Edward Croft Dutton
Divinity Department, University of Aberdeen, Scotland
Abstract
It has been widely noted that formerly taboo sexual
swearing is an increasing part of contemporary popular culture, especially
among the young. It has equally been observed that evangelical Christians (or
at least evangelical Christian students) tend to swear in an idiosyncratic way (e.g.,
Bramadat 2000), though this has not been looked at in depth. This article will
examine the ways in which two evangelical student groups use swearing as part
of their “witness evangelism.” Drawing upon fieldwork, as well as research by
Douglas (1966), McEnery (2006), Reiss (2000) and Stark (1996), it will argue
that the groups” use of swearing leads to successful evangelism because it
gives the group a sense of status in broader society—but also clear
boundaries in relation to that society— while maintaining the cultural
heritage of those that the groups are attempting to evangelise. Moreover, it
will suggest that it helps to create social bonds, within certain parameters,
and provides a means of talking about and expressing Christianity and thus “witnessing.”
Introduction
[1] When I was an undergraduate at Durham
University in the year 2000, one member of the university’s evangelical student
society—the Christian Union—told me to “Bog off dog breath! You’re
talking pants!” during a Church History lecture.[1] I think I was jokingly
insulting her in some way but what was surprising, even though she was being
light-hearted, was that she did not swear. A non-Christian, British student
would almost certainly have said, “Bugger off!” or even “Fuck off!” but in an
amusing tone of voice. Swearing—and particularly sexually based
swearing—has become increasingly common in recent decades, at least in
the anglophone world (e.g., McEnery 2006). It has moved from being highly taboo
fifty years ago to being a common occurrence, with Australian judges ruling
variously that the phrase “Fuck off!” is not really offensive and nor was it
was contempt of court for a defendant to call a judge a “wanker”[2] (Ludowyk 2001). The same change in attitudes to sexual swearing in particular
has been noted in other English speaking countries, especially Britain, and in
many non-English-speaking European countries as well,[3] especially among younger and also less educated people (see for example Martin
1981, McEnery and Xiao 2003). Certainly in a British context, it is notable
that certain groups tend still not to swear in this way despite swearing being
common among their peers. Most obviously, fieldworkers who have spent time with
evangelical Christians—in many cases within the context of university
evangelical groups—have noted, albeit in passing, that there is a
tendency for members, unlike their fellow students, to not swear (Bruce 1978,
Helander 1986, Bramadat 2000). While arguing that Christian students swear
idiosyncratically and not strongly, this article
will develop these observations and draw upon fieldwork with two British
evangelical student groups to examine the place of swearing in their attempts
to evangelise—to persuade “non-Christian” students to “convert” and join
their group.
[2] The article will argue that swearing—or
its absence—is a significant part of the group’s “witness” (evangelical
activity) both from an “emic” (insider) and “etic” (outsider) perspective.[4] From the anthropologist’s perspective, it will argue, drawing upon Mary Douglas
(1966), that the group’s infrequent and mild use of swearing makes it appear to
be “pure” and even superior, at least in a certain sense, rendering it highly
attractive to students searching for a sense of identity. Moreover, it will
argue, drawing upon McEnery (2006), that the absence of strong swearing—and
the forms of swearing employed—is attractive because it is, historically,
a significant dimension to British middle-class identity; a means by which
middle-class status is reassured and expressed. In this regard, difficulties
with Douglas’s power model, such as the differences between perception and
reality with regard to the supposedly powerful, will be discussed. As a part
of this analysis, it will be argued that swearing regulation is also something
that makes the group appear highly differentiated and structured, something
which again will be argued to be attractive to potential converts. Finally, the
way that swearing is used in the groups means that a balance is maintained
between being differentiated and maintaining one’s cultural heritage. The article
will first examine changing attitudes to swearing and the nature of swearing.
It will then examine social class in the evangelical groups studied, Douglas’s
Purity Rule, McEnery’s discussion of the development of British swearing and
also other factors that render an evangelical group attractive to potential
converts. Thereafter, it will look at the groups and their context and, drawing
upon detailed participant observation fieldwork, examine the place of swearing
in their evangelical activity.
What
is Swearing?
[3] Edmund Leach argues that swearing relates to the “taboo,” which is
anything which challenges order within a system of meaning. Hence, to give one
example, issues relating to excretion challenge a system of order because the
very nature of excretion brings into question the issue of precisely where we
are able to draw the distinguishing line between ourselves as separate beings
and the rest of the world (Leach 1964, 28). Equally, Douglas (Douglas 1966) has
argued that the taboo is that which is incongruous in a system of categories.
Sexual parts of the body are taboo because they challenge the division between
the self and the other. Leach highlights three kinds of swearing each of which
would appear to relate to a certain taboo. These types are: Dirty Words which
relate to sex and excretion; Blasphemy and Profanity and finally Animal Abuse
(28). Blasphemy is seen as taboo because it challenges the distinction between
God and human while animal abuse is seen as taboo because it portrays a person
as an animal, rendering them anomalous.[5] One possible difficulty with these
three categories is the implicit blurring of “blasphemy” and “profanity.”
McEnery (2006, 65) distinguishes “blasphemy” from “swearing.” The former is
language that might be perceived as insulting to the accepted religion while “profanity”—such
as shouting, “Jesus Christ!”—comes under the purview of swearing and is
not specifically blasphemous.[6] Also, McEnery has examined the way in
which swear-words can evolve and become, essentially, strong imagery rather
than an insult intended literally (49). Indeed, he speculates about whether or
not a swear-word is more offensive if meant literally—as in “I fucked
her!”—than as an image, as in “Fuck off!” To a great extent, British
swearing conforms to the latter model and this is notably true of words such as
“bastard.”
[4] Other
analyses of swearing such as Montagu (1967) Hughes (1991) and, as noted,
McEnery (2006) have agreed that swearing relates to that which is taboo. Hughes
points out that there appears to be a relationship between the changing nature
of societal taboo and the perceived strength of a given swearword. Thus,
according to Hughes, religious swearing, in an English context, was particularly
offensive at the time of Chaucer while sexual and bodily swearing—including
the word “cunt”—was considerably less so. By the nineteenth century the
taboos had changed and so had the degree to which the related words were
considered offensive. Equally, McEnery notes in passing that the “the word fuck
surged in popularity” during the Victorian era (2006, 62). It has been
widely argued that words such as “fuck” and to a lesser extent “cunt” have
become far less offensive as the sexual taboo has lessened (McEnery and Xiao
2004). As such, they are heard more and more frequently, at least in the UK,
and this has not gone unnoticed in the British media. Right-wing newspapers
have been noting the apparent increasing acceptability of sexual swearing since
the early 1990s.[7] A Daily Telegraph article in 1991 (Anon 1991) reported on
the sharp rise in swearing on television while by 2001 The Times (Anon. 2001) was reporting that swearing
on television was at its highest ever level. In 2002, a Daily Mail correspondent argued that swearing was a “sickness”
in British society and commented that “to be boorish is cutting edge and
contemporary” (Phillips 2002). Newspapers have cited many examples of the
acceptability of swearing such as the Australian judges discussed above but
also, in Britain, a Scottish judge insisting that an Edinburgh man charged with
“breach of the peace” for telling a policeman to “Fuck off!” was merely “using
the language of his generation” (Margolis 2002). The word has become so
acceptable in the UK that French Connection—the clothing company—re-launched
themselves in Britain as “FCUK” (French Connection UK) in 1997 (Teather 2006)
and the Conservative Party’s youth wing adopted a very similar name, CFUK
(Conservative Future UK), until it was threatened with litigation by French
Connection themselves[8] (Gold 2004).
