Let me begin by saying “I don’t swear.” That is to say, I am not accustomed to using the common vulgarities that serve to punctuate modern social discourse. This might seem to be a morally pretentious statement, but I would argue that it is grounded on a fundamental philosophical insight given by Aristotle in a passage from his Politics. The passage is worth quoting in its entirety:Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal who has the gift of speech. And where as voice is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the just and unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state (Aristotle, Politics, Book I, 1253a.1-19 – Emphasis mine.)
Aristotle made a distinction between voice and language. A voice is merely sound indicating pleasure or pain, but language has political and ethical dimensions. Language is a means by which human beings make distinctions between good and evil, just and unjust. “Language”, as my professor Dr. Robert E. Wood likes to say, “is reason laying down its tracks in a system of signs.” Reason cannot fully articulate itself in the sound of a voice. It needs the more refined mode of signs, in the form of letters that form words which can be strung together in meaningful patterns or sentences, which can be multiplied endlessly to create discourse.
The problem with swearing is that it is more voice than language, more animal than human. Swear words are not chosen for the meaning they convey, but rather for their impact. Swearing is used to punctuate and emphasize discourse in the same way that exclamation marks function. Swearing is a base form of communication that indicates “perception of pleasure and pain.” It is akin to the barking of a dog, the howling of a wolf, or the crowing of a rooster. Swearing isn’t meant to mean anything. It is simply meant to make an impression. The swearing that passes for language in modern social discourse is essentially a counterfeit language that heralds a de-volution of the human subject to a more animal state. After all, as Aristotle points out, human beings have language but animals have only voice. The reliance on swear words to punctuate and emphasize discourse reveals an undeveloped vocabulary and the failure of human reason and this failure has political and ethical ramifications.
Later in the Politics, Aristotle connects indecent speech to indecent action and gives his most virulent opposition to its practice:
Indeed, there is nothing which the legislator should be more careful to drive away than indecency of speech; for the light of utterance of shameful words leads soon to shameful actions. The young especially should never be allowed to repeat or hear anything of the sort. A freemen who is found saying or doing what is forbidden, if he be too young as yet to have the privilege of reclining at he public tables, should be disgraced and beaten, and an elder person degraded as his slavish conduct deserves (Aristotle, Politics, Book VIII, 1336b.14-11 Emphasis mine.)
While Aristotle’s suggestion of penalties for those uttering “shameful words” is hardly defensible in a modern context, his point is clear and instructive: the language we use creates an ethical framework for action. Isn’t it clear, that thought takes form in language and language becomes an environment in which human activity takes place? One example of this might be the way “hate speech” functions to create unsafe environments for “outsiders” and cultivates animosity towards them in those who employ this type of speech. Swearing is similar. Using swear words to communicate in sound what cannot be articulated in language can lead to behavior that is fueled by passion rather than reason. One need only consider how often unethical behavior is preceded by “F- it!”, or something similar, which serves to cut-off the psychic disturbances of fear, anxiety or guilt.
Now, I anticipate that some of my readers will argue that placing limitations on language is tantamount to censorship and cultural tyranny, and I sympathize with the underlying sentiment in this objection. However, I am also persuaded with Slavoj Zizek, that “Our freedom of choice effectively often functions as a mere formal gesture of consent to our own oppression and exploitation (Zizek, Violence: Six Sideways Reflections, 147.)” The descent of the human subject from language to voice in the act of swearing is a consent to limitations, not a freedom from them. To shout obscenities in public, or season regular discourse with generous “f-bombs”, reveals one’s limitations, not one’s freedom. To have a command of language and to choose among the many words and patterns available to the rational being, is an exercise in freedom. To bark expletives rather than searching for the most appropriate word to express what one is thinking is an exercise in intellectual laziness that is the first symptom of the fall of man.
