You are here

Home

Problematic language for problematic times -- systemic function of expletives?


Mysterious Complementarity between Capitalism and Arsenalism (Part #5)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Much is made of the degree of socio-economic inequality (Worldâ-'s billionaires have more wealth than 4.6 billion people, Oxfam, 20 January 2020). At the same time there is widespread commentary on unrest and the rise of populism articulating the dissatisfaction of the underprivileged. The language of experts and elites has proved dramatically inadequate to any appropriate remedial response. Curiously, if only in etymological terms, it is appropriate to note the relation between "populism", as the deprecated expression of the people (in contrast to democracy) and "vulgarity" as the deprecated language of the common people (L. G. Andersson and P. Trudgill, Bad Language, 1990).

Expletives and profanity? As conventionally understood, an expletive is a word or phrase inserted into a sentence that is not needed to express the basic meaning of the sentence. Expletives are not however insignificant or meaningless in all senses; they may be used to give emphasis or tone, to contribute to the meter in verse, or to indicate tense. Expletive is commonly used outside linguistics to refer to any socially offensive bad language (namely profanity), whether used with or without meaning. Within linguistics, an expletive always refers to a word without meaning, namely a syntactic expletive or expletive attributive. In this technical sense, an expletive is not necessarily rude. Of some experiential relevance is any use of "expletion" to imply a satisfactory state of being filled to the full, namely fulfilled.

The etymology of profanity implies a desecration of the holy. The difficulty addressed by the above argument is the proliferation of domains variously considered "holy" or "sacrosanct" -- whether the belief system is academic, legal, strategic, or otherwise. Thus for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

Profanity is disrespect or contempt for sacred things. It includes casual or irreverent use of the name of any member of the Godhead. It also includes any type of unclean or vulgar speech or behavior... Foul language is both degrading and harmful to the spirit. (Profanity: Overview)

The extent to which what is held to be sacrosanct by some is experienced in practice by many others as "sub-holy" -- if not "un-holy" -- can be understood as evoking "legitimate" profanity.

Of relevance is the origin of the expression expletive deleted as a substitution -- marked [EXPLETIVE DELETED] -- in the redacted versions of the transcripts of tapes of discussion within The White House during the era of Richard Nixon. Recognizing the potentially shocking nature of profanity-laden discussion, that substitution was made. In the light of Nixon's understanding of profanity, comparatively minor outbursts like Christ and hell were also replaced as expletives.

Research has found a consistent positive relationship between profanity and honesty. Profanity was shown to be associated with less lying and deception at the individual level and with higher integrity at the society level (Gilad Feldman, et al. Frankly, We Do Give a Damn: the relationship between profanity and honesty, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 2017, 7). The conclusions are however currently disputed by critics (Reinout E. de Vries, et al, Honest People Tend to Use Less -- Not More -- Profanity, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 2018, 5).

Missing from such treatment is any systemic appreciation of the role of such expletives, as separately discussed (Interjections as a set of emotive qualitative judgments, 2010). The latter framed an earlier preoccupation with pattern-breaking interjections and expletives and the possibility of indication of more fundamental patterns (Interrelating Emotive Interjections in Response to Integrative Failure, 2010). Given the use of Twitter by leaders, as instigated by President Trump, the argument can be tsken further (Re-Emergence of the Language of the Birds through Twitter? Harmonising the configuration of pattern-breaking interjections and expletives, 2010; Sonification of Twitter Leadership at the G20: a surprising musical opportunity for Donald Trump to sound a new note, 2017).

Cursing? Missing as yet are the systemic functions of particular forms of profanity in decision-making contexts, despite a degree of more general appreciation (Kirstin Wong, The Case for Cursing, The New York Times, 27 July 2017; Victoria Pynchon, The Case for Cursing, Forbes, 16 September 2011; Emma Byrne, Swearing Is Good for You: the amazing science of bad language, 2018; Timothy Jay, Why We Curse: neuro-psycho-social theory of speech, 2000). The latter concludes:

Curse words have been only of brief and passing interest to psychologists and linguists. The absence of research on emotional speech has produced theories of language that are polite but inaccurate. Contemporary theories ignore the emotional intensification that curse words produce in language, as well as the issues involved in cursing. Curse words are words we are not supposed to say; hence, curse words themselves are powerful. The words contain and are produced by social practices. The articulation of a curse word thus has incorporated into it social rules about gender identity, race, power, formality, prohibition, etc. Cursing research remains outside the mainstream of psycholinguistic and cognitive research. As suggested, the topic itself is perhaps too taboo for academicians. Even the research that has been done on cursing from a historical-social point of view perpetuates the marginalization of emotional speech in theories of language. (p. 18) [emphasis added]