[5] During the same period, scholars such as McEnery and Ludowyk have
both observed that as words such as “fuck” (those relating to sex) have become
far more acceptable, the use of terms which are not “Politically Correct”—those
which relate to the disabled and particularly to race—have become more
taboo.[9] This, they argue, has paralleled the
rise in “Political Correctness” which scholars such as Ellis have maintained is
an ideology which, effectively, deifies supposedly suppressed racial and
lifestyle minorities just as Communism did the industrial working class. (See,
for example, Ellis 2005).[10] Thus, according to Ludowyk, the word “nigger”[11] was the fifteenth most offensive word according to a 1991 British Attitudes
survey. By 1998, it was the fifth most offensive word. In 1999, it was the
third most offensive word, perceived as more offensive than “fuck.” Over the
same period, other racial epithets such as “Paki” (a term used in Britain to
refer to a person from Southern Asia although derived from “Pakistani”) had
equally increased in terms of their perceived offensiveness as had terms with
regard to the disabled—such as “spastic” and “retard.” Again, this change
has been widely remarked upon in the British press. Jonathon Margolis
interviewed Oxford University’s Professor of Language in The Guardian (Margolis 2002) and she argued that “nigger”
was now more offensive in the UK than “fuck” or “cunt,” which is traditionally
the most offensive word in British English. As already noted, this kind of
language is traditionally more popular among the less educated but it is moving
outside that grouping (McEnery 2006).
Class, Gender and Context
[6] Naturally, attitudes to what is offensive are likely to change
according to a variety of factors such as class, age and, of course, religion. Robert
Graves argued in the late 1920s that the word “bastard” was highly offensive
among the working-class because it was “believable” that the one being insulted
might well be illegitimate. However, “bugger” (homosexual) was not offensive
because it was unlikely that anyone would believe that the working class person
in question was genuinely homosexual. By contrast, among the aristocracy, “bastard”
was not especially offensive because most aristocrats had lengthy family
histories but “bugger” was far more likely to be believed because such activity
was seen as rife at the kind of schools attended by the aristocracy (Graves
1936). Thus, developing Leach, swearing might be divided into sexual, bodily (“Dirty
Words”), animal abuse, religious and finally non-PC with the latter now
appearing to be the most offensive in a British context, at least in certain
cases. Although it might be argued, as Ellis does, that Political Correctness,
like Christianity, is simply an ideology. Thus, the final category should be “religious”
in the broad sense of the word to mean “ideology.”
[7] Paralleling swearing is what Hughes has termed “disguised swearing”
(Hughes 1991, 12). Hughes notes that there are many words which are used in
place of a swear-word, perhaps as a way of venting frustration without actually
swearing. Generally, they sound like the original swear-word. Thus, “twat” (a
British term meaning “vagina” and by extension “idiot”) becomes “twit,” “fuck”
becomes “flip,” “shit” becomes “shite” or even “sugar.” Many other examples
might be cited such as the use in American English of “dang” in place of “damn.”
The word is very clearly related to the original but is disguised in order to
be socially acceptable. Some disguised swear-words discussed by Hughes work in
terms of rhyming slang as in “berk” (British English for “idiot”) comes from “Berkley’s
Hunt—“cunt.” Equally, some disguised swear-words relate vaguely to something
taboo. A notable example, which I found in both evangelical groups that I will
discuss, was to term something that did not work or was not particularly good
as “pants” (used in British English to mean “underpants”) which I would argue
have vague associations with the private parts and sex. I accept that, in a
sense, this term is not disguised swearing because it does not disguise a
specific word in the sense that “Bog off!” disguises “Bugger off!” But at the
same time, it is used in place of a stronger term—such as “crap” or “shit”—and
it is vaguely related to the sexual/excretory parts of the body, words relating
to which it replaces. In this circumlocutory way, it can be seen as a kind of
disguised version of “shit,” for example.
[8] It is has also been noted not only that the offensiveness of
certain terms are class contingent but that different social classes tend to
swear in different ways. Indeed, research in this area has yielded some
apparently surprising results. McEnery (2006, 48) has observed that members of
the lowest social class (DE) swear the most while members of the highest social
class (AB) swear the least. Superficially, swearing decreases the higher one
moves up the social scale, which would be congruous with Douglas’s Purity Rule,
which will be discussed below. However, the superficial correlation hides
something more complicated. The frequency of strong swear-words among ABs is actually higher
than among the category one place down, C1s, or the middle-class, who swear
more but using milder words. McEnery argues that this reflects “hyper-correction”
on the part of the “lower-middle-class.” They imitate what they perceive to be
AB speech and do it to such an extent that they eliminate stronger swear-words.[12] My problem with McEnery’s analysis is that he merges together different social
classes. It would be fascinating to see, for example, what the swearing
differences are between classes “A” and “B”, between the upper-class and the
upper-middle-class. It may well be that that As employ stronger swear-words
than Bs. Following Argyle (1994), I think it is probably more useful to distinguish
between the middle-middle-class—or “lower professionals” such as school
teachers and nurses and the lower-middle-class of, essentially, office workers
and so forth. Moreover, I would take issue with the usefulness of this purely
economic model. Kate Fox (2004) notes that, in the UK, wealth and profession
are only aspects of class. She contends that you are born into your class as a
matter of identity—expressed in speech as a pertinent example. Thus, it
is possible to be a “working-class doctor” or an “upper-class school teacher.”
Most of those who I interviewed, in the Christian Unions, were from either “higher
professional” or “lower professional” backgrounds with very small numbers being
upper-class or lower-middle, according to Argyle’s model. But McEnery does at
least make a very interesting point—that not using strong swear-words can
be understood as a “middle-class” play for status. And as such, those further
from the centre of power, in Douglas’s terms, can be “purer,” in a certain
sense at least, in order to assert superiority. Fox points out that this is
necessary because the middle-classes are insecure in their identity and
therefore strive to imitate the higher social class. The upper class, according
to Fox, are not insecure to the same extent.
[9] McEnery also notes gender related differences in swearing (2006,
36). Women swear differently from men, find different words more offensive and
so forth, but they do not appear to swear less than men as has been argued
elsewhere (e.g., Trudgill 1974). Many researchers such as Hughes (1992), de
Klerk (1992) and Gordon (1993) have concurred on this point. In an article
dedicated to this subject, Karyn Stapleton (2004) has examined a mixed-gender
group of Irish drinking friends. She notes the view that swearing is “aggressive”
and that, as women are expected to play a non-aggressive role, swearing is
especially taboo for them. In a sense, it can be seen to undermine the societal
hierarchy (22), a point which McEnery examines in depth more broadly and which
will be discussed below. Stapleton argues, moreover, that the manner and extent
that a woman swears is a way of negotiating and expressing a gender-based
identity (23). In a sense, this is not entirely dissimilar from that which I
will note Evangelical Christian students to do. Stapleton contextualises her
analysis within the “Community of Practice” model, whereby swearing, for
example, is negotiated through the expectations of the community and the
speaker’s place and desired role within it (23). She observes that women and
men differ with regard to how offensive certain words are and the regularity
with which they use them (26). Their reasons for using them also differ with a
large portion of women claiming to use them “to show intimacy, trust” and no
men identifying this motivation (28). Equally, their reasons for avoiding certain
words differ. However, this behaviour is seen as a way of negotiating an
acceptable—to others and themselves—identity within a specific
community of practice.
Why Swearing?
[10] As stated, this article will examine the ways in which swearing
among certain evangelical groups relates to the success of their evangelism.
Before examining these groups or the mainly anthropological method that will be
employed, I think it would useful to explain why this article has chosen to
focus on swearing. The Christian Unions, with which I worked, frequently talked
about “witness evangelism.” This meant that one had to spread evangelical
Christianity not merely through “preaching the Word of God” but also through
ones behaviour. Obviously, the kind of swearing employed is just one example of
such “witness evangelism.” One might equally examine the kind of clothing worn
(see Dutton 2005) or, indeed, attitudes to alcoholic drink (Francis et al. 1999) or even what kind of films or
plays to watch (Goodhew 2003). I have chosen to focus on swearing for a number
of reasons. First, as I will explain in more detail below, many CU members
justified not swearing as a form of evangelism. They did not do this, at least
not at first nor in so large numbers, with regard to clothing for example. As
such, the kind of swearing used was a form of evangelism both from an emic and
an etic perspective.
[11] Secondly, differences with regard to the kind of clothing worn
were generally quite subtle. Female members, for example, would not wear the
slightly revealing fashions—such as crop-tops with hipsters—that
are currently fashionable. Equally, differences in alcoholic consumption were subtle.