I think this is a reasonable meditation, and one that may be more persuasive (in grounding itself in the authority of Aristotle–a move, I’d like to note, that finds itself midway between voice and speech, and occupies that third vocal register: echo [I don’t mean that as a dismissal; it’s certainly a normal part of language-use, and I don’t mean to suggest myself as an exception to that; and yet, it challenges the very distinction you are here echoing) if also having recourse to the Rhetoric. To read the Politics as against swearing because it doesn’t operate as a reason-sign but is meant to be evocative (I don’t actually buy that definition of swearing, by the way, but I want to give you your donnée), that is, one would have to clarify why Aristotle seems so content in the Rhetoric to lay out list after list of meant-to-be-evocative-but-not-necessarily-reasonable strategies, and would need to grapple with the explanation he offers for that there (an explanation that jives well with his pragmatic treatment, in the Politics, of a variety of sub-optimal but nonetheless workwithable political systems). Mind you, I find myself personally ever at the verge of being willing to be persuaded to stop swearing, but the doxa that one swears because one hasn’t got a firm hold on the language lost its persuasive force for me a while ago; if you end up retooling the argument, though, I’d be interested to rehear it
.
John, I couldn’t agree more.
By the way, it was good meeting and talking with you last night at the Texas Bar & Grill. Hope to see you on campus.
Cheers,
Jackson Eskew
“But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man” (Mt. 15:18)
So if you don’t use the common vulgarities do you employ the more uncommon ones? If so I say good for you. People are so uninventive with their swearing these days.
The uncommon is never vulgar.
Check out the latest post on my blog which refers to this article.
http://globalgonzo.blogspot
Yes! A voice of reason. Thank you for this well thought out post.
Swearing only degrades an individual’s character, whether or not he or she actually does have an extensive vocabulary or not. Size of vocabulary does not determine one’s ethics or morality, but WHAT one actually says does give a pretty clear picture of what is in “the inside.” Many feel a lesser amount of respect for those they hear throwing “f-bombs” around for fun, so I myself don’t swear. It’s nice to see someone else who feels the same way.
I object, firstly, to this sentence:
“One need only consider how often unethical behavior is preceded by “F- it!”, or something similar, which serves to cut-off the psychic disturbances of fear, anxiety or guilt.”
You appear to have your direction of causality backwards. “Fuck it” is said after the decision is made, it does not cause it. You could make the argument that people inclined to take unnecessary risks are also inclined to use swear words, but again this does not have any sensible connection to the argument that one should not swear.
I do not understand why you replaced “Fuck it” with “F- it” in what is clearly quoted speech used as an example. While it does not directly contradict anything you have said in the article (unless I’ve skimmed it), it does suggest that you have another unrelated reason for either not swearing or not letting others see you swear. To quote another’s swearing for an example in your argument does not bring out the ‘animal’ in you any more than quoting a disagreeing political standpoint for the purpose of disagreeing with it would imply that you agree with it. If I quoted a creationist claim on a theoretical blog I don’t have, would I need to abridge it to “The earth was c***ted 6**0 y**** ago”, to show that I don’t agree with it? This is obviously an absurd situation, but in this post you state that the reason that you don’t swear is because you feel it degrades you and equates your communication to that of a less intelligent animal, and that reasoning alone is not enough to justify abridging the phrase “Fuck it”. It may not be the case, but that very small nuance alone leads me to believe that this post has its roots in rationalization.
As for the entire post itself, I present two points:
- Are we not all animals? Are other animals, other than in intelligence, in any way ‘worse’ than humans? We follow our basic animal instincts day by day. We eat, we sleep, we crave social contact, we seek sexual partners, we seek pleasure and we avoid pain. Instincts are not to be suppressed or to be ashamed of, and doing something closer to instinct than to rational thought is not something to be shunned on that basis alone.
- Doing something you may perceive as unintelligent or worthless does not cause these labels to irreversibly weld themselves onto the person performing the action. If a mathematician was asked “What is two plus two?”, and responded with the correct answer, would this mean his level of intelligence was that of a pre-schooler? If a mathematician answers an almost insultingly simple question, this does not imply that he is unintelligent. In the same way, if a human uses “voice” instead of “language” for communication, it does not detract from the fact that he is also more than capable of using language, and the case may be that he is better at using language than any of us here – the fact that he would choose to swear cannot shed light on any other characteristic of his personality other than the fact that he chooses to swear.
