Cussing is about defiance

Out walking the dog yesterday AM, thinking about the post and the discussion on swearing, including George’s essay on the linguistics of popular profanities, and the example of NYPD Blue’s Sipowicz, who embodied the spirit of the cuss without ever breaking the big rules, it occurred to me that the the key is defiance – defiance of rules of proper conduct and decorum, verbal and otherwise, and whatever they may signify to the cusser; defiance of God, the Devil, the ruling class, or destiny; defiance of a particular adversary or enemy; defiance of parents, teachers, bosses, betters, superiors of any type.  In the moment of the curse all of these may come or be forced together into a single object:  When Kevin Bacon “fu-u-u-ck you”‘s the sandworm, the character obviously doesn’t expect a dead monster to understand that it’s been defied, or that it’s as fucked as the rest of us, or anything at all – it’s dead, and, even when it was alive, it probably didn’t understand English – but he expects all observers, including himself, to understand that a seemingly superior and hostile being has been successfully defied, and will always be defied, because in truth it’s just as much a fucked up piece of shit as every other motherfucker.

“Fuck you!” means “be abjectly humiliated in your corporeal being.”  I imagine someone, myself or an accomplice or servant, raping you – dishonoring and ruining you, rendering you forever disrespectable:  Bringing you low, lower even than you thought or tried to bring me.  The word “disrespect,” like “spite,” brings us more directly into the  visualization of power relationships (front and back, high and low, etc.), but “to defy” means to break away from faith and loyalty, the usage developing when it was perhaps better understood how social relations depend on and presume the oath, including the oaths of one’s parents and of their masters to their masters’ masters, and tracing back through the mists of philosophical time to the ideal and all-but-infinitely repeated moment, in Hegel’s symbolic history, when a few exhibit their willingness to kill and die rather than accept anyone else’s power over them, and thus assert lordship over the many who accept slavery or bondsmanship  (“swear an oath”), rather than risk everything.

In this sense “fuck you” is an imaginary overcoming of inferiority, a fantasized reversal of relations:  The working slave conjuring an image of the lord and master, as symbolically incarnated in whichever “you,” made like himself:  totally fucked.  Even when the exclamation is taken as a magical imprecation – as though the statement “shit on you” in some way works like a spell, conjuring “your” beshittance, actually objectifying it to some extent, in some direct variation with the shit-wizard’s powers – the person who “swears,” “cusses” (curses), or “profanes” is confirming his own belief in a force, being, or relationship of superiority, implying a higher power that can be sworn by, that can carry out a vendetta in unseen ways, or that can be blasphemed.  When a word like “fucking” is woven through Deadwoodian colloquys in polymorphous re-combinations and concentric implosions – that fucking cocksucker’s fucking shit is fucking fucked-up, etc., etc. – the result is a discourse of defiance, even defiance of one’s own verbal-intellectual limitations, that at the same time confirms the same suborn relationship it assertively, but merely temporarily, merely ironically, short-circuits.

The gentleman-lord-master doesn’t need to swear.  He, or his position, is already a continuous get-fucked.  His silent refusal to acknowledge or repeat the lower class’s over-chewed obscenities already carries the force of a fuck-you-twice, you’re the one who’s really fucked, and every time you pretend to fuck me, you’re just reminding us both how fucked you are. Now, fuck off while those of us who matter think up new ways to fuck you up.

 

10 comments on “Cussing is about defiance

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Well stated, CK. Especially in respect to that last part about the masters not needing to swear, that’s what I liked about The King’s Speech swearing. Consistent with the movie’s argument, the King does need to swear and is quite good at it. According to your observations, that would connect with his feelings toward his father, and what makes him an everyman besides his stuttering is that he needs to swear like everyone else. Moreover, and I think this is where your argument breaks down a bit, even a realized being like Neem Karoli Baba (the Be Here Now guru) either just swore for the fun of it or needed to swear. Either way, he was known for his brilliant swearing ability and I’m quite sure that it had nothing to do with feelings of powerlessness. That would be the question, though. Are there really some people who don’t feel powerless in any way, or are there chinks in the armor of everyone who has ever lived, felt the need to swear, and done so?

  2. Scott Miller wrote:

    Moreover, and I think this is where your argument breaks down a bit, even a realized being like Neem Karoli Baba (the Be Here Now guru) either just swore for the fun of it or needed to swear. Either way, he was known for his brilliant swearing ability and I’m quite sure that it had nothing to do with feelings of powerlessness.

    How he felt, what he was or where he was situated in a scheme of power relationships, what he intended to express, what his discourse expressed or related to, these could all be different things.

    Maybe it had to do with the feelings of powerlessness of the people he was talking to or before, for instance.

    The rest of the Hegelian scheme is that all of history is the history of the working slaves overcoming the master-slave relationship and its ills, since the master is incapable of true satisfaction, everyone else either being a greater master who ends up enslaving or destroying him, or a lesser being inherently incapable of offering satisfactory recognition. In the meantime, the human world (all culture, industry, technology, society, etc.) remains the handiwork of the slaves working for masters who are further and further alienated from it. The collectively created human world itself becomes a power over them that they are incapable of mastering, and is the setting within which all human beings, as equals rather than as masters or slaves, can eventually recognize each other, but only after overthrowing or fully detaching from the inherited master-slave structure.

    Maybe Neem Karoli Baba himself felt no deficit, or maybe what he lacked was true recognition. Maybe he was frustrated by the false perception of his inferiors that they were inferior, beginning with that false perception.

  3. @ CK MacLeod:

    that gets a U for unsatisfactory. there is nothing necessarily true or necessarily perceptively true to the contention that all positions in a hierarchy are less likely to lend themselves to satisfaction than would another societal arrangement.

  4. CK MacLeod wrote:

    Maybe he was frustrated by the false perception of his inferiors that they were inferior, beginning with that false perception.

    Interesting thought there.

  5. @ fuster:
    That’s not the contention, and “hierarchy” isn’t the issue. Real existing hierarchies are already several mediations removed from the more fundamental processes expressed philosophically in the master-slave/recognition framework.

    At the same time, it remains a fundamental presumption of any hierarchy – the thing that makes it a hierarchy rather than just a meaningless distribution – that being higher in it is in the most critical respects “better” than being lower in it. That doesn’t require one to believe that every person at the bottom is unhappier than every person at the top, but when people at the bottom are on average and in whatever perceived most critical dimension “happier” (more powerful, wealthier, freer, with wider opportunities, etc.) than those above them, then the hierarchy is in danger either of crumbling, inverting, or turning into something completely different.

    The definitional presumption is that it’s better to be emperor than serf, and better to be noble than base. The progressive collective falsification of that presumption would be another name for that same meta-historical historical process.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*