Is Vulgarity Our New Normal?
This essay is still a work in progress... so, I’d really appreciate any feedback that you have…
The question of whether our discourse is becoming more vulgar is not new. Many think that it obviously is. Some think that we’re just more aware of the vulgarity because it’s amplified by the Internet. To stand out amid the cacophony of social media, one needs to be both louder and one step more outrageous than the last loudest person. Once heard, a vulgar outburst can echo around the Internet for quite some time through a practice called “nut picking.” Hence, the perception that our conversations are, indeed, getting worse.
While it may be arguable whether or not there has been an overall increase in vulgarity, per se, there has been a dramatic change in the people from whom vulgarity is acceptable. In fact, I think we are at an inflection point. Vulgarity has infiltrated so many levels of our discourse that I think it’s our new normal.
By vulgarity, I am not referring to the occasional swear word, edgy comedic monologue, off-color joke between friends, or harsh comment made in the heat of the moment (usually followed by an apology). I am referring to the truly distasteful, unnerving (and seemingly unrelenting) name calling, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks, unnecessarily graphic and gratuitous references to bodily functions, and gleeful celebrations of people’s deaths.
To be clear, I am neither naïve nor prudish (by any stretch of the imagination). I don’t think there was some idyllic time from which we strayed. (Even nowadays, it would be difficult to outdo Mozart in this regard.) However, as a Psychologist, I am both concerned and stunned by the complacency with which we have come to accept the cruelest, most unkind, and most outrageous forms of vulgar behavior especially from those most influential voices that shape our public discourse.
What concerns me even more than the vulgarity, itself, is the absence of any meaningful pushback against this behavior. By “pushback,” I do not mean feigned outrage or retaliation in kind. I mean mature, thoughtful comments such as. “I’m sorry, but that’s not acceptable to me. I would be happy to have that conversation with you when you’re being civil.”
I think we all need to step back, assess what’s going on, and actively try to right the course.
My feelings reached a crescendo a few months ago when I read an account of several voicemails left by by Erin Marquis’ (a former New York Times editor), for the Michigan affiliate of the National Association for Gun Rights. According to the account, she “…left them messages asking if they were scared of going to hell for what they do.” Marquis went on, “Again, I am from The New York Times, and I am letting everyone in The New York Times know what kind of f—ing a—holes you are.” The voicemails were rude, to be sure. But, what’s more interesting to me was that the author of the account wrote “I don’t blame her,” as if calling someone a “f—ing a—holes” is just a normal, acceptable response to someone with whom you disagree. Likewise, Caroline Vakil who reported the original story for The Hill euphemistically referred to Marquis’ rude voicemails as simply “fiery” (but not rude, unkind, or offensive). Of course, not everyone finds Marquis’ behavior acceptable, but I am surprised that any thinking person would.
As a Biological Psychologist (a neuroscientist who studies how brains work), I understand that vulgar, aggressive name-calling is often the vestiges of adolescent bullying and has become de rigueur. Nonetheless, I do not a believe that words are “violence,” and I am opposed to any kind of censorship. What does concern me, however, is our collective cultural dissent into a level of mean-spirited discourse that fails to draw much condemnation from the professionals, intellectuals, opinion makers, and other voices that fill our public spaces. Would the reporter’s comment — “I don’t blame her” — carry more weight and be more efficacious if it was followed by this: “…but this level of vulgarity is unnecessary and counterproductive. Besides, it’s just plain rude”? How is it that we have become so inured to vulgarity that calling people “f—ing a—holes” passes without comment and the insult is an acceptable substitute for “I don’t agree with you”?
As a psychologist, what interests me is that vulgarity has permeated our entire culture from top to bottom (or bottom to top). It’s no longer “locker room talk.” It standard discourse among the elite voices. High profile instances such as Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s obscene rant are only the tip of the iceberg. And, nobody seems to mind.
Gratuitous vulgarity has become so much a part of the mainstream consciousness that even conservative commentators seem inured. For instance, the discussions about Dave Chapelle’s highly publicized Netflix special, “The Closer” focused on his remarks about transgenderism and politics. However, no one that I read was critical of the gratuitous (and often quite distasteful) crudeness that was the comedic backbone of his monologue.
I appreciate edgy humor, and I understand that entertainers have a wider Overton window than do many folks. However, it seems that we have come to accept even the most outrageous excesses as acceptable. Certainly, Joe Biden seemed comfortable enough with Cardi B—famous for her song about excessive bodily secretions—to be interviewed by her. Even relatively mainstream “Saturday Night Live” is comfortable with a totally nude singer. So, maybe examples from the entertainment industry don’t make my point.
Not surprisingly, even academia has slipped into an easy acceptance of the vulgar extremes. Of course, publicly insulting colleagues with whom one disagrees (“racist,” “sexist,” “dangerous”) is a long-endured behavior in the sciences, and is getting both more common and more aggressive. However, these insults seem almost quaint compared to the Tweets of the Chair of the Political Science Department at Virginia State University or the social media content of Georgetown professor, Christine Fair. As a psychologist, I think that there is something very wrong going on here.
Between the extremes of denigrating a colleague and spewing vulgarity into the Twittersphere, sits a more intellectually challenging issue. FIRE, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, is defending history professor, Barry Mehler against his employer, Ferris State University. The University placed Mehler on administrative leave alleging that he violated its “Employee and Student Dignity policy” when he sent a (putatively) comic, introductory video to the students in each of his five history classes.