Male members of both groups were almost never teetotal. But they might have two
pints of beer where their non-Christian friend might have five. However,
swearing was a conspicuous difference and a number of members even commented
that they would be asked by non-members why they did not swear. They used this
as a means to engage in evangelical activity. Thus, again I think swearing is
the most pertinent form of witness evangelism to examine. My final reason is
simply with regard to making a contribution to academic knowledge. As stated, a
number of researchers with Christian Unions have noted that members tend either
not to swear or to swear in a somewhat idiosyncratic way (Bramadat 2000) These observations were made in the
context of examinations of evangelistic method. I think that they are worth
developing and that such a contribution develops our understanding of how such
groups reflect and deal with a certain aspect of popular culture.
Evangelical Groups
[12] Before examining the factors that make groups attractive, it would
be useful to define precisely what an evangelical group is. This article will
focus on the Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union (OICCU) and the Aberdeen
University Christian Union (AUCU). It will draw upon participant observation
fieldwork with these groups. In both cases, they are the largest evangelical
groups at their universities with, according to my own fieldwork, 250 and 170
members respectively. In both cases, a balanced sample of 25 members were
interviewed in detail about various issues, including their attitudes towards
swearing, upon which this article will focus. In both cases, 25 further members
were surveyed. In the case of both groups, the fieldwork was conducted over two
academic terms between September 2002 and March 2004. It involved attending a
large number of their meetings as a participant observer and talking to a large
number of members in semi-structured interviews.[13] Both
groups are student societies which students at the respective universities are
welcome to join as long as they sign the group’s “Declaration of Faith.” The
two groups regularly organise events for their members—twice weekly
prayer, worship and speaker meetings for AUCU and similar meetings at least
four times a week for OICCU. In addition, AUCU had outreach meetings a couple
of times a term and a “Mission Week” once a year. OICCU had at least one
outreach meeting a week as well as other outreach events and the yearly “Mission
Week.”[14]
[13] Both groups refer to themselves as “evangelical
Christians” and both are affiliated with the Universities and Colleges
Christian Fellowship (UCCF) and, more broadly, with the International
Federation of Evangelical Students. This information is made quite clear on
their websites. (AUCU 2005; OICCU 2005). According to James Barr, evangelicals
tend to be “conservative” or “fundamentalist” in their understanding of
Christian doctrine and with regard to lifestyle ethics. They are, of course,
Protestant (Barr 1977). In his historical discussion of evangelicalism,
Bebbington makes precisely the same points (Bebbington 1989). Indeed, for Barr,
to a certain extent, there is little distinction between “evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism.”
UCCF has a Declaration of Faith which all those who wish to join a CU must sign
that they agree with. According to this declaration, the Bible is “inerrant …
as originally understood.” Thus, there is a heavy implication that belief in “evolution”
is not acceptable among group members. The Bible is also seen as a guide for
how to live here and now, which implies that the lifestyle ethics that it is
seen to advocate in the view of evangelical Christians are appropriate in the
modern world. The declaration also declares a literal belief in doctrines that
some Christians might reject such as Hell for non-believers. Apart from this
declaration, UCCF makes clear that the purpose of a CU is to create a “witnessing
community on campus” and make Christianity and God known to Non-Christian
Students (UCCF). Thus, its purpose is, in essence, to persuade non-Christians
to become Christians and to create a community for those who are already
Christians. Successful evangelism involves persuading others to become
Christians and maintaining those that already are. I entirely appreciate that
this summary of evangelicalism is undoubtedly simplistic. It overlooks disputes
within evangelicalism, such as the appropriateness of Charismatic worship and
so forth.[15] There is also a movement known as “Post-Evangelicalism”
which, though evangelical, is more “liberal,” particularly with regard to
lifestyle (see Tomlinson 1998). But as a general summary, I think it is useful.[16]
[14] There were, however, differences between the
degree of conservatism in the two groups. All of those whom I interviewed from
both AUCU and OICCU claimed to believe in Hell and to believe that non-Christians
would go to Hell. All of those to whom I spoke claimed to believe in the Devil
as an actual force in the world. Also, 23/25 in AUCU and 24/25 in OICCU
rejected Evolutionary Theory and all believed in the reality of doctrines such
as the Resurrection. In OICCU, all thought it was acceptable for Christians to
drink alcohol but none to become drunk. Only one felt it was acceptable for
Christians to smoke, only one felt it was acceptable to date a non-Christian
and none felt it acceptable to take drugs of any kind. All felt premarital sex
was unacceptable. In AUCU, the results in relation to drinking and sex were the
same. But two felt it was acceptable for Christians to smoke, two would date a
non-Christian and none would take drugs.
[15] These are, of course, very small differences but
I note them because it would be oversimplifying the beliefs and practice of the
groups to ignore them. Moreover, there were slight differences in terms of the
class composition of these groups, following Argyle’s model, but both were
broadly middle class and, indeed, were over-representative of the university in
terms of being from “lower professional” backgrounds.
Class and the Christian Unions
[16] I surveyed twenty-five
OICCU members. Of this number ten had attended independent schools (three of
which had attended public schools, where they boarded) while the other fifteen
had attended state schools; in all but three cases these were Comprehensives.
As such, state school students would appear to be over-represented in OICCU as
fifty percent of Oxford students were from these kinds of school at the time.
The same surveys indicated that the overwhelming majority were from backgrounds
that Argyle would term “professional.” However, there was a distinction between
“higher professionals” and “lower professionals” and, to a great extent, this
distinction was paralleled in terms of whether the student had attended state
or private school. Of the ten OICCU sample members who had attended independent
schools, all of the parental professions were at least “higher professional.”
They included three barristers, two architects, a veterinary surgeon and a
hospital consultant. Among those from state schools there were a very large
number of students whose parents’ main profession was “”school teacher,” one of
the main examples cited by Argyle (2004) of a “lower professional.” Two cited “Civil
Engineer” as the main parental profession. There were a very small number,
indeed, that might not fit into this class such as one whose father was a “bookseller.”
There were a small number of state school pupils whose parents were, it might
be argued, “higher professionals.” There was one whose father was an architect
and one whose father was a solicitor but, I would submit, a social difference
between those at state and private schools can be noted from these results.
OICCU was mainly “middle class.” The same was true, to a lesser extent, in
AUCU. The majority of the AUCU sample were from backgrounds that were either
higher or lower professional. Three students had attended private schools. One
student’s father was simply the headmaster of the private school that he had
attended. The other two were an English student, whose father was a hospital
consultant and a Scottish student whose father was an architect. Certainly, the
latter two would be defined as higher professionals. However, there was a large
minority from Northern Ireland where the education system is different from the
rest of the UK and where there are a large number of Grammar Schools (state
schools that pupils must pass an exam to attend of which there are very few in
the rest of the UK) and very few private schools. The four Northern Irish
students in the sample noted parental professions as General Practitioner, Shop
Manager, Dairy Farmer and Teacher. All had attended Grammar Schools. The three
English students from Comprehensive schools noted parental profession as Coach
Driver, Health and Safety Officer and Computer Programmer. The Scottish
students, from Comprehensives, involved the children of three ministers, five
teachers, a bank clerk, a bus driver and a General Practitioner. Thus, in
general, those who had been to state schools were from lower professional
backgrounds or, in some cases, white-collar or, as in a coach driver, a
working-class background. The very small number that had been to private
schools, apart from the anomalous headmaster’s son, were from higher
professional backgrounds. Some children of higher professionals can be seen in
the state school category but, in general as with Oxford, a distinction can be
noted.
Factors that Make Evangelical Groups Attractive
[17] There are a number of factors which various researchers agree make
a religious group attractive. One factor that has been noted again and again is
that group membership makes them feel in some sense superior to outsiders: only
members will go to Heaven, only members truly understand the nature of life and
so forth. This point has been made by Reiss who has provided a list of factors
that make religious groups—and particularly proselytising groups—attractive
to outsiders. Stark (1996) has composed a very similar list of which Reiss’s is
a slight development. Some of these factors are basic animal desires such as
food, romance and exercise. However, of greater interest to this article is
Reiss’ observation that a religious group is more attractive than another if it
provides the potential member with honour, order and status within the broader
society. As swearing relates to taboo and order, I think it would be useful to
examine precisely how status is seen to operate through discussions of taboo language
and behaviour.
[18] Swearing is generally seen to relate to the “taboo” and
anthropologists such as Leach have argued that that which is taboo is,
essentially, “dirt” or “disorder” because it defies a system of categories.
