Definition of Terms The analysis of Taboo words and swear words in George Carlin`s monologue seven words you can’t say on television.
13 in Melanesian which etymologically means
“sacred, set apart for God, kings, priests, or chiefs, and therefore prohibited for general use Hughes, 2006, p. 462.
. However, the concept of taboo grows in ages adapting the cultural contexts which bound the culture and the society. The context also includes the
moral value which is accepted and embedded within a society. As a result, the present understanding about taboo somehow differs from the context in which that
word was firstly accepted by the society. Freud 2004 defines taboo in the context of ancient Aboriginal
Australian. He explains that Aboriginal Australian professes totemism as their system of tribal life. Different symbols of totem are attached to the clans clans
are the smaller division of the tribe. Totem itself could be animals or sometimes plants and some natural phenomena such as rain or water which are believed to
be their “guardian spirit” protecting the clans from danger by its oracle p.3.
Therefore, the members of a clan must not destroy, kill, eat its flesh, nor take benefit from their totem to avoid the consecutive sanction. Thus, as Freud claims,
this relation between the totem and the tribe is called “sacred obligation”. Besides,
it is also noted that totemism has a strong bond with exogamy. The totem symbolized by the clan functions as sign to prevent incest among the same totemic
clans. Thereby, marrying or having sexual intercourse with the same member of the clan with the same totem is prohibited. Conclusively Freud notes that there
are two taboos of which violation would lead the breaker to death as the penalty.
14 Freud emphasizes that since people do not have the exact concept of
taboo, it is hard to define precisely what taboo really is. Yet in an attempt to define taboo, Freud highlights that the meaning of taboo diverges in two contrary
directions: „sacred‟ or „consecrated‟ and „uncanny‟, „dangerous‟, „forbidden‟, or
„unclean‟ p. 21. Above that all, Freud also underscores that taboo is then manifested in
„prohibition and restriction‟. It is obvious that Freud determines the meaning of taboo based on his finding which is still related to Aboriginal
Australian context. Coming out from the context of Aboriginal Australian, some authors also
offer some other definitions of taboo in more general sense. Hughes admits that taboo in present context transforms into some prohibitions and restrictions varying
in all societies 2006, p. 462. It indicates that there are different taboos in different regions of which cultures are also distinct. Hughes then tries to expand
the definition into some aspects in which taboo is manifested. The manifestation could be in several relations of things, creatures, human experiences, condition,
deeds, and words. Yet, all of those manifestations still convey the sense of “ought
to be avoided” and “strictly speaking”. Further Hughes extracts that prohibition is fundamental and found in taboos in all societies, prohibition in doing either in
saying. Here only left the notion of “prohibition” and the main reason why the things are prohibited disappears by time and space.
Dwelling upon Jay‟s logic, this condition is then accommodated by an
institution to fill the vain in which the notion of taboo is absent. Jay 2009 explains that the fear of taboo is not naturally embedded within each individual.
15 At the institutional level, there are some authorities which own a power to
regulate and define the taboo and have right to punish those who break the prohibition Allan Burridge, 2006, p. 154.
An example of this case is described by Foucault 1978. Foucault explains that sex is defined as taboo by Victorian regime. At the beginning of the
seventeenth century, the theme “sex” was more freely spoken, discussed, or even
performed. Actually, there had existed the codes which regulated sexual matters. Yet, those codes were not too strict compared to those of the nineteenth century.
Foucault explains that cond ition as the period when bodies “made display of
themselves” p.3.
But then, after the Victorian bourgeoisie took place, the discussion about sex was then put into silence and the pleasure about sex was strictly concealed.
Sex had to aim for procreative purpose under a penal law. Those who employed sexual pleasure not for procreative purpose must be sanctioned. Since then sexual
intercourse should be done by married couple in a private room. Topic about sex must only be discussed in confessional as Christianity also took role in that
censorship p. 20. Even uttering a subject of sex which had been claimed as indecent in public would cost death penalty. It was until 1617 people were
burned to death as the sanction for saying indecent words Sulistya, 2012, p.246. Then why must that prohibition be legalized in that certain period?
Population was considered as wealth and labor capacity, which became an economic and political problem of England in that period Foucault, 1978, p. 25.
16 The government needed many labors to establish their industrial state. Thus, many
new human were needed every year to perpetuate the run of the industry. Here the government acted as
the “institution” itself. That archaic example conveyed that a power might define taboo and propagate hegemony toward people.
Therefore, the two different examples presented by Freud and Foucault still contain the notion of “prohibition”. Yet, the two examples are somewhat
different in how the “prohibition” is made. People of Australian aborigine considered their taboo as their “sacred obligation”, which means the prohibition is
conventionally received. Meanwhile, in Foucault 1978, the prohibition arises from authority or power with a set of law. There is also an unrevealed interest of
the institution to establish the prohibition i.e. industrialization of the state. The hegemony about taboo heralded by the institution supported by its
apparatus law, media, etc. makes the society sensitive to any notion of the tabooed things Crystal, 2007, p. 172. As a result, people then internalize this
concept of taboo in individual level. Therefore, Jay argues that no one is born with the concept of taboo 2009, p. 153. He claims that people acquire the concept of
taboo when they become aware of institutional standards through the socialization with others and the elements of institution which strengthen the existence of
taboo. Another more recent example is, of course, the case of Carlin versus the FCC, as Fairman 2006 claims as a perfect example of institutional taboo p. 33.
But the question is “why is a mere saying about taboo prohibited?” Hughes 2006 notes
that taboo is linguistically rooted in “word magic” in which