Use of the term "curse" usefully recalls the superstition associated with a "powerful curse" -- usefully in that it implies an extra-systemic, "unholy" perspective challenging conventional articulations. Understood as an imprecation, malediction, or execration, it is any expressed wish that some form of adversity or misfortune will befall or attach to one or more persons, a place, or an object. Maledictology is the academic study of offensive and negatively valued words and expressions -- with its own journal (Maledicta: The International Journal of Verbal Aggression). The title usefully recalls the relation to weaponry noted above.

As founder and president of Spiritual Warfare Ministries, Pastor Kenneth Scott offers an unusual degree of clarification consistent with a religious perspective, presented as follows:

In our society we have begun to use profanity like it's a second language. These words are not simply empty, meaningless words. Each of these words are demonic incantations, evoking demons to bring up evil spirits. In Hosea 4:6, the Bible teaches us that our lives are destroyed because of a lack of knowledge. This book will teach you what each of these words mean, and tell you the specific evil spirit you are conjuring up when you use these profane words. After reading this book and learning what you have been doing in the spiritual realm when you speak profanity, you will stop using it, and thereby cut off Satanâ-'s access to your life. (The Witchcraft of Profanity, 2015)

Both the notion of a "second language" and that of "lack of knowledge" are discussed otherwise below. The difficulty for any religious articulation and its pejorative emphasis on "witchcraft" lies in the critique of the uncritical condemnation exemplified by the Inquisition and its demonisation of women, currently replicated with respect to any form of radicalism. This is effectively framed as "heresy" from a conventional perspective (Sady Doyle, Monsters, men and magic: why feminists turned to witchcraft to oppose Trump, The Guardian, 8 August 2019; Pam Grossman, Witches Are Having Their Hour, The New York Times, 11 October 2019; Wendy Griffin, The Embodied Goddess: feminist witchcraft and female divinity, Sociology of Religion, 56, 1995, 1). Ironically Donald Trump has frequently labelled efforts to impeach him as a "witch-hunt".

Consistent with the recognition that capitalism is essentially "evil", some explicitly associate it with a curse, even a form of enchantment (Alan Adaschik, The Curse of Capitalism, OpEdNews, 31 January 2014; Lalan, Capitalism is a Curse for Humanity, The International Marxist-Humanist, 23 January 2019; Alexander Karras, The Inevitable Curse of Capitalism: Loneliness, Medium, 5 Ocober 2018; Eugene McCarraher, Far from representing rationality and logic, capitalism is modernityâ-'s most beguiling and dangerous form of enchantment, Aeon, 22 October 2019; John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark, Ecological Imperialism: the curse of capitalism, Socialist Register, 19 March 2019).

Swearing? The point to be stressed is that such language may well be tolerated, and extensively used, in parliamentary committees, board rooms, and the like -- or in corridor discussion of formal debate. It may well be characteristic of aspirants to world leadership:

Noteworthy is the notorious description of Australia by its Prime Minsister, Paul Keating, as "the arse end of the world" -- and where this document was written -- a phrase subsequently incorporated into a musical. Also noteworthy is that Winston Churchill trained a parrot (alive in 2002) specifically to use such language. All the "bad" terms indicated below are however potentially characteristic of debates in some parliaments (or their corridors) -- notably in descriptions of political opponents.

As argued by Michael Adams, profnity weaves together linguistic and psychological analyses of why we swear -- for emotional release, as a way to promote group solidarity, or to create intimate relationships (In Praise of Profanity, 1981).

