You are not necessarily making this argument, but we need to avoid making it. That line, too, can get a little blurry.
The nytimes writer, for instance, does himself no favor in citing the Cheney incident, since Cheney’s use of that word very explicitly incites the “coarse sexual image,” as does the term “motherfucker.” The fact that it does not immediately occur to us as such when we hear it perhaps suggests our own dimwittedness and/or desensitization, rather than any intrinsic semantic shift.
October 21st, 2010 at 9.27 pm
Will be Visa card be charged more then once?