Hell With It: “Swearing”, Some Thoughts

I got involved in a brief discussion about the concept of “swearing” recently. The whole thing started with one person’s desire for the popular Facebook page “I F-ing Love Science” to change its name (to remove the “F-ing”). This got me thinking about a lot of things that had been percolating in my brain for a while. Here’s the result.

I put the term “swearing” in quotes because I don’t really believe in the concept as such.

First, there have been a number of psychological studies that indicate significant benefits from “swearing”. Psychology Today lists seven positive effects from pain relief to non-violent retribution, elevated endorphins to humor. Positive Psychology News builds on physical pain reduction.

There are cultural elements too. For instance, traveling in Ireland and England, I noticed a tendency among natives to use “swear” words regularly and naturally. I’ve noted their use occasionally when CSPAN airs sessions of Parliament. No one seems to bat an eye, it’s natural not scandalous, in my experience. In Russia, the Kremlin recently put in place a ban on “obscene language”. These particular words, mat, “helped the country survive the brutalities of Stalin-era slave labour camps, win over Nazi Germany in World War II and ride out the turbulence of the Soviet collapse, supporters say.” They were extremely useful for centuries in expressing views about the government and other issues.

In English, at least, virtually all “swear” words focus on bodily functions and sex. Demonizing the words may reinforce the message preached for centuries by Roman (and later Protestant) Christian hierarchy that the body and sex are dirty and bad.

And some claim that the words are used for “shock” value. Honestly, I think that effect died long ago, though it may move in cycles. Few contemporaries, if any, were shocked when Chaucer used “swyve” (the 14th century equivalent of “fuck”) or when Shakespeare throws out his word play on “ass”. In the 1950s, I suppose some folks would be shocked to hear the words. Personally, by third grade (in a Catholic school) I could out-swear the proverbial sailor. Ironically, proscribing their use actually adds to shock value. Making them non-proscribed, commonly used words, weakens the words and lessens their “shock” value. This is one reason I think the “shock” value is gone today.

But, that leaves the question: why proscribe certain words as “obscene” or “swears” and not others?

For the English speaking world, specifically the U.S., I think the answer lies in a mix of religion and classism. I’ll hit the latter first.

How often have we heard that those who “swear” are demonstrating a small vocabulary (e.g. lack of education)? That’s an inherently classist take, based on the old, pre-1940s days when only the upper class regularly attended post-secondary education and the middle class aspired to live like (their rose-tinted view of) the upper class. Shakespeare knew that “swears” were part of the language of the common people, the groundlings. That’s one reason he used them, to connect with the people who made up the majority of his audience. The same is, arguably, true of Chaucer and others.

Religion, specifically Catholicism and its children (Protestants), has had its effect too. Often the claim for a religious proscription of “swearing” is the third commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” This is a major stretch, I think, unless the Biblical deity is named after bodily functions or sex (which, as noted, make up the vast majority of “swear” words in most languages). What the commandment means is not to trivialize the deity’s name or commit blasphemy, it has nothing to do with alternate (commoner, peasant?) words for urine, sex, or feces.  This proscription is, I think, one of thought control, since words shape how we think and how we interact with the world and people around us.

3 comments on “Hell With It: “Swearing”, Some Thoughts

  1. calmgrove says:

    What amuses me (if it didn’t amuse I’d be irritated beyond measure) are all those euphemistic versions of ‘oaths’ that are/have been generally accepted, paticularly in the US. Euphemisms from both sides of the pond, colloquial and literary, such as Jeepers Creepers, Jeez, Gosh, Crikey, Gordon Bennett, bejaysus, Jumping Jehosophat, Jiminy Cricket and so on, where references to the deity were only marginally disguised but somehow passed muster with the God Squad. (Even now a “God’s sake” merits an admonishment from an overly pious relative of mine.)

    Neither so-called blaspheming nor four-letter words faze me — it’s the context and, in particular, the way it’s said that’s crucial. If it’s aggressively or violently then even innocent words are objectionable.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lordtaltos says:

      I did think about those who find “swearing” in American English objectionable but have no problem with using British “swears” (bloody, bugger, etc.) or the same words in non-English languages.


      • calmgrove says:

        Yes, if ‘bugger’ and ‘bloody’ sound quaint and mild in US English when formerly taboo in early to mid 20th-century Britain it merely emphasises that cultural context is a main decider in the world of expletives.

        Hard to imagine how shocking ‘bloody’ was on stage in Shaw’s ‘Pygmalion’ without substituting a currently taboo term such as the n-word or the c-word (see how culturally acclimatised I’ve become by not spelling those words out).

        My parents got round ‘bloody’ in the 60s by substituting ‘ruddy’; you could appear cool now perhaps by peppering your own language with some quaint ‘ruddy’s, do you think?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s