Mary Douglas has made the same point, arguing that the taboo is disorder.
However, she uses this to present a model of the nature of society as it
relates to dirt and disorder (Douglas 1966). Douglas presents what she calls
the Purity Rule. She argues that society —or the power of society—can
be understood as a series of concentric circles. The central circle is the most
powerful person, or group of people, in that society. The next circle out is
slightly less powerful until we reach the outer circle which is the least powerful,
usually the working-class. Douglas maintains that the closer a person is to the
power centre of society the greater the control society exerts over that person’s
body in terms of purity. Thus, the closer one is to the power centre, the purer
one must be in one’s behaviour. To give an example in a British context, it
would be perfectly acceptable for a British taxi driver to go out to a pub on a
Saturday night and get drunk and thus exhibit a lack of self-control, something
that might be seen as unclean. It would be unacceptable, however, for the Queen
to do this because she is at the centre, or near the centre, of societal power.
As such, she has to be controlled in her behaviour, at least within certain
boundaries. Equally, it might be argued that it would be unacceptable for the
Queen to use a strong swear-word as these relate to something that is taboo and
therefore, following Douglas’s rule, unclean.
[19] The difficulty with Douglas’s model is that it appears to ignore
different kinds of power and assume a relatively simple model of societal
structure. Put simply, there are different kinds of power in a complex society
and different people are the most powerful in different circumstances. Symbolically,
the Queen is the most powerful person in the UK and this power is expressed in
the theatre of the State Opening of Parliament for example. Moreover, the
office that she holds is accepted as the supreme office. In that sense, she is
the central circle in Douglas’s model. However, it is generally accepted that
the Prime Minister is actually in charge. He or she is at the central circle in
most other circumstances and, indeed, part of this relates to the office s/he
holds. It could possibly be argued that celebrities, rather than political
figures, are the most idolised, and thus most important, people in contemporary
society. Indeed, it could be argued that people such as Ozzie Osbourne are
allowed to engage in scandalous behaviour because they are at the centre of society and,
therefore, above the rules as it were. But it might be countered that such
celebrities effectively play the role of jester, or even conceivably shaman, in
modern society and are given a certain degree of licence in their behaviour for
this reason. But then, it could be submitted that, in a sense, a shaman is the
most powerful person in a tribe and can often be noted to be above the rules of
acceptable behaviour. This point has been made by Jakobsen (1999) in relation
to traditional Greenlandic Shamans, for example. Moreover, if the Queen were to
go and listen to a sermon by a vicar—and participate in the symbolic
discourse of the service—it could possibly be maintained that in that
narrow set of circumstances the vicar occupies the central circle. Thus, in
assessing the Christian Unions and their use of swearing, it will be argued
that the kind of swearing employed makes the CU seem close to the centre of
society in a certain sense; it gives them some kind of moral superiority. However,
it could be argued that in another sense, such swearing expresses the group’s
cultural heritage and social aspirations and demonstrates that, in a social
class sense, they are not quite so close to Douglas’s central circle.
[20] McEnery (2006) effectively argues that the taboo on swearing, in a
British context, is a middle-class phenomenon. We have already discussed the
way that, in his analysis, the middle-class appear to use strong swear-words
less than the upper class and they also use more mild swear-words which, he
argues, is because they believe that the ABs do this (49). McEnery argues that
swearing was not especially taboo in England until the rise of the
middle-class. Not swearing and rendering swearing taboo, he submits, was a way
for the middle class to assert moral superiority over the upper-class and
distinguish themselves from the working-class (12).[17] Hence, swearing gradually became a sign, in the UK, of not being middle class
and became taboo. McEnery argues that this taboo came about through a series of
“Moral Panics” over swearing, most notably from the eighteenth century onwards
and then in the 1960s, led by Mary Whitehouse and the Viewers and Listeners
Association (VALA) (3). These “Moral Panics”—alarmist debates and
campaigns about the state of society which scapegoated, in these instances,
swearing—are, he maintains, the historical reason why swearing is still
taboo in the UK. McEnery notes that in the Elizabethan period, swearing was not
really taboo and was simply used as a convenient means to suppress politically
sensitive material (81). Swearing gradually became taboo with the rise of the
middle class. Interestingly, with regard to the Mary Whitehouse campaign,
McEnery presents a case for the view that even here, while swearing was
objected to, challenging the social system by means of swearing was objected to
more. He notes that VALA objected strongly to the swearing in the 1960s/1970s
sitcom Till Death Us Do Part but not especially to that in the sitcom Steptoe and Son. This, McEnery argues, is because the
latter maintained the social order by having the working-class swearing but
also showing deference to the social order. By contrast, Till Death Us Do
Part challenges such
notions as patriotism and conservatism by associating them with Alf Garnett, a
character who frequently swears and is portrayed as bigoted. McEnery argues
that this reaction is congruous with a view whereby swearing in the UK is
indicative, due to the Moral Panic of the eighteenth century, of the
unsuitability of a person to have power and authority, a view asserted and
accepted by the middle-class (128). Thus, swearing can act as a challenge to
the established order—and the power of the middle class whose superiority
is indicated by their lack of swearing. As such, it can be argued that while Douglas’s
model may oversimplify the issue, not swearing is an issue of social status among
middle-class British people even if they believe, incorrectly, that they are
imitating the upper-class by not swearing. Of course, this does not entirely
undermine Douglas’s model but it complicates it because those who are not at
the power centre seem to imitate those who are—who may be highly
controlled—but in an exaggerated way, rendering them even more controlled
than their superiors, in a moral sense. However, this relates to only one
dimension—swearing, and possibly accent. There may be numerous other ways
in which the upper-class express greater control to distinguish themselves from
the middle class, for example in carefulness about other forms of language. Fox
argues that the upper class strenuously avoid “middle-class words” like “toilet,”
“pardon?” “dinner” and “dessert” in favour of “lavatory,” “what?” ‘supper” and “pudding”
(76-79). They also show off their status more subtly by, for example,
displaying awards in the downstairs loo rather than in the hall (117).
[21] However, another factor that is perhaps slightly distinct from
honour and status is that of order. According to Reiss’s model, an ordered
religious group—whether in terms of offering an ideology or a clear group
structure—is particularly attractive. Research into the issue of
conversion would appear to substantiate this point. Experts on conversion such
as James (James 1952, 149), Sargent (Sargent 1997, 85) and Rambo (1993, 17) all
find that a person is more likely to have a conversion experience—and
thus join a religious organisation—during a time of great distress and
that this will often be caused by a period of change and disorder. In this
analysis, I will be focussing on university evangelical groups. A number of
scholars have noted that university (in many cases) is a time of considerable
change which may cause certain students to become distressed. This point has
been made by Conn (Conn 1986, 26) who argues that the age of undergraduates and
their environment leads to difficult existential questions, Fisher (Fisher
1994, 41) who argues that university, because it is a time of change, is often
deeply stressful, and Morris (1969) who argues that universities can be
compared to brutal tribal initiation rituals. Research, looking at university
as a liminal (transitional) phase has demonstrated that, when taking all other
factors into account, the more liminal university is, the higher the proportion
of evangelical group members who have converted to Christianity while at
university (Dutton 2005 and 2006a). This would seem to imply, following Lewis,
that a highly stressful situation of change will tend to lead to conversion.[18] Thus, the issue of order, in a disordered period or situation, is a highly
significant factor in a religious group’s success and will also be examined
below.
[22] Reiss also points out that a successful proselytising group must—in
addition to providing order—allow group members to maintain their
cultural heritage—their identity in terms nationality, social class and
so forth—at least to some extent. Naturally, to some extent the group is
likely to be differentiated and distinct from the surrounding culture but it
must, effectively, maintain the appropriate balance in this regard. Stark makes
a similar point, arguing that a key factor is that the religious group is
neither “too strict nor too lax” (Stark 144). The success of various religious
groups has been examined in terms of their ability to blend their own ideas
with the existing culture. This can be noted in terms of the synthesis of
Christianity with tribal beliefs and practices in parts of Africa, for example.[19] As such, in examining the place of swearing in evangelism, it is these factors
that will be drawn upon as they appear the most salient. I will argue the way
in which the groups swear does indeed strike this important balance.
