New-York tribune., 1901-03-10
WHY Do MEN SWEAR?
THE PHILOSOPHY OF PROFANITY.
SOME Of TIE CURRENT PSYCHOLOGICAL
THEORIES.

Professor @. T. ". Patrick, Of the University
OF loTa, recently read paper on profanity
before a scientific society in Lincoln Neb A
good deal Of il was couched in technical Ian
guage which cannot easily be translated into
pei ular phraseology. And some Of the ideas
which he advanced will probably not receive
unanimous approval from those who have
ssEd-ed human emotion and its expression with
care Nevertheless the topic is one in which a
great 1nany people besides scientists are inter
estee- What Professor Patrick 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?
II the first place the variety OF circumstances
IN which profanity is INDUCED in is pointed
out Ii is characteristic Of anger, a failure to
find adequate expression in ordinary language
for an emphatic statement. and an effort TO
stimulate Workmen and horses 10 extra effort.
And the use Of oaths is accompanied by a pleas
ant feeling Of relief from some painful stress.
On this latter point Professor Patrick quotes q
sentence Of !. II. Campbell concerning the
Physiology Of the emotions: The shouting and
gcstcuIation which accompany an outburst Of
passion act physiolosicaliy 10y relieving nerve
tension. ana. indeed. as IIughiings Jackson has
suggested, swearing may not be without its
physiological Justification" The lecturer at Lin
coin el2!oTates the idea still further by re
marking that in the primitive and natural form
Of combat the whole muscular system comes
into lively 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 10 repress every overt act and every
expression OF emotion except facial movements
OF some form Of Vocalization Profanity is
therefore a safety valve. IL the man did not
swear he would do something worse. 1t may be
Hkened TO the engine blowing off steam"
Professor Patrick insists. however that this
theory is not altogether satisfactory TO him.
He raises both psychological and physiological
objections TO it, some Of which Will impress the
average reader trife abstruse. But he also
urges that swearing is more than a ex-
preston OF emotion. 1t is designed TO produce
effect somebody else. He traces its origin
back to the animal instinct TO fight 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 De intended to put the
enemy TO flight, says Professor Patrick. who
adds: The human analogue Of the growl or
roar Of anger is the profane OATH
One easily recall situations TO which this
explanation does not seem TO apply. When a
mans collar button rolls under the bed the
bureau, for instance, and he INDUCES in unpar-
namentary language il hardly be imagined
shat he deliberately aims 10 intimidate the
elusive bit OF metal. Still. IL may be that the
Iowa professor IS relefrlnS only 10 evolution
OF the swearing instinct in man. and does not
intend that his theory shall explain each par
tcular manifestation Of it,
The hypothesis advanced to account for the
habit OF swearing leads naturally to Professor
Patrick's explanation OF the form OF mems
oaths, the reckless use OF the names OF the
Deity. the saints and sacred things. Assuming
that this motive is-Or was when the practice
originated-to shock startle. il would be hard
TO find a better way to accomplish the object
than the practice which IS forbidden by the third
commandment
Here, again. the theory fails 10 cover all the
observed facts, however accurately il may fit
a few. There some oaths the precise sig
nifcance of which is obscure. But, the other
hand, there are many which distinctly call down
the curse Of Heaven upon the person addressed.
and are meant TO do so. And il is probable that
q good deal OF the swearing that Professor Pat
rick has in mind is made up Of contractions
from what were originally well defined male
dctions the most emphatic form Of expressing
q wish that evil. bodily spiritual might befall
somebody. There is more in an oath of this kind
than shocking the sensibilltics Of the subject.
PART or LONDON WALL FOUND.