Taboo Language and Symbolic Interactionism

This research is important to the Christian world view because few scholars consider it scholarly to study the use and science behind taboo language, even though it permeates the lives of millions, if not billions, of people everyday. This research is also important in terms of how Christians interact with their community, the world.

This research started off with the assumption that Christians should be at the fore-front of taboo language use, in an attempt to stave off the power behind taboo language. After the research was finished it became painfully obvious that this assumption is not completely valid when viewed through the research. Upon completion of the research there can only be one new assumption, Christianity as it exists in the modern Western world does an exceedingly terrible job of relating to its “mission field.” It seems to have a tendency to view taboo language use as something that needs to be regulated and punished, instead of viewing it as the intrinsic language of those who have a tendency to be the audience for which Christianity has a desire to appeal to.

When taboo language is viewed through Symbolic Interactionism, one comes to the conclusion that the symbol/word has no inherent meaning or power without the interaction of a community, of which Christianity is a participant. If perceived this way it becomes the responsibility of the Christian community to use the power of interaction to nullify the power of the word by ignoring its existence, instead of perpetuating its existence/power by attempting to regulate/punish its use.

What is taboo language and why does it hold such sway over all societies, past and present? This research examines taboo language as a whole and specifically the English taboo word known, throughout this research, as the F-word. It should be noted that the use of an euphemism instead of the actual word is strictly an attempt to broaden the audience of this research and should not be confused as an attempt to regulate the research or as fear of punishment, thereby forcing the research in participating in the perpetuation of the taboo aspect of the word. It is also an interesting note that despite the use of an euphemism instead of the actual taboo word, the audience still has the ability to understand what is being discussed, without any extra effort from the research.

As Patty Campbell (2007) has stated in The Pottymouth Paradox, “A testament to the power of that word [the F-word] is the way the search made me feel paranoid and perverted—as if I might end up on a government list somewhere,” (pg 1). If one looks at the F-word in this way, does this word have any power of its own volition, or does its power stem from the social pressure placed upon those who do use it by those who do not use it. To understand the full range of implications of the F-word, one needs to understand where it has evolved from, as well as what it has evolved into. In terms of the research done here it is highly influenced by and follows closely with the research of Christopher M Fairman and his 2006 article known as F—k. His research is based in the legal realm and implications of the F-word and has been of extreme importance to this research.