I support FIRE’s defense of Mehler. He is free to make as many awkward attempts at comedy as is any professor (or would-be comedian). However, from a practical standpoint, my experience as a professor suggests that calling students “c*cks***ers” and “vectors of disease” does not set a good foundation for the collegial relationship one might hope to have in a classroom. Metaphorically speaking, it’s like shooting yourself in the foot before race. Does that make sense?
More to my point is the fact that the level of vulgarity and displayed by these academics — and others of similar influence — disproportionately contributes to the normalization of the behavior. In Mehler’s case, the 200 or so students who listened to his video, and the thousands who have watched it on YouTube have received tacit approval from a professor to talk similarly. This seems counterproductive to me.
To the degree that the intelligentsia — including professors and politicians — set such poor examples may be one of the reasons that student activists so easily descend to the most extreme levels of vulgarity. (See, for instance, Christine Rosen’s The New Misogyny and this by Julie Bindel.)
Sadly, even death doesn’t shield a person (or their loved ones) from the vulgar attack. In 2019, David Koch died of prostate cancer, a particularly insidious form of the disease. Later that day, Bill Maher commented, “I guess I am going to have to re-evaluate my low opinion of prostate cancer…. I am glad he’s dead and I hope the end was painful.” Again, even though I do not subscribe to the belief that speech is ‘violence,’ I did get a pain in my stomach reading those lines. Statistically, one out of eight men in Mahr’s audience have the disease. They and their partners, spouses, and children probably felt their stomachs churn, too. But, Koch was a billionaire, fair game, I suppose.
More recently, as one might have predicted, mocking the dead has gone mainstream amid the controversies over COVID vaccines. Consider Michael Hiltzik’s column in the LA Times entitled, “Mocking anti-vaxxers’ COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes — but may be necessary.”
Of course, it’s not just entertainers and journalists who find these types of post-mortem insults acceptable. Some professors do, too. Just an hour after Barbara Bush's death in 2018, a Fresno State English Professor Tweeted that the former first lady was an “amazing racist” who raised a “war criminal.” She went on to refer to the former First Lady as a “piece of s**t” and commented “I am happy the witch is dead.” As one might expect, these morbid behaviors can have unnerving (and dangerous) real world consequences such as the credible threats against Professor Mike Isaacson (@VulgarEconomics). As a psychologist, I believe there is a straight causal line from feeling free to openly denigrate people and the violent altercations now occurring in situations in which I previously would not have expected them to happen. It’s all a matter of degree stop
We all need to be concerned about a society in which vulgarity becomes the norm across all occupations, races, classes, genders, religions, and political persuasions. We all should be concerned by discourse that reaches for the most repulsive or disgusting extremes to land a joke, make a point, or get attention. We need to think about living in a society in which everyone from schoolyard bullies, to entertainers, to politicians, to professors unmercifully insult, ridicule, belittle, or degrade people with whom they disagree. I hope we can stem the tide.
I do want to reiterate that I am a strong First Amendment advocate. People can say whatever they want as far as I am concerned, even things as distasteful as Bill Mahr’s comments and Professor Bellamy’s Tweets. However, I think it would be the start of a return to civility if the vulgarities flooding public discourse got much more condemnation and pushback than they currently do. I think this can be done without screaming, insulting, name-calling, de-platforming, canceling, firing, or threatening to punch anybody. I also think it can be done without damaging our First Amendment.
What if there were just more people willing to say, “I am not interested in discussing this point with you if you are going to be that vulgar. And, if I do review your comedy act, or respond to your social media, or support your cause, or take your history course, I am going to be respectfully outspoken about your unnecessary use of vulgarity. So, please rephrase what you’re saying, and I am all in for the conversation.”
Perhaps a bit unrealistically, I believe that with a concerted, systematic pushback by a committed group of people with public voices, the tide could turn.
I envision a time when gratuitous vulgarity has gone the way of cigarette smoking. Some may still engage in the habit but, overall, social mores will have changed – gradually but decisively — and those who exercise their ego at another’s expense will be seen as pariahs. However, this will never come to pass unless we speak up, and do so honestly and consistently.
This. I’ve been watching some of this in my small neck of International Relations and the worst offenders are my generation of millennials.
The only improvement to this essay would be to reduce some of the hedging. It waters down the point a bit.
It’s interesting the connection between words and violence. Words are indeed not violence, but when you consistently use dehumanising words about a group of people you desensitise yourself to violence against them. In my study of Genocide as and undergraduate, what consistently appeared prior to the actual event/s was a horrific public discourse of dehumanisation of the eventual victim group. Jews were vermin, Tutsis were cockroaches, Etc… that is what scares me about the level of vile and dehumanising talk in our public discourse. It’s an essential precondition to actual violence and no one seems to be raising the alarm about what road we’ve started down.
For context, I am Australian and we are generally more tolerant of cussing than Americans. But even we have a line and western public discourse has been well and truly running over it, coming back, pissing on it and gleefully kicking dirt on it for a decade now. This is why I hate Twitter.
Great article and incredibly thought provoking. Oh how far we have fallen! We can only hope that gratuitous vulgarity will go the way of cigarette smoking! Until then, we need more voices such as yours leading the charge against it. I had a HS English teacher once tell me it was easy to insult someone with vulgar words but it was far more impactful to insult them with intellectual superiority, a strong vocabulary and perfect sentence structure. I guess that would mean actually getting back to teaching vocabulary words and sentence structure but isn't that asking too much!?