Conventional Swearing, Purity and Power
[23] The attitudes towards swearing in both groups were very
interesting. At no point in any context did I observe OICCU students to swear
in a conventional fashion. However, AUCU members were very occasionally noted
to do so. When interviewed, almost all of those to whom I spoke in both groups
claimed they would not use what we might term as conventional swear-words
relating to sex or bodily functions or, indeed, blasphemous swearing. In the
case of OICCU, this was twenty-four from a sample of twenty-five and in the
case of AUCU it was twenty-two. A significant minority of group members
mentioned the issue of witness and bodily cleanness with regard to not swearing
conventionally. In relation to conventional swearing a number of justifications
were given. Most gave non-religious explanations in the first instance. These
included: “It’s disgusting,” “It’s lazy,” “because it’s rude,” “it’s offensive.”
However many members of both groups also agreed that to use conventional
swearing was simply “bad witness.” It was felt that most people found words
such as “fuck” and “cunt” offensive at least to a degree and associated
negative ideas with those who used such words. People who used words like that
were “undesirables” or “riff raff” as one OICCU member put it. Both of these
terms, in British English at least, refer to a person being, essentially,
working class and, perhaps by extension, a person who is distant from the power
centre of society. These views seem to reflect the middle-class perception, as
discussed above, with regard to the kind of people who swear. As one OICCU
member put it:
“I think it’s just lazy
to swear like that. I don’t know, maybe I do occasionally but I shouldn’t …
Because it’s rude … it’s offensive. I think a lot of OICCU members would be
offended by it as well as many non-Christians. And, in all honesty, it’s just
plain bad witness. I can’t say it’s particularly helpful, in all honesty.”
[24] Many commented specifically that the use of such words was “unhelpful”
or “not particularly helpful.” Upon further discussion, I found that these
remarks meant that swearing was “unhelpful” to the “witness” of the individual
Christian and the CU more broadly. It was thus perceived as being unhelpful to
evangelism. The idea of “bad witness”[20] here further allows us to note the
relationship between group members and outsiders. It has been noted that a
successful religious group will make a member feel powerful and give them
status. I would argue that this, in essence, is what can be seen here. By not
swearing in a conventional way, CU members demonstrate that they are purer than
Non-Christians who generally do swear in a conventional way. As such, to the
outsider, they appear to be closer to the power centre of society, providing
their members with status. Their behaviour makes the group seem—following
Douglas at least—important, powerful and prestigious because it reflects
the kind of behaviour that would be expected, at least by the middle class, among
a powerful group. It also reflects perceived British middle class behaviour.
According to the group’s theology, they are indeed closer to the power centre
of society. This power centre, from their perspective, is God and therefore in
order to demonstrate how close they are to God, group members must be pure and
this includes not using words like “cunt” and “fuck.” Of course, it is only a
certain kind of power or purity, that of moral or behavioural purity or
control, that the group is asserting. Many OICCU members, in my observation,
essentially “lost control” during worship services, crying and shouting and so
forth. (Indeed, this might be understood as a necessary balance when behaviour
is otherwise so tightly controlled.) But this power can be seen as attractive,
relating to the “power” of the Holy Spirit, in the group’s view.[21] Even from an emic perspective, not swearing conventionally is an important part
of evangelism, hence it is “bad witness.” Moreover, a small number of members
cited a specific Biblical passage in I Corinthians which they felt implied that
they should not swear because they had to reflect the purity of God and so be
purer than non-believers.[22] Thus, I would argue that the absence
of conventional swearing in both CUs is a form of evangelism. It demonstrates
to the outsider that as an insider they will have status and power because
group members behave as though they have status and power and, indeed, have it
in their own theological terms. They behave, in this regard, in a supposedly
very middle-class manner (or even perceived upper-class manner), thus
associating themselves with power and asserting superiority. This, I think, is
especially salient in the CUs which, in both cases, are mainly composed of a
lower social class composition than the membership of the student body as a
whole.
Profanity
[25] As noted, the ability to provide order and identity is also
crucial in a successful religious group. I would argue that this can be seen
not only in the way that CU members do not swear conventionally but also their avoidance
of blasphemous swearing and their use of disguised swearing. Members of both
AUCU and OICCU all appeared to express a strong objection to profanity. They
variously stated that it was “disrespectful to God” and this view was expressed
in various ways. They cited certain phrases which they would, therefore, never
use such as “God damn it.” Equally, the word “damn” was itself rejected by a
minority of CU members as being blasphemous though most, especially in
Aberdeen, did not find the use of this word particularly offensive and did not
necessarily associate it with “God damn it.” AUCU and OICCU members would also
never “take the Lord’s name in vain” by exclaiming His name out of frustration
such as by shouting, “Jesus!” or “For God’s sake!” All members were, however,
happy to make exclamations such as “Heavens above” or “Heavens” because they
did not regard this as anything like swearing. By contrast, most members
claimed that they would not say “Bloody Hell”, as it was profanity, but “Hell’s
Bells!” was theoretically acceptable in both groups. In fact, most regarded
such phrases as simply being comical. Many commented, however, that they felt
this phrase was old-fashioned and they “wouldn’t use it anyway” and this was
also true of “Heavens!” But they were not prepared to use “Jesus” as an
exclamation of surprise, rather than frustration, as this was still perceived
to be “taking the Lord’s name in vain.” As one AUCU member put it:
I really don’t like
swearing like that. It’s offensive to God, basically, to take His name in vain.
It’s also just lazy ... but I really don’t like it. In fact, I find that kind
of swearing more offensive, probably, than the “F-word” or whatever ... I’d
never use words like that, not even on my own.
A handful of members in both groups commented that they would also not
say the word “bloody” because they understood it to be blasphemous, it being a
corruption of “By my Lady” and thus relating to the Virgin Mary. However, one
AUCU member commented that he only knew this because he was “being a swot.” In
explaining why they would not blaspheme, members of both groups also cited the
Bible, claiming that various passages made it quite clear that one should not “take
the Lord’s name in vain.” Most members actually commented that they tended to
find profanity more objectionable than normal swearing. Obviously, the view
that profanity is more offensive than words such as “fuck” is an important
indicator of a differentiated identity and of group boundaries. Most people do
not find profanity particularly offensive. By regarding it as so offensive,
members create a clearly differentiated group which, as we have noted, is
attractive to potential converts who are frequently experiencing a kind of
identity crisis.
Idiosyncratic Swearing
[26] We have already examined Hughes’s notion of “disguised swearing.”
In circumstances in which we might expect Non-Christians to use a swear-word, I
found that members of both OICCU and AUCU would instead use a word that perhaps
sounded similar to the swear-word or which could be perceived, in some way at
least, to relate to the taboo to which the swear-word itself related. Indeed,
the majority of members said that they would not even be prepared to quote a
swear-word when explaining that another person had used it. They would feel
considerably more comfortable referring, for example, to the “F-word” or “the
C-word” rather than actually saying the word. However, most, though not all,
were slightly happier to quote, though not themselves use, swear-words. Again,
this refusal to even allow such a word to pass their lips could be seen as
evidence of the importance of a high sense of purity as a distinguishing
identity component from non-Christians and other classes.
[27] The most obvious example of this phenomenon, however, was the use
of the word “pants.” Now in commenting on the usage of this word among members
of OICCU and AUCU, I do not wish to suggest that the use of this word, as a
disguised swear-word, is unique to evangelicals or indeed any particular group.[23] I note this word because of the relative frequency with which it was used when
compared, perhaps, to other disguised swear-words which one heard such as “flip”
or “twit” for example. I should emphasise that I at no point noted the use of
the word “pants,” or any other disguised swear-word, during prayer. I did,
however, observe the use of this word in public and private speech and indeed
during what was effectively preaching by members of OICCU or AUCU. I do not
want to give the impression that the usage of this word was frequent during my
fieldwork but I certainly heard it, and other disguised swear-words, on a number
of occasions. For example, on one occasion I observed a member of the AUCU
Exec, who was trying to fix the projector so that all those present could read
the hymns projected onto the wall, say, “Sorry! This projector’s a bit a
pants!” Likewise, I observed a member of the OICCU Exec, again during a
religious meeting, claim that the reason certain leaflets were not yet ready
was because “ the printer’s a load of
pants to be honest.” There were, in my field-work, a handful of other examples
of the use of this specific disguised swear-word among both OICCU and AUCU
members. It was always with regard to an object—whether abstract or not—and
not a person. A person was never “pants” in the same way, perhaps, that we
would not refer to a person as being “rubbish” but might term his work “rubbish.”