I do not agree with not swearing. There is a time and a place for swearing, just as there is a time and a place for rational discourse, and there is a time and a place to rely on your instinct (If you are about to be run over by a car, I can’t imagine a conscious assessment of the situation would do you any good at all). Swearing does not imply that you are something less than human, if you wish to read that far into it, the most you could reasonably glean from it is that the person who chose to swear did so because it was more befitting of the situation than any other action.
If you hit your thumb with a hammer (oh my, what a typical situation for this type of argument), then you have a rather wide array of choices for what to do next, including:
- Shout “Ow, fuck!”
- Shout “Aaagh”
- Say “That really hurt”
I have also ordered these three options in descending order of which I feel is the most appropriate for the situation.
The swearing option will imply a sense of distress, and rightly so, and also provide a little release for the pain – it’s been shown ( http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/12/10/Study-Occasional-cursing-can-ease-pain/UPI-43391323558192/ ) that swearing can in fact help ease pain a little.
The second option would be very similar in effect to the first, but would in the same way involve only a basic “voice”, not “language”! The reasoning in this post would also condemn such an outburst on the grounds of reducing our level of communication to that of other animals.
The third option is, to put it bluntly, plain silly. Not only does it not help ease or cope with the pain, but such a controlled outburst for something that seems like it should be so much more intense might lead the listener to believe that this person is not sincere. Not only that, but asserting to the world that you have just caused yourself a little pain is vacuous in itself. Who cares? Nobody can or will do anything about it. In that way, it is still no better than the previous two in that it communicates no more to the listener than the previous two, does not help the person uttering it in coping with their pain, and is rather ironically more open to misinterpretation.
There is a time and a place for “language”, and a time and a place for “voice”. We should be ashamed of neither.
I’d also like to add on:
Other examples of ‘voice’ over ‘language’ condemned by this post’s line of reasoning include:
- Laughing instead of saying “That was very funny”
- Saying “mhm”, instead of “yes”
- Screaming instead of saying “Look out” / “I am scared”(?) / “How surprising/shocking” / “Don’t jump out at me like that”
- Sighing instead of verbally expressing disapproval or disappointment (or attraction)
- Crying instead of announcing your sadness in English
To me, the reasoning in this post just does not stand up to scrutiny and I do believe that the writer of the post has another different reason for not swearing, perhaps one that would have benefited from being included in this blog post.
Thank you for your clear and robust critique. Let me respond to a few of your criticisms.
First, if I understand you correctly, you suggest that my claim that swear words often precede “unethical behavior” involves a causal mistake because swear words are often said after the decision to act has been made. This further clarification actually substantiates my point. My claim was not that swear words are used prior to decisions, but prior to behavior. I agree that decisions or choices, which Aristotle understands as deliberative desire (desire shaped by deliberation), are prior to actions, and it is precisely in the space between decisions and actions that expletives are used. Additionally, I don’t see that I made a causal argument regarding swearing and unethical behavior; my only claim was that swearing is often used to cut-off cognitive restraints on action.
Second, you allude to a subsidiary reason for the argument that swearing is more voice than language (this is actually the central claim), but you don’t suggest what that reason might be. I am happy to explore the possibilities. Can you elaborate?
Third, yes we are animals, but, as Aristotle reminds us, we animals that express our rationality in language, which distinguishes us from other animals.
Fourth, I agree with your claim that there is a time for rational discourse and a time to rely on instinct, but with one qualification, namely that human instinct still bears the mark of rationality, in that it involves memory, imagination, and judgment. Would you agree with this claim, or do you understand instinct as an irrational psychochemical reaction to stimuli?
