Latest Articles by Sarah Canice Funke
A friend recently expressed frustration over the prevelant use of vulgar/curse words by Christians and inquired whether using vulgarity was ever permissible. This was my somewhat lengthy response:
First, I would like to say that I would rather hear the R-rated "f---" all day than the PG-rated "OMG." I cringe whenever I hear the latter, though culturally it is considered quite acceptable.
Which brings me to some serious thinking about language (a la Wittgenstein): is language meaning largely the result of the way we use words rather than what they refer to (in a sense-reference theory of meaning). Wittgenstein gets at the way people relate to language and through language much better than Russell, Moore, and Frege do (in my opinon). If usage determines meaning, then, "darn" and "heck" are no different than the words they stand in for: they are used in precisely the same situations to express the same kind of real anger/frustration, pseudo-anger for comedic relief, or attention-grabbing emphasis.
However, Bakhtin talks about how each form of language (way of saying something: in this case anger) also communicates meaning. In this case, "darn" does mean something different from "d---." "Darn," being culturally coded as more acceptable than "d---," can therefore mean "I am angry, but not so much that I seek to blatantly offend you."
I also believe that curse words related to bodily functions (such as "sh--" and "f---") are inherently harmless: it's the way they are coded as vulgar in our post-Victorian society that makes them offensive. If, for example, "tablecloth" came to mean something crude instead of the covering on the table, then it would be offensive, too, but not because of anything inherently wrong with tablecloths. I am wondering, though, if alternatively "sh--" and "f---" become used so often in certain contexts (mostly among the younger generation or else sailors, I guess) that they lose a degree of offensiveness. You may be offending society at large, but not anyone immediately around you if you use those words in this context.
"D---" and "h---" are slightly more problematic because of their invocation of curses on other people or things (although, funnily, in our post-Victorian climate, considered far less crude and thus less offensive...). However, I think that unless you are seriously expressing anger towards a specific person ("D---" you!"), then these words fall under the same guidelines as "sh--" and "f---." We are called not to use vulgar language, but what is vulgar depends on how everyone 1) in the larger society and 2) immediately around you has been taught to react to the words.
Which brings me to my conclusion: vulgarity depends upon context. And I would rather err on the side of NOT using vulgar words than to risk offending anyone. There are, on occasion, a few times when a well-placed four-letter word is the best way to indicate, culturally, that I mean business. I never use four-letter words in face-to-face conversation, however, because a) the degree of offensiveness seems to go up in immediate contact and b) I have opportunity to communicate the degree of seriousness and emphasis I want to through facial gestures and expression. (Anyway, I am so used to NOT using the words, that I would be far from convincing.)
Regarding using coarse words to convey pseudo- or mock anger designed to make others laugh. I guess it depends on your view of parody and whether it is healthy or beneficial to imitate a less-than-desirable state in order to 1) critique it and 2) dispel anxiety about it.
I will conclude with a reference back to my initial comment: I really think that the list of words that cannot be culturally diffused is small, probably limited to taking the Lord's Name in vain and the intentional damnation of another human--since that usurps God's power and is thus a blasphemy in itself.
And so while hearing people say "f---" around me all day has gotten to be second nature, I still cringe every time I hear "OMG" or Christ's name though it occurs with the same frequency as the former.
Posted by funke at 14.03.06 7:56 | TrackBack | Posted to Literazzi | PhilosophizingWhile I am often first in line in the context of culture argument in Eph.5 we are told to gaurd against this type of language. Saying F--- or any other word are not up to me,the parties in the conversation, or society to judge but for God.
I find that I use the most profanity when I am alone going over the day or have lost something. What this points out to me is an inner anger and base approach to looking at my problems.I think that when we use them we are expressing an independence from our culture and from God that we do not have. God placed us in this place as salt and we are dependent upon Him to keep our saltiness.
personaly I wish that i was a bit more salty in this matter.
Good comments both of you. Ephesians 5 seems pretty clear about speech--.."neither filthiness, nor foolish tlaking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting..." Refrain from these, it's saying, not because they are inherently EVIL, but it's just not the right way to use our words. I think some use that language to show their freedom from childhood restrictions in a Christian home.
Posted by: sperlonga at 14.03.06 11:08Thanks for your post, Funke. Working with construction workers I'm hearing all sorts of language on a daily basis: one can't find his d--- shovel, another says the d--- truck is a d--- mess, and another says he's gonna quit doin' somebody else's s--- all day and start his own d--- business.
I can relate to your comment that you are so used to NOT using the words, that you would be far from convincing, because the few times when I've felt a four letter word appropriate to convey the seriousness of a situation (like when their traffic control guy had put the wrong signs up for an interstate lane closure and he was questioning me when I said to change it) I realized that I wouldn't sound convincing, because they know that's not how I talk.
Posted by: joel at 14.03.06 21:04...but perhaps not using coarse language in my speech is a way of being salt and light in my speech, a way of speaking with grace.
Your post is insightful though, and I agree that mis-using Christ's name is a much more serious problem.
Posted by: joel at 14.03.06 21:13