The remark quoted in the title was made to me, so I was “talking pants” by
goading the student about fundamentalist Christianity. The consequence, from my
personal perspective, was to be quite amused by the remark and to regard the
girl in a friendly light. Indeed, in the cases quoted above, there was a very
slight laugh on the part of a few CU members. People, basically, smiled in
response. But, conventional swearing was mainly rejected in favour of swearing in
a disguised form. I questioned a number of members of OICCU and AUCU about why
they chose the word “pants” rather than stronger swearing. All of them argued in
various ways that it was because it was a funny word that expressed what they
had felt and they found no problem in using it. I equally asked them whether
they felt other group members would be offended by such words and all felt that
they would be unlikely to be. A minority of members were very aware that the
term was idiosyncratic—indeed, one called it “Christianese.”[24] They were aware that using it with Non-Christians would often lead to questions
which would allow them to share their faith.
[28] Members tended to agree that “pants” was a word, rather like “flip,”
which could be used in the place of a swear-word without offending people. A
number of members of both groups also commented that the word was “funny” and “amusing”
and this was one reason why they used it. A number of AUCU members commented,
without provocation, that “flip and pants are very much Christian words.” When
I suggested that the word “pants” could be considered rude because pants relate
to both sex and bodily functions in an indirect way, most members either
thought this was funny or actually started laughing. “I don’t think it’s
thought about like that” one member of AUCU commented. “I’ve never thought of
that!” laughed another. But certainly the taboo dimension to “pants” would
appear to be congruous with Leach’s theory on swearing. A number of members
commented that they used the word “pants” because “everyone else seems to.” In
both groups, “pants” did very much appear to be a “Christian word.” I asked a
number of members from both groups if they felt using this word in some way
helped the CU to reach out to people, to seem “normal” by using something
approximating a swear-word. Most claimed that they had not really thought about
this but a minority in both groups, and especially male members, seemed to feel
that words such as “pants” were acceptable to use with “non-Christians” who
might be using stronger and undisguised swear-words. Among most members,
however, the view was that one should not swear, as it was “bad witness.” A
very small minority even found “disguised swear-words” problematic because they
felt that such words clearly referred to a worse swear-word. But few members of
either group seemed to perceive “pants” as being a disguised swear-word. As
such, its use appeared to be perfectly acceptable among all members to whom I
spoke.[25]
[29] The use of disguised swearing has a number of implications with
regard to successful evangelism. As stated, a number of members commented that
they were quite aware of the unusualness of the word “pants” in the context in
which they used it. They found that non-Christians often asked them why they
used it which gave them an opportunity to “witness.” Thus, even from an emic
perspective the use of this term is a form of witness evangelism. From an etic
perspective, I would argue that disguised swearing is very useful for two
reasons. Firstly, it allows CU members to express frustration—through a
kind of swearing—without making themselves impure. As such, it means that
a group is neither too lax nor too strict, an important factor, as has been
noted, in successful evangelism. However, at the same time it demonstrates that
the group is differentiated. Indeed, it may well demonstrate this more clearly
than simply not swearing. The group, in a sense, has its own language which
demonstrates that it is differentiated and ordered. Following Reiss” model, this
would help to make the group attractive to non-Christians. And following
Stapleton, I would argue that this kind of swearing relates to a Community of
Practice, leading to social cohesion. Of course, there were small differences
in the swearing noted. In Aberdeen, I only ever heard male members—and
actually only senior male members—use the word “git” (similar to “bastard”),
although apparently this word is not as rude in Scotland as it is in England.
But it would be congruous with the observation that those of lower status
within a group have a need to assert their status through linguistic purity. Female
AUCU members were never observed to swear at all, and, interestingly, although
there was even a female President, their power was limited (women did not
preach, for example). Many female AUCU members commented that they did
sometimes say “shit!”, but it almost always transpired that this was when they
were alone, after just having received a Lower Second Class mark for an essay
or something like that. The findings in OICCU were similar, though all
emphasised that they tried not swear, even when on their own, because it’s “disgusting”
and so forth. But certainly, this allows us to see that swearing in these
groups is a matter, to some extent, of social cohesion. By swearing within the
group members are breaking its rules and this is, perhaps, more pronounced with
female members and—something only observed in AUCU—lower status
members more broadly.
[30] Thirdly, in a context in which, as we have noted, swearing is very
common, allowing a kind of swearing to take place demonstrates to outsiders
that membership of the group will not entirely deprive them of an aspect of
their cultural heritage. And finally, I would argue that such language helps to
create a social bond—an important aspect of evangelism—in, perhaps,
two ways. Firstly, swearing in front of somebody, as long as it is in a good
humoured way and not a word especially offensive to them, would be likely to
create a social bond because swearing is, albeit momentarily, a lack of
self-control just as drinking alcohol together involves experiencing a lack of
self control together and is often seen to create a bond.[26] This
lack of self control, it might even be argued, reveals something genuine for
that very reason. This is a very narrow point and I do not wish to overplay its
significance because it would be so contingent on circumstance. However, I
would suggest that in certain circumstances, swearing breaks down social
boundaries and thus helps to bond, even if it is only disguised swearing.
Certainly, some recent psychological research seems to substantiate this.[27] Secondly, to quote the English comedian Richard Herring, “Pants are funny ... but
not with a circular saw in them.” Of course, humour is subjective and some
people might not agree. But I would argue that “pants” is an amusing and, when
used as a swear word, childish word that is likely to make the person who hears
it laugh or just smile. Laughter helps to create a bond and helps to make somebody
associate whatever is making them laugh—in this case a particular
Christian perhaps—with pleasant feelings. I fully appreciate that my
final point is somewhat speculative and I would welcome further research in
this regard. But it is generally accepted that the taboo, the juxtaposing of
opposites and so forth, leads to humour, as we can see in the Herring quote.[28] So I would submit there is a humorous aspect to disguised swear-words and
particularly asserting that something is “pants.”
“Nigger” and other Racial Terms
[31] All members agreed that they would not use words such as “nigger”
because they were “widely seen as offensive” and were thus “bad witness” simply
because they would offend non-Christians. Most also commented that they would
not use such language “because it’s racist.” They did not justify why racist
language was problematic so like many of their peers it seemed to be something
that they just believed. We have already noted the way in which the ideology of
“Political Correctness” has become highly significant, especially in many
westernised countries. By objecting to racist language, CU members are
reflecting their surrounding culture. As we have noted, the appropriate balance
in this area is crucial to a successful evangelical group. There are, of
course, Evangelical Christian groups operating most notably in the United
States that use a similarly fundamentalist reading of the Bible to justify
racism, race separation and so forth.[29] I would simply conjecture that if
such a group formed at Oxford University, for example, it would be likely to be
less successful than the CU because it would reject such a significant part of
the cultural heritage of the young people to whom it would minister.
Conclusion
[32] Swearing plays an important part in the evangelical activity of
both OICCU and AUCU and can be perhaps seen as a significant tool among
evangelical groups more broadly. Swearing—and especially formerly highly
offensive sexual swearing—is a notable aspect of popular culture that is
criticised in conservative newspapers especially in the UK. Swearing has, so it
seems, increased among all social classes, though it is often seen to be most
significant among the less educated. Even so, the CU groups operate in a
student environment in which swearing is quite acceptable and in which many
students might be, as it were, open to the kind of evangelism offered by
evangelical student groups. The use of swearing in these groups—following
Reiss’s assessment of successful religious groups—helps to make them
attractive in a number of ways. Following Douglas’s Purity Rule, the lack of
conventional swearing demonstrates that members are close to a source of power,
at least in the view of middle class students, and in relation to a certain
kind of power: moral superiority. As such, the group seems to offer a kind of
status and power to outsiders and is attractive to many “lower professional”
students for this reason. This is also congruous with McEnery’s discussion of
swearing as a means of asserting middle-class identity. The CU members
generally do not belong to the highest social class at the university (those
from lower professional backgrounds are over-represented) and the behaviour can
be seen as an important play for status as well as, theologically, reflecting a
high status in a Christian sense. Also, the language allows students to
maintain their middle class cultural heritage which would generally taboo
strong swearing. Indeed, disguised swearing also creates a system of controlled
behaviour—attractive to outsiders—which permits some emotional
release. Swearing is problematic in this context because, following Leach, it
relates to something that is taboo and therefore dirty and impure. CU members
themselves argued this very point, drawing upon Biblical evidence and
discussing not swearing in terms of evangelism. Again, some group members
seemed aware of the evangelising potential of disguised swearing but they saw
it as a means of inviting the question, “Why don’t you swear?”, allowing them
to witness. Disguised swearing may evoke laughter, thus creating social bonds.
