On Self-Censorship, the F-Bomb, and Violent Patriarchy

The real moral/political question at issue with our current and too-common slang deployment of the F-bomb is not whether one literally means that another should be non- consensually, sexually violated when one says “fuck you,” but rather why and how it is that we so easily, so unreflectively, and so intuitively resort to this particular metaphor? Especially when we have at our disposal so many other, non-sexual, non-patriarchal, non-heteronormative, and non-violent slang expressions to articulate offense or insult: why do we say “fuck you”?

I am more than willing to stipulate without objection that it is in fact the case that, in common American slang, “fuck” (as a transitive verb) is deployed as a generic insult, a generic indication of one’s desire for some generic harm to be visited upon its target, a generic signal of ill-will, disapproval, or condemnation. (I’m leaving out, for lack of space herein, the more nuanced and interesting linguistic analysis of this particular phoneme— “fuck”— with its particularly aggressive audible force.) And I’ll concede that I was, prior to this week, semi-sympathetic with the argument that there might be a way to “reclaim” the F-bomb for women in the same way that other, historically pejorative terms have been reclaimed, as either an indication of (or an assertion of the necessity for) reorganized power dynamics.

Upon reflection, I am decidedly not so inclined anymore. Because here is the fact with which all of us must reckon: rape culture is a culture.

None of us, fully-embedded and socially-constituted as the subjects that we are, can escape the siren calls of the culturally-imposed affirmations and sanctions that form us. We aren’t merely pinballs in an entirely predetermined Universe, in my considered view—I’m a fallibilist about that claim, fwiw—but none of us, even and especially (we) righteously angry feminists, can sever the ties that bind us to social, political, familial, and institutional structures that determine our default dispositions toward power and/or the available resistances to power....

It should be no wonder, in a culture in which sexual violence is both positively affirmed and its sanction is regularly, legislatively, and juridically denied that our knee-jerk expression of insult is “fuck you.” Ours is a culture fully saturated with toxic masculinity, patriarchy, compulsory heteronormativity. The “fuck you” invective did not sprout up out of the ground like broccoli; it is the entirely natural consequence of a pandemic. Widespread, relentlessly reinforced, often unreflective, sets of behaviors that enable (as Patricia Rozee has argued) “sex role socialization practices that teach non-overlapping ideas of masculinity and femininity” have, in American culture, unsurprisingly produced exactly the sort of environment in which not only victims of sexual violence, but all of us, are culturally conditioned to repeat the refrain that the best (or only) punishment for sexual violations is a repetition of the same violence....

We, all of us, have more than an ample supply of speech-acts readily available and at our disposal for articulating outrage at justice delayed or denied without resorting to invocations of rape culture. To the extent that we continue to employ this invective, we should consider ourselves complicit in rape culture.-- Leigh M. Johnson "Women in Philosophy: Feminism and the F-Bomb" @Blog of the APA.

Leigh M. Johnson taught me to take seriously the political and intellectual dangers of using appeals to civility as a means to silence less powerful others (see her widely read piece with  Kazarian at NewAPPS back in the day). So I was a bit surprised initially to see her critical reservations about the use of any invective. But in reading her piece I became convinced that she is right that our culture (it's not just American, of course--although I wouldn't be surprised if there is some national variance) is indeed "the sort of environment in which not only victims of sexual violence, but all of us, are...conditioned to repeat the refrain that the best (or only) punishment for sexual violations is a repetition of the same violence." That we do so, is, in fact, considerable evidence that the culture itself may have an important strain of sexually violent, patriarchy. There are complicated questions about to what degree such dispositions reflect repressed reactive attitudes or represent (tacitly) embraced practices, or the threat thereof (Johnson gives a wide reading list so she is aware that cultural significance is complex matter). But these need not be answered here. 

Now, before I continue, it's possible that the rhetorical aim of Johnson's piece is not to advocate a form of self-censorship (among feminists and others who reject violent patriarchy). But, rather, to call attention to the underlying culture.  

Johnson does not pause to note that the underlying moral principle is lex taliones, an eye for an eye.  Now, it is often taken to be an uncivilized/barbaric moral principle -- perhaps dangerous relying on unrefined reactive attitudes. This idea is captured by Martin Luther King Jr, who is often quoted as follows, "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding." King is especially astute on how retaliation leads to more violence.*

One may well worry, as Johnson does, that to embrace it, and invective that draws upon it, leads to an unintended affirmation and strengthening of the underlying (bad) culture and politics. (And as Audre Lorde suggests, memorably, the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.) Johnson says that there is an ample supply of speech-acts that can do the work to express outrage at injustice.

But it is worth noting that the principle of an eye for an eye is a form of measured retaliation; it presupposes a form of moral equality. Everybody's eyes are treated, as it were, equally. And positing, even acknowledging, such a form of equality is especially important in violently hierarchical societies. (This is a point distinct from reclaiming and reversing power dynamics.) So, without wishing to defend this form of invective, or to reject Johnson's call for self-censorship, or to deny that its ordinary (transitive) use is to wish for generic harm in others, we may also see in its widespread use an aspiration, rooted in anger and powerlessness, to become equal or have equal standing with the perpetrators of violence. This aspiration, while not especially ennobling or dignified expressed, is politically (and morally) non-trivial especially in the context of the character of any rule of law. (Her piece was promoted by the Kavanaugh hearings.)

Of course, to locate one's equality within a community in the possibility of harming others (in response to harms) is not especially ennobling or may, in fact, not be worth affirming from the vantage point of the future revolution or any normative perspective. So, I lack confidence that, thus, Johnson's call (for a kind of self-censorship/reform of language) is mistaken. But if one does not expect society to change for the better, wishing on another measured retaliation may be a form of self-affirmation (of one's equality despite the power differences), even if, or precisely because, that very self is disfigured by violence.

 

*I have not been able to check an original source. In the Nobel lecture he says, 

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.

Comments

[Leigh M. Johnson]

Thanks for this, Eric. I especially appreciate your highlighting the violence at the heart of patriarchy.

I’m not totally convinced that lex taliones presupposes a form of moral equality in the way you suggest, whough. And I think this is especially evident in hierarchical societies. Consider the following:

You and I live in a hierarchically-organized society in which you are a member of the empowered group and I am a member of the disempowered group. One day, you poke my eye out. Then, I invoke lex taliones and poke your eye out in return (for all the reasons you mention in your post, but most esp “to have equal standing with the perpetrators of violence”). It will remain the case that neither our actions, nor our eyes, nor our persons are equal.

My eye is gone because of the way our society is hierarchically organized, i.e., in a way that empowers, emboldens, or excuses (or all three) your violence. Your eye is gone (justly or not) because of your prior violent actions. (I think we have to make a distinction between violence and retaliation.) That is to say, had you not poked my eye out first, you would still have your eye. I, on the other hand, exist in a society in which my eyes are *always* vulnerable; they are perpetual targets of violence.

Now, replace eye-poking with sexual assault.

The fact of the hierarchical organization of our society, which empowers some to commit violence and relegates others to the always-precariously-situated position of potential-victims, remains unchanged when lex taliones is invoked. The disempowered are not asserting their equality in that invocation; they are affirming their inequality. This is what I take to be the point of the the MLK excerpt you quoted—“I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results… But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.”