Sans Fig Leaf
w
"Blankety-blank"
13 March, 2008
One time when I was in
grade school, I was shocked to see on the cover of a comic book the
hero saying, "This injustice shall be avenged. I vow it!"
Now I'm shocked at how
dialogue both hokey and awkward would be
granted such prominence, but back then I was shocked because right
there, in
print, being sold to us kids, was a good guy swearing. I eventually
mentioned it to my mom, who was a bit confused, and then finally
figured out that, being the literalistic kid I was, all those times
that Sunday school teachers and preachers had talked about how sinful
it was to "swear" I had never realized that they meant cussing.
Which isn't to say that I
didn't know that cussing was wrong, but I'd
just never made the connection that cussing and swearing were the same
thing. Whenever my dad let loose one of his trademark strings of
profanity, for instance, the other adults in my life would admonish him
for cussing in front of the kids. Whereas the first time I heard
someone at church talk about the sin of "swearing" I had apparently
gone and looked up the word in the cheap little pocket dictionary I had
been given at a very early age, where the definition was something
along the lines of "to assert as true or promise under oath; to vow."
I do remember once asking
a Sunday School teacher why it was sinful to
promise under oath, and she had said it was because we should never
"take the Lord's name in vain." But when I tried to get a more explicit
and concrete explanation, she got all flustered. This may have been one
of the times I was sent out of class for being disruptive. Not unlike
the time I said, "I thought that Mary was a Virgin because she'd never
made love" after the Sunday School teacher had spent an excrutiatingly
long time answering our interminable questions about what she meant
when she said "never, ever touched by any man at all." But that's a
story for another time.
I'd also tried to ask my
great-grandma about it once, while we were
watching Perry Mason together--she was the world's biggest Perry Mason
fan. There on TV we saw witnesses placing their hands on Bibles and
swearing to tell the truth. I didn't phrase my question quite right, so
Great-grandma thought I was asking about why some people's religious
beliefs prevent them from swearing an oath on the Bible.
So from all these
euphemisms and miscommunications I had gleaned the
idea that the actual taking of a vow was great and terrible sinful
except under certain complicated circumstances, such as when one hand
was placed on a Bible or Torah for certain legal or religious purposes.
Thus leading to my shock at the comic book cover.
What I didn't understand,
even after Mom explained that "swearing" was
sometimes a synonym for "cussing," was why speaking certain words is
sinful or evil. Particularly the ones that refer purely to biological
functions. It became more confusing as I got older and realized that it
wasn't sinful to talk about "making love" or to use clinical terms for
certain body parts and functions.
It wasn't until much later
that someone pointed out to me that, in
general, the word for a particular body part or function which in
English is considered crude or offensive is almost always the one based
on the original Anglo-Saxon. Whereas the term that was considered
clinical or otherwise acceptable in certain uses was always the word
for the exact same body part of function derived from either Latin or
Greek. Which has led many scholars to trace this all back to the Norman
Conquest, where the conquering overlords spoke French, while the
conquered peasants spoke Old English (Anglo-Saxon). Others trace it
back a little earlier, to a time when medical care, such as it was, was
most often available only from monks, who might have described
otherwise unmentionable things in Greek or Latin terms when they had to
be discussed at all.
Of course, other languages
which do not share English's developmental
history contain offensive words which refer to the same body parts or
biological functions. But there are plenty of languages that don't
consider those words inherently offensive. Which leads one inevitably
to the conclusion that it's all about cultural expectations and
conditioning.
Some people try to construct elaborate arguments about how resorting to such language proves one simply lacks an adequate vocabulary. But since the man who was often described as the most articulate and erudite person of the last few decades once resorted (during a televised debate) to calling another oft-lauded articulate person, "a stupid faggot" it's hard to believe that the only reason people use offensive words is a lack of knowledge.Besides, those arguments still sidestep the whole question of why, for instance, it is acceptable to refer to a urine sample, but considered somewhat indelicate to call it peeing in a cup.
Others argue that offensive words should be reserved for only the most extreme circumstances. That way when they are deployed, other people understand that the speaker is in severe distress, et cetera. I certainly accept the underlying premise of this argument: the more we use taboo words, the less power they have. Which is the reasoning for some minority communities actively embracing derogatory terms for themselves, to take away that power to hurt. Unfortunately, as the derogatory words lose power, hateful people just make up new insults.
Being a writer, I would
never argue that words don't matter. All words have power to varying
degrees. Some can be quite destructive. But the destructiveness is
dependent on the context, and if used judiciously, any word can be the
right word.
But those same words can
be the wrong word. If offending the people around you is not your aim,
you should think twice before using some words in casual conversation.
Because it's wasteful to deploy a
cannon when a fly-swatter will do the job, and ludicrous to hurl
mudpies when a scalpel is called for.
There ought to be a room in every house to swear in.
--Mark Twain
.