Authenticity? As the latter indicates, and as is evident in many films, use of such language is considered an indication of "authenticity" and grounded "realism". It is appropriately bizarre that, however "foul", "swearing" and the use of "oaths" should be associated as terms with the formality of telling the truth -- as exemplified by "swearing an oath" (Ruth Wajnryb, Expletive Deleted: a good look at bad language, 2005). As a solemn promise, or attestation of truth, types of oath may include:

  • Juror's oath, an oath taken by jurors at the beginning of jury selection or trial
  • Hippocratic Oath, an oath historically taken by physicians and other healthcare professionals swearing to practice medicine honestly
  • Oath of allegiance, an oath whereby a subject or citizen acknowledges a duty of allegiance and swears loyalty to monarch or country
  • Oath of citizenship, an oath taken by immigrants that officially naturalizes immigrants into citizens
  • Oath of office, an oath or affirmation a person takes before undertaking the duties of an office
  • Pauper's oath, a sworn statement or oath by a person that he or she is completely without any money or property

Use of "oath" may also include an oath of betrothal on the occasion of engagement prior to marriage. It is in this sense that recognition of the significance of the vocabularly associated with swearing merits attention.

Noun descriptors: The terms highlighted here are those of the English language (see The Online Slang Dictionary: American, English, and Urban slang). It is obviously the case that equivalents exist in other languages -- even more explicit, and possibly more offensive (if not blasphemous):

Process descriptors: Potentially more significant than the descriptive labels above -- so readily and frequently deployed -- are the processes with which they may be only too suggestively associated. These involve language which is necessarily experienced as far more deeply offensive and insulting, and possibly intentionally so. They typically take the form of adaptation of processes of sexual intercourse, urination or defecation. They may well recall processes used in torture, possibly that of a close relative, including a parent.

  • Fucking / Screwing / Nailing: Variations of these terms as verbs are probably the most common relational process descriptor employed. They are as evident in informal discourse amongst decision-makers and very extensively in discourse in movies (increasingly not restricted to those for "adult audiences"). The term may well be present as an expression of emphasis in any discourse considered as significant. It necessarily implies both a "subject" engaged in such a process, metaphorically understood, and an "object" experiencing it (voluntarily or involuntarily).

    Common variants include: "fuck you", "screw you", and "fuck off" -- with "piss off" as a natural alternative. As a characteristic of "assholes" or "jerks", use may be made of "jerking off", as a metaphor for masturbation (mental, emotional or otherwise). Manipulation of people, notably through use of fake news, may be recognized as "mind-fucking" (Colin McGinn, Mindfucking: A Critique of Mental Manipulation, Routledge, 2014; Christopher Wylie, Mindf*ck: Cambridge Analytica and the Plot to Break America, Random House, 2019). As the implied outcome of "illegitimate fucking", reference may be made to "bastard".

  • Fucking the world / Screwing the world: Extension of any focus on the individual, or on another group, can be made to the world as a whole, as articulated by Elizabeth Dangerfield (Manual for screwing the Earth, Australian Independent Media, Part I, 3 February 2020; Part II, Part III). This argues that:

    • Screwing the Earth is not difficult providing you are prepared to be forceful and deceitful. There are thousands of experts out there who think they know a lot about the planet and even more soft people who really care about the Earth. Once they get wind of what you are doing, they will not like it. Not to worry, they are so nice and generous-hearted that they are unlikely to make much of a fuss and with a bit of grit you will triumph over these reasonable and caring people. By the time most people realise what you are up to it will be too late to turn back the clock. The Earth will be well and truly stuffed like the proverbial turkey at Thanksgiving.

    Rightly or wrongly, many articulate their experience of injustice as "being fucked by the world".

    Whilst there are many references to "fucking the world" which are irrelevant to this argument, there is little difficulty in recognizing the relevance of the argument articulated in terms of "rape". Arguments have been made regarding the manner in which the IMF "rapes" the world (Dana Gabriel, The IMF: Raping The World, One Poor Nation at a Time, Borderfire Report, 24 April 2009; Lacy MacAuley, Don't Just Indict "DSK", Charge the IMF Too, Foreign Policy In Focus, 20 May 2011). For Walt Thiessen (IMF Head Rape Allegation Has Startling Parallels To World Economy, Nolan Chart, 15 May 2011):

    • In other words, the IMF wants to monetarily rape the population of the world, all in the name of "doing good", the way central banks have done for centuries. Central banks purport to "fix" banking and financial crises by creating mountains of new money out of thin air in order to give them to the banks that got themselves in trouble in the first place. The IMF does the same thing with governments that get themselves in trouble by borrowing more than they can afford to borrow. If the IMF gains the position of being the creators of a world-wide currency based upon SDRs, there is no doubt that they will do what all central banks in history have always done. In the long run, they'll destroy that currency and debase its value, thereby stealing money from every hard working person world-wide in order to enrich themselves and cover the enormous costs of their "good deed doing".

