Taboo Language and Symbolic Interactionism

Some exciting studies have arisen out of the Symbolic Interactionism theory. In 2006 Internal Self-Esteem: God as Symbolic Interactionism’s “Significant Other”? was published. It was a study done by April Chatham-Carpenter that explored the implications of “church-going” women and what it meant to have God and the church in the sphere of influence known as “Significant Other.” The astounding potential for this idea resonates through centuries. What would it mean for a person’s self-esteem if God is in that persons “community” and has a significant part to play in that person’s construction of the self?

The study’s results showed that

The women who spoke of the positive link they found between self-esteem and their religious faith noted five reasons for this link: (a) receiving self-esteem as God-given and -derived (vs. from other sources), (b) experiencing a personal, loving relationship with God, ( c) knowing “who I am in God,” (d) having a purpose for living, and (e) being supported in a church “extended family,” (Chatham-Carpenter, 2006, pg. 107).

This study was by no means exhaustive as it was “a study of 59 adult women’s stories about self-esteem,” (Chatham-Carpenter, 2006, pg. 103), but its inference is powerful.

What does this all mean for our American “Christian-based” world today? Why should Christianity care about the language it uses and allows? What is the responsibility of Christianity in a Symbolic Interactionism world view? These questions all have extreme validity and should be considered thoroughly by all those who exercise the ability to “speak” for God.

First we must view this researches artifact through this researches theory. When one views the F-word through Symbolic Interactionism it is easy to see the power that the word has been given. Since words have no intrinsic power, where did this particular word receive its power? The answer should in no way surprise anyone when there has been an overtly obvious “attempt to cleanse the language of this word.” (Fairman, 2006, pg. For almost two complete centuries, from 1795-1965, there is no mention of the F-word in any dictionary. The motivation behind this omission seems to have been “to inspire modesty, delicacy, and chastity of language,” (Fairman, 2006, pg. 9). So the dominant society for two centuries discussed among themselves and determined that this word/symbol was not modest, delicate, or chaste.

This determination, however, made the word appropriate for any situation that was immodest, harsh, or immoral. Those who lived in a harsher environment, such as sailors , hence the common colloquial “swears like a sailor,” found this word perfect for their uses. This in turn pushes the language onto any immoral situation a sailor might find himself in, an example may be a foray into the red light district. Now, in this scenario, the prostitutes and sailors have a common language that they alone have influence over, since the dominant society has chosen to have nothing to do with it.