What is profane culture?

This is the last in a series of three posts sketching my preliminary understanding of democratic, sacred, and profane culture.

In an online column, Dennis Prager, a tireless advocate of Judaism, discusses a song, "Fuck You," nominated in 2010 to be the Grammy Awards' Record of the Year. Prager says:

[T]he music industry, from producers to artists, is largely populated by people who regard social and cultural norms as stifling. Their professional lives are dedicated to lowering that which is elevated, to destroying that which uplifts, and to profaning that which is held sacred.[1]

A "song" such as "Fuck You" is considered profane by Prager because he holds that all individuals, as the creatures of a perfect God, deserve respect. (The term "fuck" also demeans sexuality.) In a religious context, a profane act is one that violates, demeans, or affronts the sacred, where "sacred" refers to God or something closely related to God.[2]

SECULAR EXAMPLES. I think the concept "profane" is valid in an objective, secular context as well. The profane is that which violates, demeans, or affronts the sacred in man. (See the previous post, "What does 'sacred' mean?")

The weapons in the profane assault on the sacred in man include the following.

1. Speech, in many forms. The issue here is not a curse or other expression that pops from my subconscious after I accidentally drop a brick on my foot. Instead the issue is the conscious choice of a word that assaults one's sense of the sacred. Examples include: (a) "Trash talk," which is "disparaging, taunting, or boastful comments especially between opponents trying to intimidate each other" (The Merriam-Webster online dictionary). Trash talk is communication used between individuals who are in conflict with each other, not trading with each other. Trash talk thus abandons etiquette -- the set of rules and principles designed to facilitate trade between individuals for mutually selfish benefit in society.[3] (b) Sexual terms used as a verbal assault and expressed in demeaning slang ("screw you"). (c) Terms that reduce a value-charged situation to a foul concrete ("makes me vomit"). (d) Slang terms for human organs or bodily functions -- when they do not even need to be named in a particular context -- often with a psychologically revealing special focus on excretion ("sack of shit," "pissed off"). (e) Unearned, undignified, and unwelcome familiarity ("Hey, bro!" or individuals as "folks"). (f) Gangster ("gangsta") talk, including terms of violence and denigration of others. (g) Foul language in general, including fig-leaf acronyms ("WTF").

2. Ways of dress, such as shoes with intentionally untied laces, sagging pants, and torn clothing (as a sign of "poverty chic") -- all for "effect."

3. Personal mannerisms such as slouching or moving in a deliberately jerky or otherwise undignified manner.

4. "Art" that demeans the sacred, directly or indirectly -- such as "gangsta rap" or a painting of a beautiful woman whose skin is marred by disease.

5. Styles of confrontation with other individuals, such as an "in your face" style of speaking that is loud, harsh, insulting, condescending, or physically an invasion of the victim's personal space.

6. Graffiti and other forms of vandalism, as assaults on property rights and other values.

7. Ridicule of an objective valuer, for example, laughing at the holder of objective values by belittling his accent or weight -- allegedly as "humor."

8. Attacking someone while avoiding responsibility, for example, by hiding behind the verbal shield of "jus' saying'" or "just kidding." This approach also denies the target the dignity of being faced openly and honestly, as well as respect for his ability to defend himself as a rational being.

ORIGINS OF PROFANE CULTURE?. I see two possible causes of widespread, sustained profane culture -- psychological and philosophical. The common psychological cause -- easily observed and traced to its roots -- is envy, which is hatred of superiority (real or imagined), or, as philosopher Ayn Rand stated it, "hatred of the good for being the good."[4]

The philosophically motivated democratic movement strives to make everyone equal, often at the price of lowering the high. Is it the cause of profane culture, which tears down the sacred? I seldom see serious, long-term advocates of democratic culture explicitly encourage profanation. What I do see is advocates of democratic culture sanctioning profanation by remaining silent about it. In my experience in speaking with advocates of democratic culture, their usual justification for silence and sanction is their claim that profane culture is merely another manifestation of the culture of "the people" and therefore deserves toleration.

APPLICATION. The kind of world I want to live in is one that rejects the profane and reveres the objectively sacred. Profane culture appears in the lives of upholders of the sacred only if there are no gatekeepers for the sacred or if the gatekeepers are lax. "Open" online discussion groups -- in which any anonymous person can say anything -- are an example.

Making Progress is not an "open" discussion group. Your respectful comments -- additions, deletion, or corrections -- about my notes above are welcome.