    The point is made in the review of a leaked report by economists associated with JPMorgan Chase (Kate Aronoff, Planet is Screwed, says Bank that Screwed the Planet, The New Republic, 25 February 2020), echoing an earlier assertion (Alexander C. Kaufman, The Planet Is Screwed If Democrats Don't Win The Senate, Warns Paul Krugman, HuffPost, 3 November 2016). The argument has been developed at greater length and with far greater elegance by Rebecca Solnit (When Institutions Rape Nations, TomDispath.com, 22 May 2011), introduced in the following terms:

    • How can I tell a story we already know too well? Her name was Africa. His was France. He colonized her, exploited her, silenced her, and even decades after it was supposed to have ended, still acted with a high hand in resolving her affairs in places like CÃ'te d'Ivoire, a name she had been given because of her export products, not her own identity. Her name was Asia. His was Europe. Her name was silence. His was power. Her name was poverty. His was wealth. Her name was Her, but what was hers? His name was His, and he presumed everything was his, including her, and he thought he could take her without asking and without consequences.

  • Fucking and being fucked: Use is frequently made of "fuck" as an expletive to indicate that some intended action has been blocked by an unforeseen process -- most notably by the action of others, or by some "glitch". This may include reference to "being fucked", or to "having been fucked", by competing interests.

    The consequence of such failure, especially in the case of a collective initiative, may be described as a "fuck-up" or a "balls-up". Corresponding to the recognition above of "fucking the world". There are many references to the world as "being fucked":
  • "Fuck-ups" / "Screw-ups" / Balls-ups": Reference to the Iowa voting processes of the Democratic Party as a "fuck up" is then indicative of the failure to understand that process in systemic terms. It raises the question of how the renewal of that strategic initiative called for recognition of processes embodied in the human reproductive process. More fruitfully understood, were the Democrats endeavouring to "make love" to Iowans -- with all that that process otherwise implies? The dsparity between between the experiential ideals of consummation and the outcome are then suggested by such profanity. Any distribution of blame misses the point -- however saitisfactory it may be as a surrogate for systemic comprehension. Would the Republicans have chosen to describe the Democrats as endeavouring to "screw" the Iowans? Would the chaotic voting process organized by the Democrats be readly described as a "fuck up"? (Emily Birnbaum, Iowa chaos highlights threat of domestic misinformation, The Hill, 4 February 2020).

    Of wider global relevance is how the recent UN Climate Conferences of COP25 and COP26 are suitably described as "fuck ups" and "screw ups" -- despite being framed as crucial. What systemic processes went unrecognized in the failure of both events to "make it"? Would critics tend to see the events as efforts to "screw" the global population?

  • Kiss my ass / Brown nosing: These processes are widely recognized in hierarchical systems characterized by currying favour and the expectation that this is appropriate (Peter Lukas, Who came up with the phrase "kiss my ass"? Quora, 8 December 2018; Deborah Parker and Mark Parker, Are We in a Golden Age of Brown-nosing? The new sycophancy, Psychology Today, 22 December 2017; . Abbey Slattery, Your Guide to Handling Brown-Nosing and the Rise of Ingratiation, Inhersight).

  • Shitting on / Pissing on: Use of these terms is made with respect to authorities or critics deprecating a proposed initiative. Disaster may be anticipated through use of the phrase "when the shit hits the fan" (David Black, What to Do When the Shit Hits the Fan, 2007).

In addition to the titles indicated above, in which the profanity is explicitly articulated, there are many recently published titles in which this is done by typographical implication, even in the mainstream media:

  • Mark Manson:
    • The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: a counterintuitive approach to living a good life (Macmillan, 2018)
    • Everything Is F*cked: A Book About Hope (HarperCollins. 2019)
  • Sarah Knight: F*ck No!: How to Stop Saying Yes When You Can't, You Shouldn't, or You Just Don't Want To (Voracious, 2019)
  • Morgan Field: Powerful As F*ck: Own your Shit. Live the Life of Your Dreams (Epic Sexy You Publishing, 2019)
  • Ryan Munsey: F*ck Your Feelings: Master Your Mind, Accomplish Any Goal, and Become A More Significant Human (CreateSpace, 2018)
  • Paul Parsons: IFLScience: 117 Things You Should F*#king Know About Your World (Running Press, 2019)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here