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
17 people believe that certain creatures or forces cannot or must not be named e.g.
God, the Devil, death, damnation, diseases, varieties of copulation and sexual reference and the predicates people tend to avoid such as being poor, being fired,
and so on 2006, p.463. Words are believed to have symbolic power and are considered as magic. Besides, mere utterance of taboo words is believed to be
capable of evoking the uttered idea in mind, in this case the tabooed things Pinker, 2007. It can be a possible reason why even uttering tabooed things is
strictly forbidden. But yet, it cannot be separated from the context of culture. Wajnryb
2006 states that the cultural context influences the words‟ sense of danger. She
then explains that there is a “reflexive relationship” between the words and the
cultural context : “the view that the certain words have power invests these words
with power. This manifested power then reinforces the view that these words have power” p. 32.
Some beliefs claim that mere uttering of the tabooed things, such as evil, or misfortune, will wreak that force in front of the speaker Ljung, 2011, p. 47.
The example can be in form of superstition as can be found in the beginning of chapter two in
Chinua Achebe‟s novel, Things Fall Apart, as described below:
“…Children were warned not to whistle at night for fear of evil spirits. Dangerous animals became even more sinister and uncanny in the dark. A snake was never called by
its name at night, because it would h ear. It was called a string.” p.9
18 In his novel, Chinua Achebe uses Igbo culture of African as the setting where the
whole story takes place. The description above is one of the ways how taboo is understood. Something, in this case snake, which is believed to bring an evil
force, is not allowed to be mentioned. In addition to this, Allan and Burridge 2006 explain that taboo arises out of social constraint on the individual‟s
behavior where it can cause harm, discomfort, or injury p. 1.
The case of restriction by power is also reflected in Orthodox Judaism culture. In that culture, people do not call the name of God Yahweh, spelled
YHWH . It is only the high priest of an ancient temple who might utter such name.
In the daily conversation, people use the word hashem “the name” to refer to
God Pinker, 2007; Ljung, 2011.
Beside word magic, some authors, like Pinker and Jay, underline the relation between the words uttered and the ability of human‟s mind to evoke the
idea of the words as a reason for restriction toward tabooed things. For instance, the utterance about bodily effluvia might cause disgust toward the listener Hunt,
2009. This is another reason why even uttering taboo word is problematic.
Hence, it can be concluded that there are various concepts on how taboo is understood. Different contexts of place on time serve different manifestations of
taboo. That is why several authors claim that there is no absolute taboo. Yet, the notion of “prohibition” cannot be separated from the idea of taboo in all contexts
Allan Burridge, 2006; Pinker, 2007; Ljung, 2011; Jay, 2009.
19
2.1.2 Major Topics of Taboo Words
The topic of taboo varies in different areas and context of time. Yet, the dichotomy of religious and secular taboo is believed by some author to be the
major topic of taboo Crystal, 2007; Ljung 2011. These two topics will be discussed briefly in this part to give a frame in classifying the words containing
taboo. This part also tries to figure out the terminology used to label the taboo word with its reference.
In short, religious taboo relies on profanity or blasphemy goddamn, damn, hell
, bloody Mary. Therefore, secular taboo includes the theme of sexual activities fuck, cunt, blowjob, motherfucker, cocksucker, excretory product
bodily effluvia shit, crap, douche, piss, some animal names bitch, pig, ass, and intimated part of the body tit, asshole, cock, prick, dick. Despite that dichotomy,
there are also several types of taboo from which taboo words and swear words are derived e.g. ethnic-racial-gender slurs nigger, fag, dago, perceived
psychological, physical, or social deviation retard, wimp, lard ass, ancestral allusions son of bitch, bastard, substandard vulgar terms fart face, on the rag,
and offensive slangs cluster fuck, tit run Jay, 2009. Meanwhile Allan and Burridge 2006 added “food gathering, preparation, and consumption” in
categories of taboo in their book. Wardaugh 2006 adds that discussion of politics might also be included in tabooed topic for some contexts. Thomas 2004
also puts the topic of “death” into taboo in several cultures. However, that classification will be made more succinct to give ease in the further analysis in
this thesis.
20 The most common religious taboo is known as blasphemy or profanity.
The word “blasphemy” is from Greek word “blasphemia” which means “profane speech or evil
slander” Hughes, 2006, p.31. Even though the root of the words shares some concept about “evil”, Hughes 2006 notes the differences between
the two terms. The distinction is in the intention in which the words are spoken; blasphemy is more intentional and profanity is more habitual. This premise is
strengthened by Wajnryb 2006 who states that blasphemy “deliberately vilifies
religion or anything associated with religious meaning” p. 17. Wajnryb also adds
that profanity involves the use of religious terminologies in a more secular manner e.g. “God” or “Jesus” and added no more information about intention p.21.
