Comparative evolution of swearing
Oleh Shynkarenko
March 2013. Published in the “Krytyka” magazin (Kyiv), Year XVII, Number 3–4 (40–41)
Culture moves along the paths of language, like a freight car along the rails of a railway. And there are not only well-known pompous stations on this trip, but also small, almost imperceptible ones, the names of which are sometimes embarrassing to even say out loud. But sometimes important events take place on them, directing this train into the future.
British researcher Peter Silverton in his book “Filthy English: The How, Why, When and What of Everyday Swearing” examines the evolution of swearing in English and some other languages. One important pattern emerges from his analysis: over time, the dirtiest swear words become an integral element of the everyday lexicon.
A very revealing situation has developed in the modern French language with the word “putain”:it has turned from a noun into an exclamation. The French abuse it and can easily say in a supermarket about some apples: “Putain, mais c’est bon!” (Oh, how good they are!). Silverton says that he knew a French teacher who worked in London. He shouted “putain” for any reason, but this did not at all indicate the low culture of his language — rather, a certain automaticity of the habit.
The word “bitch”is considered a fairly innocent swear word in Britain today, writes Silverton, but it wasn’t always like that. A dictionary published in 1811 defines it as “the most offensive address that can be applied to an English woman.”Today, this word also denotes a passive partner in the slang of homosexual prisoners. There is also a feminist magazine “Bitch” in the USA.
But, the researcher notes, in 1997 this word was subjected to unexpected repression, which was related to the song of the group Prodigy “Smack My Bitch Up”.
Despite the fact that the content of the song was clearly ironic, the videoclip was rarely shown on television even after midnight. BBC Radio 1 generally played only the instrumental version without words and announced it on air simply as “Smack”. In 2007, Brooklyn City Council member Darlene Mealy proposed banning the use of the word “bitch”, but only eighteen of the fifty-one council members voted for it. (Ms. Mealy brought controversial attention to herself in 2009 when she voted to give $5,000 of public money to Lynval Samuels (also known as Dr. Bidi XiLi Bey), for teaching “etymology”. Referred to by some as a lunatic, Samuels “has been a fixture at Union St. and Utica Ave. for years, neighbors said — stopping traffic, splattering paint on parking meters and fire hydrants, and handing out flyers for his self-styled etymology classes.”) The reason for defeat of this possible legislative ban was the peculiar polymorphism (this term has been applied extensively within the realm of software programming where it refers to the ability of an object to take on many forms, all while being treated uniformly. Interestingly, similar characteristics are prevalent in natural languages, where words, phrases, and sentences can take on multiple forms and meanings, depending on context.) of the aforementioned word in the English language. Calling a woman that is one thing, but, for example, the phrase “This is a great book, although it really is a bitch to read” in the mouth of even a sophisticated intellectual literally means: “This is a great book, but it is very difficult to read.” A modern Englishman can also easily say about his girlfriend “She’s my bitch and I love her”. So, now it is just a friendlyname for a woman.
Attempts to criminalize swearing in the Western world are doomed not only because of polymorphism, but also because of established cultural traditions. In ancient times, the so-called Lèse-majesté law appeared in Europe, which determined the punishment for swearing at public figures.
The further away from the EU, the more archaic this norm takes. For example, in Iran, someone who scolded a member of the government can receive 74 lashes, but in the Netherlands, the situation is completely different. In October 2007, a 47-year-old man was fined €400 for walking up to a police officer, calling Queen Beatrix “rotten whore” and talking about all the forms of sexual relations he wanted to have with her. The use of profanity in everyday life (for example, on the street) in most countries of the world does not cause criminal punishment, which residents of the post-Soviet space can only dream of.
On the territory of the ex-USSR there is a certain corpus of swear words (for them there is even a term unique to us, “non censorshipable”), the use of which is almost guaranteed to form a corpus delicti. The new Criminal Code of Ukraine in its XIIth chapter “Crimes against public order and morality” has Article 296, which rather vaguely interprets the term “hooliganism”, for which you can get a restriction of freedom for a period of up to five years. The Administrative Code also provides for correctional labor for a period of one to two months with a deduction of twenty percent of earnings, or administrative arrest for a period of up to fifteen days for swearing in public places. Ukrainian law enforcement officers successfully used these laws to fight public activists. Thus, in November 2011, the police detained two men for using obscene language during a Freedom Day rally on Independence Square in Kyiv. Regarding the detainees, administrative protocols were drawn up under the article “minor hooliganism”.The situation is the same in Belarus and Russia, where oppositionists are grabbed right on the street and on the basis of the testimony of only the police themselves, a protocol is drawn up for “obscene statements.”