Obviously, the group’s taboo against racial epithets reflected its broader
cultural heritage.
[33] “Witness Evangelism” is a highly significant factor in evangelical
groups and especially so in the university evangelical groups with whom I
conducted fieldwork. Witness Evangelism would take many forms such as simply
being nice people, not getting too drunk or wearing clothes that were not
especially sexual. However, swearing (and its idiosyncratic use) was understood
by many CU members to be a conscious form of witness evangelism. As sexual
swearing becomes more and more acceptable, it may well become more acceptable
in Christian Unions. However, at the moment it is a clear means by which
Christian Unions differentiate themselves—and in a sense assert a certain
social status—but also aid their own evangelical activity. “Bog off dog
breath, you’re talking pants!” seemed a humorous remark at the time, but it may
in fact have been in fact a very subtle kind of evangelism in an environment in
which swearing was so acceptable.
Notes
[1] A
very early version of this article was presented at the Scottish Divinity Post-Graduate
Conference at Aberdeen University in June 2003. I would like to thank the
questioners for their comments on it and Prof. Simon Coleman for his comments
on an earlier version of the manuscript.
[2] In British English, a “wanker” is one who
masturbates. The word tends only to be used about a man and it is not commonly
used in the USA. It is not generally used literally to mean that a person
frequently masturbates, although the implication may be there. Rather, as with
many swear-words of this kind in British English, it is used as a broad insult,
akin to “idiot” but far stronger due to retaining its original sexual
connotation.
[3] For example, Smith notes the increase in swearing
among young Russians (Smith 1998, n. 34).
[4] These are anthropological terms. “Emic” refers to how
the group under observation explains something while “etic” refers to the
alternative explanation an anthropologist might give. For further discussion
see Headland et al. (1990).
[5] Equally, words such as “bastard” might be seen as
taboo because they relate to uncontrolled sex while “bugger” relates to a
traditionally taboo form of sex, transgressing the idea that sex should be
heterosexual.
[6] This distinction can
be further seen in Mary Whitehouse’s attempts to bring prosecutions using the
Blasphemy Act. The prosecution could not be brought against Till Death Us Do
Part because profanity
rather than blasphemy was expressed. However, Mrs. Whitehouse successfully
prosecuted the Gay News, in
1976, for a poem in which the Roman Soldier has homosexual sex with Christ,
brought down from the cross, which also subverts religious imagery (McEnery
2006, 139). Thus, “blasphemy” appears to bring together a religious symbol with
something apparently incongruous with it. For this reason, it offends the
religious person. Profanity merely involves using a religion-related word as a
swear-word.
[7] Mainstream British newspapers are essentially divided
between those that are perceived to be politically right leaning such as The
Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Express, The Daily Mail and The Sun and those that are generally perceived to be left
leaning such as The Guardian, The Observer, The Independent, The Mirror and The Sunday People.
[8] As stated, the Conservative Party is Britain’s
largest right wing party. It is currently the second largest party in the
British Parliament and governed Britain most recently from 1979 to 1997.
[9] I appreciate that
this term might be seen to have become a kind of epithet to use in relation to
left wing political activities. However, I am employing it here as the summary
of an ideology that has been discussed in depth by various academics. For
further discussion see Dunnant (1995).
[10] For further discussion of Political Correctness as an
ideology and its effects on the acceptability of certain ideas, see Lind (2004)
or Ellis (2004, 2005). Following Ellis and drawing upon Leach, it could be
argued that non-PC epithets are taboo because by using them you challenge the
accepted ideology that all races and sexual orientations are equal. As such, the
terms are incongruous with what might be seen as the current category system.
For a discussion of the effects of Political Correctness on Christian Unions,
see Dutton (2006b).
[11] For an examination of the word “nigger,” see Kennedy
(2002). The book is a specific historical and social discussion of this one
word. Equally for an examination of “fuck” see Scheidlower (1995).
[12] This is congruous
with Orans’s (1965) model of “Rank Concession Syndrome” whereby an apparently
lower social group imitates the higher group but does so in an exaggerated
manner.
[13] It is perhaps beyond the scope of this article to go
into detail with regard to how I conducted my fieldwork. This is examined in
depth in the doctoral thesis that it led to. For further discussion of fieldwork
method, see Hammersley and Atkinson (1995).
[14] This involved the group organising a whole week of
outreach events. There were usually daily talks on various theological subjects
by a noted evangelical speaker (with free lunch provided) and social events,
such as Ceilidhs, at which Christian literature was available. My thesis also
looks at why the level of outreach in OICCU is so much greater.
[15] For a discussion of the Charismatic Movement in a
British context, see Bebbington (1989) or Bruce (2002), chap. 9.
[16] For an examination of the history and origins of
university Christian Unions see, for example, Barclay and Horn (2002).
[17] Equally, it might be
argued that strong swearing could be seen as a way of asserting a form of power
among the working class.
[18] Conversion was a significant motif among both student
evangelical groups assessed, but especially among OICCU. During my fieldwork, I
witnessed public “testimony” (giving your biography and explaining about how
becoming a Christian was central to it) on a number of occasions at OICCU
meetings. I did not witness this at AUCU meetings, but some members published
their testimonies on the group’s website.
[19] For an examination of this issue see, for example,
Thornton (1988).
[20] The terms “bad witness” and “unhelpful” were heard
frequently and give a fascinating insight into the aims of both groups. The aim
is to evangelise, and anything that makes the group seem negative is “bad
witness” because it is “unhelpful” to this shared aim. In a way, this
imperative to witness helps to control the group because nobody wants to be
“unhelpful.” This point was made by Bruce in his sociological study of an
anonymous Scottish CU (Bruce 1978).
[21] I
have previously suggested that those at the centre can, in various ways, be “unclean”
and it could be argued that is true of the Christian God. Leach points out that
He is taboo because He defies category systems by being both God and Man, three
yet one, born of a Virgin, capable of breaking natural laws and so forth (Leach
1964). The Christian God is also violent and variously portrayed as “jealous”
and “angry” as well as loving.
[22] For example, Corinthians 6:19: “Do you not know that
your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit ... therefore honour God with your
body” (New International Version).
[23] Indeed, I have heard the word “pants” used in this
way on British Children’s TV programmes. This might be seen to indicate that CU
members—like adults trying to set a supposed example to
children—are restricted in their expression of the taboo.
[24] This exact term was also noted by Bramadat (Bramadat
2000) in his examination of McMaster University Christian Union in Canada.
[25] It might be argued that CU members, like most
students at universities such as Oxford and to a lesser extent Aberdeen, are
from what Argyle calls “professional” backgrounds and that by using disguised
swearing (such as “pants”) they are simply reflecting this background. I do not
agree with this explanation. Firstly, the CU members were very aware themselves
that they used such language far more than non-members. However, it could, of
course, be argued that this would render the CU more attractive to middle-class
students than working-class students in terms of maintaining cultural heritage.
Secondly the CU (at both universities) was, if anything, less middle-class than
the university as a whole. Thus, this swearing is perhaps more likely to
reflect class aspiration and a desire for status, following McEnery, than
simply background. It is a shame that the distinction was not made between
upper-class swearing, higher professional swearing and lower professional
swearing in McEnery’s discussion. I would recommend future research in this
regard.
[26] The relationship between laughter, loss of control,
taboo and bond creation has been examined by, for example, Berger (1997) or
Gilhus (1997).
[27] The authors found that people who swore frequently
were regarded as more believable than those that did not. This may have been
because they were less controlled in their behaviour and thus seemed more
genuine (Rassin and Van Der Heijden 2005).
