Bea V. Larsen . . . .Commentaries

Bea V. Larsen is a Senior Mediator at the Center for Resolution of Disputes in
Cincinnati, Ohio 
Bea V. Larsen

For a number of years Bea V. Larsen, senior mediator at the Center for Resolution of Disputes in Cincinnati, Ohio [www.cfrdmediation.com], presented weekly commentaries on WVXU radio, both on her professional work as a mediator and on more personal or general experiences. These broadcasts reached thousands of listeners in a number of midwestern states and elicited many comments. This new series of online commentaries will continue that tradition, now broadcast to the world via the internet. Comments, which can be posted directly to this blog, are warmly encouraged. More personal background information can be read in the "Introductions" category below.
 

Word Power

Print the article

This entry was posted on 2/10/2012 9:59 PM and is filed under Personally Speaking.

          U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, staunch defender of the First Amendment, never wrote a free speech decision I didn't like. So why do I recoil when certain words are spoken in my presence?

          From my perspective, even symbolic speech, armbands worn by protesting high school students, flag burning, etc. should be protected. Expose all that is spoken or written or symbolized to the light of day, and encourage conversation in the "free market place of ideas". I reject not only government censorship, but most institutional voluntary censorship as well. Of course, I make exceptions for speech or symbols that create a clear and present danger (i.e. shouting "fire" in the theater), and also allow for protection of youngsters from that deemed too frightening or perverse, but little else.

          When a young friend urged me to watch George Carlin's seven unspeakable words routine (a YouTube favorite), I did so and cheered his audacity. And during the last presidential election when Jesse Jackson made angry crude remarks about the then Senator Obama, and his whisper was picked up by a live mike unknown to him, I thought it wrong and silly for the New York Times, applying their stringent criteria calling for "civility in public discourse", to bleep Jackson's comments, leaving their readers in the dark (and scurrying for alternate news sources). When obscene language is not relevant to the story, leaving it out makes sense. In that instance, it did not.

          So, that's my public stance, but there's another aspect to my story:

          When two of my colleagues sat chatting in my office discussing a judicial ruling to which they strenuously objected, referring to the judge one of them said "He didn't have the balls to. . . ." and for two seconds I stopped breathing. I turned to the non-speaker and asked: Were you surprised when she used those words?

          His jovial answer: Of course not, although I was surprised she used them in front of you.

          By then we were all consumed with laughter, but mine was a bit uneasy.

          Yes, I know all the words, even suffer through their endless use in modern film, literature and overheard cell phone conversations, but they have never been part of my vocabulary. Consider that as a youngster all that was allowed by the adults in my world was "heck" and "darn". Somehow I must project my sensibility, for without ever being asked, perceptive friends and family protect my ears.

          My public position and my private reaction do not match. A good illustration of cognitive dissonance. A disconnect between what I believe and how I act. My emotional response belies my intellectual outlook.

          Will I be perceived as protesting too much by insisting that I am not a prude. I am not. So, why this inconsistency?

          Swear words that don't reference an almighty being, typically allude to sexual or bodily functions. For those generations younger than mine, repeated use of these words has robbed them of all shock value and probably of any real meaning. Just a way to let off steam. Formerly the province of boys and men, are those girls and women entering the fray letting the world know they are "one of the boys" or has it just become second nature to them as well?

          For me, each "forbidden" word is more than an expletive. When spoken in my presence, my privacy boundary is crossed. Unwanted, uninvited crude images are evoked. In some instances the beautiful is made ugly. Is this why for me, but not for those who are younger, they carry the negative impact they do? Perhaps.

          Will my new insight bring about a shift, a relaxation? Actually, after viewing George Carlin's hilarious seven words shtick, I have loosened up a bit. But will those words ever fall easily from my lips?

          Not likely.
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    • 2/16/2012 12:37 PM Larry Spilker wrote:
      even "suffer" through their endless use
      I would suggest your close friends and family have read your non verbal behavior and know that use of such words and phrases are more than a minor distraction for you personally and have a great deal of respect for you to avoid there use. I see love and respect for you by others and a transparency you have that you may not realize. How we see things for a society as a whole and what we hold as personal values for us to live up to do not have to be a seen as a dichotomy.
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.



      
    Copyright . http://BEALARSEN.COM. All rights reserved.