Naughty Words

I happen to be a great fan of the television show Battlestar Gallactica. It is dramatic, well-written and exceptionally well-paced. I also like the fact that in place of a familiar four-letter word they substitute "frack." Everyone knows what they really mean and the decision on the part of the writers to use the neologism as often as possible and in the same manner as the genuine article is tantamount to, well, a big "frack you" to the Federal Communications Commission, self-appointed arbiters of linguistic "decency" in media.

The matter of decency has long been a favorite of the American right. Whether in regard to language or image, conservative zealots delight in indulging their proscriptive impulses: You cannot swear, you cannot take a picture of a crucifix immersed in urine. Yet often the same folks who decry the assault of indecent language upon their hallowed values are the ones most vociferously opposed to the strictures of political correctness. What the likes of conservative radio personalities Michael Medved and Dennis Prager and Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby do not seem to realize is that indecency and political correctness are cut from the same philosophical cloth. The intellectually tenable position -- the one that I hold -- is to oppose the rampant application of both.

Indecency laws -- which seem in contradiction of constitutional protections of free speech, although probably are not thanks to some obnoxious loophole -- and social constraints of political correctness rely on a philosophy of language that is, frankly, absurd. Defenders of complete political correctness and linguistic decency believe that words do not mean anything. All that matters is their utterance, or their appearance in print.

Universal opposition to the use of a word fails to appreciate that words have meaning in context. Words absolutely can be hateful or offensive -- but is the mere sound or image of the word hateful? Where does the insult lie in the use of the word f--ck (oh the excruciating irony) as an intensifier? It is a singularly eloquent way of indicating extreme feelings. Should I cringe upon hearing George Carlin's seven dirty words just because one of them rhymes with "lock tucker"? To disallow specific words in all cases is to divorce the meaning of the word from its expression, and why on earth should I be offended by the sound of a word?

The same is true of many situations in which political correctness is deployed as a cudgel against speech. A case in point was the David Howard incident. In 1999, Howard, an aid in the office of Washington, D.C. mayor Anthony A. Williams, used the word "niggardly" in reference to the city's budget. Despite the total absence of an etymological relationship between "niggardly" and its similar-sounding racial pejorative, Howard was forced to step down from his position. In this instance, the aural similarity between the two words cost a man his job. Again, the meaning of the word was subordinated to its elocution.

The result of strict adherence to the demands of political correctness is often the sort of bumbling verbal calisthenics that prevents us from focusing on matters of real concern. Why is it that, seemingly, every time cogent points are made about violence in the Middle East there is always a chorus of "not every Muslim is a terrorist"? This is a crafty bit of word play because no one of any intelligence would ever make such a foolish and inaccurate claim. Yet those who would openly discuss this salient issue of our time frequently find themselves defending against positions they do not hold, and only because we hear sounds and see images, but refuse to interpret their meanings. The same mentality turns murder and destruction into "collateral damage."

Does this mean I should begin incorporating racial slurs into my lexicon? Not so. Words have meanings and those meanings are determined in large part by the history of their use. The place of the word "coon," for example, in the history of slavery in America is a deplorable one, therefore I recognize that the word is loaded with negative connotations. But what is "f--ck"? Its etymology is unknown. The prohibition against it is purely a matter of authority. Distraught cries for decency and political correctness are the hallmarks of insecure people seeking control. Those who hate "curse" words do not know why they hate them, but they want very badly to prevent their use because to do so is empowering. So, the next time you are given a taste of that power, encourage your linguistic oppressor to inspect his or her motives. And, if all else fails, respond with a few choice words.

--Simon Waxman is the editor of the News-Letter Opinions Section. He is a senior International Studies major from Newton, Mass.