Crystal 1997 underscores that profanity had a wider range than blasphemy p. 173. However, the source of the reference is still the same i.e. anything related to
religion which is considered sacred and not to be uttered without necessity sacrilege.
Hughes 2006 claims that profanity historically formed the first major area of taboo p. 127. Christian believes that this taboo is related to the third
Commandments in one part of the Old Testament which ban people to “take the Lord‟s name in vain” Holy Bible, Exodus. 20.7. This quotation is claimed to be
the most firm basis of plenty executions for blasphemy and profanity Ljung, 2011, pp. 48-49. In some regions dominated by Catholic culture, like England,
religious profanity is common considering its firm bond to its people. Then blasphemous libels refer to crime committed if a person insults, offends, or vilifies
deity, Christ, or the Christian religion McEnnery, 2006, p.31. This kind of abuse
21 surely would bring the doers into punishment particularly in ancient times.
Hughes records that the punishment would be “burning at the stake” up to 1677
and death penalty prevailing in Scotland until 1825 Hughes, 2006, p.32. No wonder that the Church had authority to punish people in such regions since the
Church was considered as the part of the law itself 2006, p.31. Beside death penalty, the other kinds of punishment for uttering taboo during the 25
th
century are imprisonment and excising of the tongue Pinker, 2007; Vingerhoets et al.,
2012 Chronologically speaking taboo has moved from religious to sexual and
racial area in the last two centuries Hughes, 2006, p.331. This secular taboo began to be more popular than the religious one. According to Hughes this
changing inclination happened due to the overtaking of censorship on publications by the ecclesiastical court which concerned more about sacrilegious matters in
England. Pinker 2007 added that this extenuation of religious taboo is a consequence of the secularization of Western culture p. 213.
In scope of secular taboo the term like obscenity and vulgarity are the common one. Those two terms include the theme of intimate parts of the body.
During the seventeenth century, the reference of those terms goes broader which includes private genital part and sexual activities Hughes, 2006, p. 332.
Hughes records some articles which are believed to be the proto definitions of obscenity. One of them is the Obscene Publication Act which was held in 1857.
That article contains the understanding that obscenity has the sense of “intentionally corrupting the moral of the youth and shocking the common
22 feelings of decency in any well-regulated mind
” p.333. Wajnryb also suggests that there is an emotive function in the definition of obscenity with direct
reference to intimated part of the body as well as the body‟s function and product
bodily effluvia which includes the words shit and fuck p. 21. Another kind of secular taboo is vulgarity. It shares the same theme with
obscenity i.e. the intimated part of the body. However, it does not contain emotive function like obscenity does. Vulgarity works like dysphemism Wajnryb, 2006,
p.22. It means that in case of vulgarity, taboo words replace the position of the other word in a sentence e.g. “I have to finish this shit” in which the word shit
refers to “task”, for instance. It is also said that vulgarity is broader than obscenity
even though it is loosely used interchangeably with obscenity. The next theme of taboo is ethnic racial slurs. Ethnic racial slurs include
the words which have derogatory meaning toward a certain ethnic, race, community, or a particular group of people e.g. nigger, yankee, kaffir, gringo, and
so on. According to Hughes ethnic racial slurs are a linguistic manifestation of xenophobia and prejudice against out-group p. 146. Hughes also states that the
abusive point of ethnic racial slurs is not in the words themselves, but who uses it, for instance
, J.L Dillard pointed out, “even nigger was not offensive to Blacks until Whites used in derogatory way” 1997, in Hughes, 2006 as the effect of
colonialism. Beside colonialism, it is also explained that migration, war, religious conflict, and expansion take a role in forming the perception of the ethnic racial
slurs with emphasis in distinctive features like race or skin tone.
23
2.1.3. Taboo Words and Swear Words
There is a certain similarity which makes these two kinds of words share a same definition. The similarity is the root of both kind of word which is
emanated from taboo. Nonetheless, there is a difference between both. Karjalainen 2002 states that although all swear words are taboo, not all taboo words are
swear words. Cannibalism, for instance, is taboo in some cultures, yet the swear words derived from that theme are absent p.18 The using of the words here is
specifically how the users use the words and involve their emotion to their utterance. However, Ljung 2011 thinks that taboo word and swear words are two
different cases. The difference could be clearer by observing Ljung‟s criteria of swear words:
1. Swearing uttering swear words is the use of utterances containing taboo
words. 2.
The taboo words are used with non-literal meaning. 3.
Many utterances that constitute swearing are subject to severe lexical, phrasal, and syntactic constraints which suggest that most swearing qualifies
as formulaic language. 4.
Swearing is emotive language: its main function is to reflect, or seem to reflect, the speakers‟ feeling or attitude.
Ljung, 2011, p. 4 The second point of Ljung‟s criteria underlines that the reference of taboo
words which has transformed into swear words might be used as metaphor to refer to anything else which is possibly not taboo. For example, the word shit taboo