Finally, regarding the use of swearing to alleviate pain, the argument is only valid if it can be shown that the specific words (i.e., those designated by society as vulgar and offensive) are the particular cause of the pain alleviation, which is unlikely. It is certainly the case that the experience of pain is lessened by vocal expression, but it’s not clear that the specific words have anything to do with this.
Thanks again for your comments!
Thank you for a swift response!
The claim that swearing can precede unethical or high-risk actions is undeniable, but the fact that the decision was made before the swear word was uttered leaves me wondering what role the swear word plays in this – it seems to be a by-product of the decision, not directly affecting it. If it does shift one toward a riskier mode of thought, then that raises the question of what difference this makes once the decision has already been made. Perhaps it warns those nearby to be wary
.
As for the subsidiary reason(s) implied for the argument that swearing is more voice than language, (I assume you are referring to what I most recently posted) I could only speculate on the reasons, but as I mentioned in my previous comment the reason I suspect there may be other reasons for that argument (or for the objection to swearing itself) is because in other examples of (almost-)meaningless utterances with little-to-no linguistic value, there is an apparent double standard in that these are considered acceptable whereas swearing is considered for that same reason to be something to be actively avoided.
I have implied in my previous comments that I feel that swearing being less language than vocal outburst is not alone reason to avoid it – it is a reason not to give it preference where vocabulary is concerned, but to me it does not seem to be a reason to explicitly exclude it as an option at times when it would adequately express your feelings.
Some reasons (or I suppose in this context they could be called straw men) I have toyed with for actively avoiding swearing include the social impact or perceived vulgarity of it, that it demonstrates a lack of vocabulary, and that it is indicative of a puerile mindset. The first reason depends on who you are addressing, and is also somewhat self-perpetuating. Someone more idealistic than me might suggest that this might no longer be the case in two generations’ time. The second reason I feel is a rather strange ground for objection – as long as no preference is given to swear words over other words, this is not the case. It also does not demonstrate a lack of vocabulary any more than punctuating sentences with the phrase “y’know” might. The third reason is grounded in opinion and appears to completely rely on the validity of the first reason (while arguably demonstrating an overly judgemental mindset in those who espouse this opinion!).
To answer the question you pose,
“[...] Would you agree with this claim, or do you understand instinct as an irrational psychochemical reaction to stimuli?”
(I am not a psychologist) I would partly agree, but I think that in a lot of cases it is due to instinct being acted upon by the conscious mind. One rather common instinct – to seek food – is one that is often processed in its entirety by the conscious mind. There are other instincts which have this property to a much lesser degree though: breathing is capable of being acted upon by the conscious mind (and just having read that sentence now, this has likely become the case; sorry!), but generally proceeds without any conscious intervention whatsoever. An example at the opposite end of the spectrum would be the phenomenon that occurs when you place your hand unknowingly on a hot surface; without even thinking about it, you will remove the hand as soon as possible. While this is possible to overcome consciously, it is often difficult to do so.
If one’s instinctual (or likely, habitual) response to a situation is to swear, then I see no reason to consciously suppress this unless it becomes extremely regular or a problem with interpersonal relationships.
The study on swearing alleviating pain found that for those who used swear words regularly, to the point that they no longer showed an emotional response to those words, the pain was not relieved to the same extent. This does suggest that other words may not have the same effect, unless they were similarly treated as shocking or taboo.
To be clear, the points which I have not responded to in this post are points on which I fully agree.
I hope I don’t ramble too much, this is starting to look like an essay.
Swearing simply disturbs more people than not so it is within reason to avoid it entirely by recondition the brain (which I have done). Non-suppressed animalistic behavior lacking any discernment from love or wisdom can lead to many root causes of disease and also hurt people around you (case studies show this). If you have a wife or have experienced a truly loving relationship then she would most likely disagree with any of your assessed reasoning above.
Living a notable and worthy life requires one to live a life of love and speak positive words of encouragement at all times. This concept has changed my life from being a narcissistic self-centered person into a man that now devotes his time towards the greater cause of helping those who truly need it.