However, if the state has no reason for repression, then citizens do not deny themselves the pleasure of using prohibited vocabulary. In post-Soviet society, the use of profanity as a full-fledged part of everyday vocabulary indicates a person’s low level of education and social status. But when such words unexpectedly fall from a lower level of mimesis to a higher one, it causes a comic effect. A typical example is the video clip “Weather Forecast from Gopnik on the Inter TV channel”, when a low educated passenger tries to imitate a typical weather forecast style, using his primitive, slang and obscene lexicon. But no linguistic evolution of swearing, no typically Western polymorphism in our environment is even impossible to imagine. Why?
Russians and Ukrainians call the most obscene part of their language “mat”. This term derives from the word “mother” and means, that it is intended to offend a mother of an offended person. Russian writer Viktor Yerofeev believes that “mat is the language of obedience, it is an order, it is the language of violence, and it is also an archaic language.” The last definition in this list is the most important, as it characterizes our society, because we live in an archaic world, and at least 90% of our fellow citizens consciously or unconsciously believe in the magical power of words. This faith is so powerful and invincible that, like a black hole, it pulls even completely innocent words into itself. Popular on the Internet YouTube video “Severe Donetsk parking attendant and Snail” is a vivid example of such a situation. When a man utters the word “snail” in a dense stream of swearing, it unexpectedly takes on a powerfully abusive tone.
Archaic consciousness, belief in spells, quirks turns our language from an obedient tool into some unpredictable system of signs, when the same word, depending on certain circumstances, can cause a smile, shame, discomfort or arrest. Modern writers successfully use this situation to create an original linguistic environment in the text and expand its semantic horizons. A typical example here is the play by Ukrainian post-modern author Les Podervyansky with the eloquent title “Pizdets” (Fuck Up). It depicts a model of the post-Soviet society in the form of a closed space of a freight car with the symbolic inscription E=МС2. Artists Magarych, Omelyan Kosopyzd, Khariton Uyobyshchenko, Nazar Sivukha and Alfred Zolupenko (all their Ukrainian surnames have very obscene or silly meaning) live in the car. From time to time, the train conductor Luda (whom all the above-mentioned artists “fuck sometimes in turn and sometimes in other way”) brings rations to the car — food of extremely low quality (mostly cheap pasta and compote). For this food, the artists agree to stay in a locked freight car all the time and talk about various possible ways of sexually arousing women. In the middle of the work, two engineers Gavryusha Obizyanov and Stepan Sraka try to get into the car, and later — the scientist Shlyoma Gomelsky. These people are burdened with the burden of social responsibility that life imposes on them:
Gavryusha Obizyanov. According to our data, if the construction is not fucked up right now, it will certainly be fucked up in the next quarter.
Stepan Sraka (frightened). And what will happen then, Havryusha?
Gavryusha Obizyanov (spits). Fucking prison!
Therefore, the way of existence of artists seems to engineers to be full of heavenly pleasures. In fact, artists are in a ghetto that the totalitarian state created for them to protect themselves from political criticism through the powerful means of art. But later the dictatorship collapsed, and the French bourgeois nationalist Roger Horody triumphantly appeared on the scene to return artists to their eternal function of transforming reality into artistic images. He calls on the artists to get out of the wagon and be free, but they refuse, because they are already used to Luda’s rations and, quite likely, have learned over the years to create anything but official propaganda. (“We’ll be agitating for the hell of it! We’ll agitate whoever you want!” says Omelyan Kosopyzd to Roger Horody). It is at this moment that the Bible Prophet Samuel appears. He represents the punishment of higher powers for amorphousness and indifference of these artists. Samuel knocks out the “irons” from under the wheels of the freight car, and it rushes at great speed to the slope, where the mass accumulated over many years of creative inactivity is instantly transformed into explosive energy according to Einstein’s formula E=MC2:
Luda. And where is the car? Where are the boys?
Prophet Samuel. Where, where… fucking there! Should have looked better!
At the same moment, a terrible explosion is heard from the side where the car drove. Luda drops pans and freezes in place.
Prophet Samuel. How nervous you are! Fucking fuck!
In this play, swearing and surzhik (a peculiar mix of Russian and Ukrainian languages popular in some regions of Ukraine amongst poor and low educated people) play a special ornamental role. They turn artists, engineers, and scientists — in fact, the intelligentsia, the driving force of society — into a homogeneous marginal mass of declassified operetta buffoons. The only question that arises is why the Prophet Samuel uses the same language. The answer to it is obvious — since religion is a part of the cultural environment, it must use its language. Samuel, in this case, is not a real character, but only a temporary fluctuation — a deviation from the normal state of things — that appeared as a result of the degraded cultural practices of the protagonists. It can be said that the artists themselves created an explosive situation and the catalyst of the explosion was the Prophet Samuel.