[28] This point is made in both Berger (1997) and Gilhus
(1997).
[29] For a detailed discussion of conservative Christian
groups that are often perceived to have racist ideologies see Ogilvie (2001).
The author openly admits that he opposes such groups but that aside it is a
useful overview examining such groups in the USA and South Africa. It also
critiques them from the perspective of Systematic Theology.
References
Aberdeen University Christian Union. www.aucu.org. Accessed: 2002-2005.
Anon. 2001. “TV Violence, Sex and Swearing at Record
Level.” The Times. 29
January. http://www.mediawatchuk.org/publications/Swearing%20on%20TV.htm
Anon. 1991. “Viewers Still Take Offence at Swearing on
TV.” The Daily Telegraph. 25
October. http://www.mediawatchuk.org/publications/Swearing%20on%20TV.htm
Argyle, Michael. 1994. The Psychology of Social
Class. London: Routledge.
Barclay, Oliver and Horn, Robert. From Cambridge to
the World. Leicester, UK:
Inter-Varsity Press.
Barr, James. 1977. Fundamentalism. London: SCM.
Bebbington, D. W. 1989. Evangelicalism in Modern
Britain. London: George
Allen and Unwin.
Berger, Peter. 1997. Redeeming Laughter. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Bramadat, Paul. 2000. The Church on the World’s
Turf: An Evangelical Student Group as a Secular University. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bruce, Steve. 1978. “A Witness to the Faith: Dialogues
in Evangelicalism as Rhetoric and Reality.” Scottish Journal of Sociology 2:2.
Bruce, Steve. 2002. God is Dead. Oxford: Blackwell.
Conn, Walter. 1986. Christian Conversion: A
Development Interpretation of Autonomy and Surrender. New York: Paulist Press.
Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge.
Dunnant, Sarah. 1995. War of the Words: The Political
Correctness Debate, Virago.
Dutton, Edward Croft. 2005. “Crop-tops, Hipsters and
Liminality: Fashion and Differentiation in Two Evangelical Student Groups.” Journal
of Religion and Popular Culture 9. http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-fashion.html
Dutton, Edward Croft. 2006a. “Meeting Jesus at Uni:
Structure, Anti-Structure and Conversion Levels in Two Evangelical Student
Groups.” AnthroGlobe. http://www.anthroglobe.ca/docs/conversion_anthropology.htm
Dutton, Edward Croft. 2006b. “Political Correctness,
Evangelicalism and Student Rebellion at British Universities.” Journal of
Social, Political and Economic Studies 39:4, 459-88.
Ellis, Frank. 2005. “From Communism’s “Enemy of the
People” to PC’s “Hate Criminal.” Journal of Social, Political and Economic
Studies 30:1, 99-118.
Ellis, Frank. 2004. Political Correctness and the
Theoretical Struggle: From Lenin and Mao to Marcus and Foucault. Auckland: Maxim Institute.
Fisher, Shirley. 1994. Stress in Academic Life. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Fox, Kate. 2004. Watching the English: The Hidden
Rules of English Behaviour. London:
Hodder.
Francis, Leslie; Gilpin, Gillian and Robbins, Mandy.
1999. “The Reliability of the Francis Scale of attitude toward alcohol among
student members of the Christian Union in Northern Ireland and Scotland.” Irish
Journal of Psychology 20:1,
89-92.
Gilhus, Ingvild. 1997. Laughing Gods and Weeping
Virgins. London:
Routledge.
Gold, Tanya. 2004. “Can Jessica Lever, 17, save the
Tories?” The Observer. (20
December). http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1379787,00.html
Goodhew, David. 2003. “The Rise of the Cambridge
Inter-Collegiate Christian Union, 1910-1971.” Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 54:1, 62-88.
Gordon, Michael. 1993. “Sexual slang and gender.” Women
and Language 16, 16-21.
Graves, Robert. 1936. The Future of Swearing and
Improper Language. London:
Kegan Paul.
Hammersley, Martin and Atkinson, Paul. 1995. Ethnography. London: Routledge.
Headland, Thomas; Pike, Kenneth and Harris, Marvin.
1990. Emics and Etics: The Insider/ Outsider Debate. New York: Sage Publications.
Helander, Eila. 1986. To Change and to Preserve: A
Study of the Religiosity of Evangelical University Students and Graduates in
Trinidad. Helsinki:
Missologian Ja Ekumenikan Jeura.
Hughes, Geoffrey. 1991. Swearing: A Social History
of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hughes, Susan. 1992. “Expletives in lower working
class women.” Language in Society, 21, 291-303.
James, William. 1952. The Varieties of Religious
Experience. London:
Longmans, Green and Co.
Jakobsen, Merete. 1999. Shamanism: Traditional and
Contemporary Approaches to the Mastery of the Spirits. Oxford: Berg.
Kennedy, Randall. 2002. Nigger: The Strange Career
of a Troublesome Word. New
York: Pantheon.
Klerk, Vivian de. 1992. “How taboo are taboo words for
girls?” Language in Society 21, 277-289.
Leach, Edmund. 1964. “Anthropological Aspects of
Language: Animal Categories and Verbal Abuse.” New Directions in the Study
of Language. Ed.
Lennenberg, Eric. Cambridge (Mass): The MIT Press.
Lind, William S. 2004. Political Correctness: A
Short History of an Ideology. Free Congress Foundation. http://www.freecongress.org/PC_Essays/B_Intro_and_chapter_one.pdf
Ludowyk, Frederick. 2001. The Anatomy of Swearing. The Australian National University. http://www.anu.edu.au/andc/ozwords/April%202001/Swearing.html
Margolis, Jonathon. 2002. “Expletive Deleted.” The Guardian. (21 November). http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,2763,844170,00.html
Martin, Bernice. 1981. A Sociology of Contemporary
Cultural Change. London:
Routledge.
McEnery, Tony. 2006. Swearing in English:
Blasphemy, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Present. London: Routledge.
McEnery, Tony and Zhonghua, Xiao. 2004. “Swearing in
Modern British English: The Case of Fuck in the BNC.” Language and
Literature 13:3, 235-268.
McEnery, Tony and Zhongua Xiao. 2003. “Fuck
Revisited.” www.lancs.ac.uk/postgad/xiaoz/papers/cl2003_paperpdf
Montagu, Ashley. 1967. The Anatomy of Swearing. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Morris, Desmond. 1969. The Human Zoo. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ogilvie, Matthew. 2001. “Children of a White God: A
Study of “Racist” Christian Theologies.” The Human Nature Review 1, 1-27. http://human-nature.com/nibbs/01/ogilvie.html
Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union. www.oiccu.org Accessed: 2002-2005.
Phillips, Melanie. 2002. “Swearing: The sickness in
society.” The Daily Mail. (27
February). http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=26
Rambo, Lewis. 1993. Understanding Religious
Conversion. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Rassin, Eric and Van Der Heijden, Simone. 2005.
“Appearing Credible: Swearing Helps!” Psychology, Crime and Law 11:2, 177-82.
Reiss, Steven. 2000. “Why People Turn to Religion: A
Motivational Analysis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 39:1, 47-53.
Sargent, William. 1997. Battle for Mind. Cambridge: International Society for Human
Knowledge.
Scheidlower, Jesse. 1995. The F Word. New York: Random House.
Smith, S. A. 1998. “The Social Meanings of Swearing:
Workers and Bad Language in Late Imperial and Early Soviet Russia.” Past and
Present, 160, 107-202.
Stapleton, Karyn. 2004. “Gender and Swearing: A
Community Practice.” Women and Language 26:2, 22-33.
Stark, Rodney. 1996. “Why Religious Movements Succeed
or Fail: A Revised General Model.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 11:2, 133-46.
Teather, David. 2006. “FCUK warn of no quick fixes as
profits halve.” The Guardian. (15 March). http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1730873,00.html
Thornton. John. 1988. “On the Trail of Voodoo: African
Christianity in Africa and the Americas.” The Americas 44:3, 261-78.
Tomlinson, Dave. 1998. Post
Evangelical, London: SPCK.
Trudgill, Peter, (1974), Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship. www.uccf.org.uk Accessed: 2002-2005.
