[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

a few final thoughts on swearing

This will be a stream of consciousness type post and could get a little
long so those who are tired of this thread should hit delete.

Cori Dauber hit the nail on the head when she indicated that she needs
no one sticking up for her and her gender by protecting her from profane
speech.  That certainly is not my intent at trying to emphasize the need
for more civil discourse in professional settings.  If anything we elevate
everyone by creating a communication climate in which high intensity
language which excludes, demeans, or chills the communcation of
others is limited.

MIke refers to work by Vivian DeKlerk as supporting his point of view
while I cite her also as proof that profanity serves to rempower males
over females.  DeKlerk's work seems to be focused on South African
adolescents but her 1991 work in Comm Monographs concludes
that..."high intensity language is assocaited not only with sex of
informant but with other factors, all of which can be linked to the idea of
"social power" in some way."  Inferring from a cross-culturtal study can
be dicey but I think DeKlerk, and the others I cited, would conclude that
for much of our history profanity use has been a tool in empowerment of
males.  Curbing the use of profanity is not to say that it is the province of
hairy chested males only and we should protect women.  It is, however,
an attempt to create an open and accepting communication climate,
which increases particpation and discourse.

David Klein indicated, earlier in the thread, that for some people the use
of profanity is a key part of thier culture.  I wish David would identify
those cultures.  I suspect that these instances are examples of the use
of argot or cant (depending upon how one views the culture, or more
likely co-culture).  As Devito points out the use of argot and cant (and the
other sublanguages) are acceptable within specific speech contexts but
not for general or professional audiences.  On those occasions, it is
more important to use a more standard vocabulary to help insure
meaning transmission and acceptance of one's message.  I would
contend that an academic debate round and professional discourse on
this list serve should fall into the latter category.  

Pat Osowksi invoked the marketplace of ideas as justification for the use
of profane speech in any setting.  I think this is a misreading of the moi
concept.  Justice Douglas set forth the concept of the marketplace in his
dissent  in Dennis v. US , 341 US 494 (1951)..."When ideas compete in
the market for acceptance, full and free discussion even of those ideas
we hate encourages the testing of our prejudices and preconceptions. 
Full and free discussion keeps a society from becoming stagnant and
unprepared for the stresses that work to tear cdivilizations apart."  
While Douglas certainly favors unfetterd discussion he concludes that
the marketplace does serve to limit expression.   Later in Dennis (supra
at 584-85)..."We have counted on it [the moi] to keep us from embracing
what is cheap and false; we have trusted the common sense of our
people to choose the doctrine true to our genius and to reject the rest. 
This has been the one single outstanding tenet that has made our
institutions the symbol of freedom and eauality."    Justice Murphy noted
in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire  315 US 568 (1941)...."Allowing the
boradest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth
Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not 
absolute at all times and under all circumstances.  There are certain well
defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention of which
has has never been thought to raise any constitutional.  These include
the lewd and the obscene."   Murphy continues (spura at 572)  that
obscenity does not add to the marketplace..."It has been well observed
that such utterances are no essential part of the exposition of ideas and
are of such slight social vlaue as a step to truth that any benefit that
might be derived from them are clearly outweighed by the social
interest."    One could continue the moi analogy further and aruge that the
community standards as created in Miller v. California 413 US 15  (1973)
should allow for profanity use in academic debate because it meets the
test of community.  I guess I simply contend that the community standard,
if fairly tested, would reveal an attitude disposed against profanity use.

It is the very idea of community building that is at the heart of my
objection to the use of profane language in professional settings.  I don't
think I'm falling into the trap that Karlyn Kohrs-Campbell refers to that the
use of civility is a mask to entrench the dominant paradigm.  I really
encourage the testing of the dominant thought.  Shake up the system (as
Brother Mahoney likes to say) but do so in a way that is inclusive and not
exclusive.   Even the leading postmodernists who resist the structures of
modernist culture understand that language choice involes the use of
social power...For Foucault all public discouse is infected with power
(Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews, 1980)...for Derrida, all
discourse is condemend to totalization through logocentric distinctions
that marginalize people  (Dissemination, 1981) and Lyotard, fir his part,
declares the end of all metanarratives..."the stories that have inspired to
unviersal application and on which dreams of transcendental community
have depended,"  (The Postmodern Condition: A report on knowledge,
1984).   The use of powerful, high-intensity, or profane all serves to limit
discourse rather than add to it.

Fisher conludes that the narrative must appeal to social values to pass
the test of fidelity..."And even if a prima facie case has been made or a
burden of proof has been established, are the values fostered by the
story those that constitute an ideal basis for human conduct?  This final
question is clearly the paramount issue. .......My intention in developing
these questions about values was to offer a scheme to generate a
sense of what is good as well as what is strictly logical in stories that
people might adopt.  IT IS A SCHEME THAT DOES NOT DICTATE WHAT
ONE SHOULD BELIEVE, BUT IT DOES NECESSARILY INVOLVE ONE IN
CONSIDERING ONE'S RELATIONS WITH OTHERS AND THE PRAGMATIC
CONSEQUENCES OF ONE'S CHOICES IN REGARD TO SELF AND
SCOIETY."  [emphasis mine].....(Narration Reason and Community, in
Writing the Social Text, 1992).

Finally, on a personal note, as an educator I view it as part of my job not
to permit my students to take the easy and comfortable road.  Part of my
job is to push them beyond what they think is "good enough."  Ultimately,
just because many people swear in debate does not mean I should
encourage it by my silence.  To that end I let people know that I prefer not
to be sworn at during debate rounds and I cannot think of an instance in
which a team was unable to present their argument for the lack of
profane language.  If this is interventionist, then there you are.  Have I
ever (or would I) voted against a team becuase of profanity, no.  I do feel
however that profanity in public settings is a form of cultural violence
and that we have a responsibility to help curb violence whenerever
possible.

For those who have read this entire posting, I thank you for your
patience.

Rodger Biles
Emporia State Debate
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page