Burgess Laughlin, author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, at http://www.reasonversusmysticism.com

[1] Dennis Prager, "'F_ _ _ You' from the Music Industry," in "Dennis's Columns," at dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=e952f04d-ae6b-4187-accb-fc26591ed637&url=f---_you_from_the_music_industry. For more on my philosophically negative but personally mixed views of Dennis Prager, see: reasonversusmysticism.blogspot.com/2010/03/prager-on-reason-and-mysticism.html and http://reasonversusmysticism.blogspot.com/2010/08/dennis-prager-mystic-activist.html. [2] For a Christian's discussion of sacred and profane in a religious context, with Biblical quotations: jackhammer.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/sacred-common-and-profane-culture/. [3] For discussion of insults: aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/07/cause-of-history-ideas-or-insults.html. [4] For the concept of envy in Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism: Ayn Rand, "Envy," The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Etiquette for Comments

(Last revised Nov. 21, '07) Making Progress is an experiment. I am trying to create a site strictly for discussion of ideas that intrigue me as a student of history -- a site free of interpersonal struggles.

Etiquette is an art. It applies principles and rules of individual behavior to social situations in order to facilitate trade. This Etiquette section has two purposes: (1) Facilitate the trade of ideas in this forum; and (2) Simplify moderation and thereby save time for me.

Post only serious, relevant comments. Posted comments can include, for example: (1) a disagreement, which means identifying a flaw and offering a superior alternative if possible; (2) a reformulation of particular points in your own words, for feedback; (3) a discussion about methods for approaching similar problems; or (4) a question. Post personal comments -- positive or negative -- privately to me, not in "public."

Address ideas not individuals. Do not address, name, cite, or quote me or another commenter. State your target idea in your own words, and support, refute, or question it. Formulating others' ideas in one's own words is hard but educational work.

Addressing ideas only is difficult for many individuals. Here is a model example: "The supposition that 'worldview' is the genus of both religion and philosophy is invalid because ... [and so forth]." Addressing ideas only means decoupling the ideas from their particular personal sources in this forum and dealing with the ideas not the sources. Do not say: "Burgess, your supposition that 'worldview' is the genus of both religion and philosophy is really stupid [or brilliant] because ...." Likewise, do not say: "Burgess's idea of making 'worldview' the genus of both religion and philosophy is intriguing because ...." Again, mentally decouple ideas from their particular personal source--and then in writing deal with the idea only. Of course, if you need to document a source (which always applies to citing Ayn Rand), do so, for example: "... as Kant said in Critique of Pure Reason, B234, ...."

If your screen name is not your full true name or does not link directly to a page on which your full true name appears, then sign your comment with your true name at least in some truncated form--e.g., J. Smith for John Quintius Smith III. Unless your first name is unusual (like "Burgess"), state at least an initial for your last name, to avoid confusion with the names of other commenters with the same first name. Make no anonymous or pseudonymous comments. Be sure to at least link to your homepage, unless you are using your full true name. Identify yourself. I want to know, to some extent, the individuals with whom I am communicating. If you prefer anonymity, post elsewhere. (However, see Post Script.)

Support the good. I value Ayn Rand, as well as Leonard Peikoff, Peter Schwartz, and others associated with ARI. I delete posts from writers--such as Kellyites, Brandonites, and libertarians--who attack those I value or who sanction such attackers, e.g., on home pages.

Follow the other usual rules of etiquette. For example: (1) Write grammatically. If for you English is a second language, please say so. I admire anyone newly trying to communicate in English, which is a very difficult language. (2) Capitalize properly, especially "Objectivism" (not "objectivism"). (3) Use a spell-checker unless you are normally an excellent speller. (4) Write with civility; use no vulgarities. (5) Be dignified.

Provide contact information. I am a novice weblog moderator trying to learn the system's capabilities. I have not found a way to communicate with commenters before publishing or rejecting their comments. (The software gives me only those two choices.) If you innocently violate the etiquette, but provide no email address allowing me to tell you what is wrong, I must therefore reject your comment without explanation. The burden rests on you to comply with the etiquette and to provide a channel of private communication (e.g., through your blogger profile or homepage).

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

P. S. -- Nov. 20, '07: Edits of comments that mistakenly violate etiquette. My standards of etiquette are unusual; and, for some individuals, they are difficult to follow. Some individuals who have inadvertently violated etiquette have, nevertheless, offered pertinent comments. Unfortunately some of these individuals have given me no way to communicate with them about the etiquette problems. Rather than reject their comments, I have decided to edit them, when I have the time and interest, and post them myself, but still credit the source, where warranted.