Useful Distinctions

One of the things I decry about society today is what technologically-driven democratization of the language we use has done to both the communication of and the formation of ideas. As subliterate Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind “newsertainment” has influenced our discourse into channels of the lowest common denominator, thinking itself is being dumbed down by the subliterate use of words.

Let me use an example that’s one of the least offensive: the conflation into one dumbed down, flat, colorless meaning of three separate words that once (and still for some, slightly more literate users of English) had usefully distinct meanings: vulgarity, profanity, obscenity.

Now, all seem to be very inappropriately subsumed under “profanity”. But distinct meanings can yield clarity in communication, contra the argument made in another forum that,

“Insistence on precise meaning can work both for and against clarity.”

Please, someone, explain to me in words that make sense *heh* how that statement can make sense. Certainly precision in word usage can work for clarity in thought, expression and transmission of ideas, but how does imprecision in word usage lead to clarity in any of those activities? (And that comment was from one who claims “advanced training” –*heh* not “education”–in semantics and linguistics; go figure.)

So, what have we lost when different classes of “cuss words” (and I have a predictable problem with that term as well ;-)) are all gathered together under one class, ignoring any distinctions between classes? Let’s see.

A vulgarity is simply a “low speech” variant of a “high speech” word. “Shit” for “feces” is a common example. Both have the same primary meaning. “Shit”* is more useful for conveying disgust with something or for relaying the value of a commodity in earthy, pithy, no-nonsense tone. It’s vulgar, although some neo-victorian bowdlerizers have crammed it into the “profanity” class and now perhaps most people–very, very wrongly–think of it as a profanity.

And what of obscenities? Titilating, stirring up passions with lewd, indecent, debasing expressions or images of a sexual nature can also be vulgar, but rarely profane. Why? Well, that depends on what profanity is, doesn’t it?

Rightly, profanity is that which debases, insults, degrades or slanders that which is holy, belonging to or set apart (for his use) by God. By conflating that which is merely vulgar or even that which is obscene with profanity, one degrades, debases, obscures real profanity, making it easier for those who would do so to actually profane that which is holy and point the finger at the vulgar and obscene and say, “No, what I’m doing isn’t profane; that is.”

But beside all that is the fact that blurring meaningful distinctions in language to the point of erasure is simply lazy thinking… and encourages even lazier thinking. That’s how politicians who advance anarchy and tyranny with complete disregard for what citizens want can call themselves “Democrats”. Useful and meaningful distinctions in word usage would have long since renamed them to reflect their real nature.

*BTW, I sometimes despair of folks who are offended by the use of the word “shit”. As one dear old saint in my church told me, she grew up on a farm and every time they turned around they were stepping in some sort of shit. It’s just a part of life. Besides, think of my former neighbors who were named after an ancestor who had good bowel movements. That’s right; their name was “Shatwell”–a past tense of “to shit”.