Profanity remains a mystery to psychological science as we have little understanding as to why obscene speech tends to cluster around body-related subject matter. However, recent work in the areas of Terror Management Theory and disgust psychology suggest that the offense of profanity may be due to the fact that profanity highlights the animal nature of the human body, which, in turn, implicates profanity as a death/mortality reminder. If so, profanity might be experienced differently in Christian populations depending upon the degree to which the body is viewed suspiciously, a lingering influence of Gnostic thought within the Christian tradition. This paper presents empirical research that attempted to assess these associations. Overall, the data was found to be consistent with the notion that profanity may function, particularly in some Christian communities, as a Gnostic affront, as an insult to a creature aspiring to be more than an animal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckR. (2004). The function of religious belief: Defensive versus existential religion. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 208–218.
2.
BeckR. (2006). Defensive versus existential religion: Is religious defensiveness predictive of worldview defense?Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, 142–151.
3.
BeckR. (2008). Feeling queasy about the incarnation: Terror Management Theory, death, and the body of Jesus. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 36, 303–312.
4.
BeckerE. (1973). The denial of death.New York: Simon & Schuster.
5.
BreznicanA. (2004, March 13). George Carlin responds to indecency uproar–with more than seven words. Associated Press Archive. Record Number: D8196MO00.
6.
EhrmanB. D. (2003). The lost Christianities.New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
FullertonJ. T., & HunsbergerB. (1982). A unidimensional measure of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 317–326.
8.
GoldenbergJ. L., CoxC. R., PyszczynkiT., GreenbergJ., & SolomonS. (2002). Understanding human ambivalence about sex: The effects of stripping sex of meaning. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 310–320.
9.
GoldenbergJ. L., HartJ., PyszczynkiT., WarnicaG. M., LandauM., & ThomasL. (2004). Ambivalence toward the body: Death, neuroticism, and the flight from physical sensation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1264–1277.
10.
GoldenbergJ. L., McCoyS. K., PyszczynkiT., GreenbergJ., & SolomonS. (2000). The body as a source of self-esteem: The effect of mortality salience on identification with one's body, interest in sex, and appearance monitoring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 118–130.
11.
GoldenbergJ. L., PyszczynskiT., GreenbergJ., & SolomonS. (2000). Fleeing the body: A terror management perspective on the problem of human corporeality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 200–218.
12.
GoldenbergJ. L., PyszczynskiT., GreenbergJ., SolomonS., KluckB., & CornwallR. (2001). I am not an animal: Mortality salience, disgust, and the denial of human creatureliness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 427–435.
13.
GoldenbergJ. L., PyszczynskiT., McCoyS. K., GreenbergJ., & SolomonS. (1999). Death, sex, love, and neuroticism: Why is sex such a problem?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1173–1187.
14.
GreenburgJ., SolomonS., & PyszczynkiT. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 61–139). New York: Academic Press.
15.
HaidtJ., & GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.
16.
HaidtJ., McCauleyC. R., & RozinP. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701–713.
17.
HallM. E. L., & ThoennesE. (2006). At home in our bodies: Implications of the incarnation for embodiment. Christian Scholars Review, 36, 29–46.
18.
KlineR. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.New York: Guilford Press.
19.
LakoffG., & JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
LandauM. J., GoldenbergJ. L., GreenbergJ., GillathO., SolomonS., CoxC., MartensA., & PyszczynkiT. (2006). The Siren's call: Terror management and the threat of men's sexual attraction to women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 129–146.
21.
LeeP. (1987). Against the Protestant Gnostics.New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
LonettoR., & TemplerD. I. (1983). The nature of death anxiety. In SpielbergerC. D., & ButcherJ. N. (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 3, pp. 14–174). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
NeuJ. (2007). Sticks and stones: The philosophy of insults.New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
PinkerS. (2007). The stuff of thought.New York: Viking.
25.
RozinP., HaidtJ., & McCauleyC. R. (2000). Disgust. In LewisM., & Haviland-JonesJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions, Second edition (pp. 637–653). New York: Guilford Press.
26.
RozinP., LoweryL., ImadaS., & HaidtJ. (1999). The CAD hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574–586.
27.
SolomonS., GreenburgJ., & PyszczynkiT. (1991). A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 93–159). New York: Academic Press.
