The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-24
WHY MEN USE PROFANITY.

From the New York Tribune.


Prof c. T. w Patrick. of the UNIVERSE
ty of Iowa. recently read paper on
Profanity before a scientific society in
Lincoln Neb. A good deal of it was
couched in technical language which can
not easily be translated into popular
phraseology. And some of the ideas which
he advanced will probably not receive
unanimous approval from those VINO nave
studied human emotion and its expression
with care Nevertheless. the topic Is one
in which a great many people besides sci
entists are interested. What Prof. Fa-
trick set out to do was to answer two
questions: Why do men swear? And
when they swear why do they use the
words they do?
In the. first place. the variety of cir
cumstances in which profanity is indulg-
ed in is pointed out. 1t is characteristic
of anger, a failure to find adequate eX-
preston IN ordinary language for an en-
phatic statement, and an effort to stlInu-
late workmen and horses to extra effort
And the use of oaths is accompanied by
pleasant feeling of relief from some pain
full stress. On this latter point Professor
Patrick quotes a sentence of J. II. Camp
bell, concerning the physiology of the
emotions: The shouting and gestlcula-
ton which accompany an outburst OF pas
sion act physologically by relieving nerve
/ tension and, indeed. as Hughlings jack
son has suggested. swearing may not De
without its physiological Justification
| The lecturer at Lincoln Celebrates the
J idea still further by remarkin6 that in the
primitive and natural form of combat the
! whole muscular sytem comes into hVely
| action. and any restraint that is put upon
! this form of activity creates a necessity
| for other outlets. Men in anger may
| perhaps be obliged to repress every overt
/ act and every expression OF emotion e1
! cept facial movements or some form oil
! vocalization. Profanity is therefore
| safety valve. - II man did not swear
! he would do something worse. Il may be
/ likened to the engine blowing OFF steam.
| Prof Patrick insists, however, that this
! theory is not altogether satisfactory TO
/ him. He raises both psychological and
| physiological objections to 1t, some or
| which will impress the average reader as
| trifle abstruse. But he also urges that
| swearing is more than a mere expression
/ of emotion. 1t is designed to produce an
/ effect on somebody else. He traces its
| origin back to the animal instinct to fight
or fly when attacked. In primitive stage
! of existence the creature would, in the
| former instance, show its teeth, get its
| back up, and spit or growl All OF this
behavior would be intended to put the
I enemy to flight, says Prof Patrick. who
| adds: The human analogue of the growl
| or roar of anger is the profane oath"
One can easily recall situations to which
| this explanation does not seem to apply.
| When a mans collar button rolls under
! the bed or the bureau, for instance, and
| he INDUCES in unparliamentary language,
! it can hardly be imagined that he DELHI
! erately aims to intimldate the elusivobit
/ of metal. Still, il may be that the iowa
| professor is referring only TO the evolu-
| ton of the swearing instinct in man. and
| does not intend that his theory shall ex-
plain each particular manifestation of it.
| The hypothesis advanced to account for
| the habit of swearing leads naturally to
| Prof. Patrick's explanation of the form
OF mems oaths, theareckless use of the
names of the Deity. the saints and sacred
| things. Assuming that this motive is-or
| was when the practice or1ginated-to
| shock or startle. IL would be hard to md
a better way to accomplish the object
| than the practice which is forbidden by
| the third commandment.
Here. again, the theory fails to cover all
| the observed facts. however accurately 1t
! may fit a few. There are some oaths the
! precise Significance of which is obscure.
| But on the other hand. there are many
| which distinctly call down the curse OF
| Heaven upon the person addressed, and
| are meant 10 do so. And il is probable
| that a good deal of the swearing that
| Prof Patrick has in mind is made up OF
| contractions from what were originally
| well defined maledictions, the most en-
| phatic form of expressing wish that
! evil bodily or spiritual. might De1ali
| somebody There is more IN an oath OF
| this kind than shocking the sensioiiltles
| Of the subject.