Taboo or Not Taboo

Your Mother’s Ears: the Language of Taboo

By on • ( Leave a comment )

“In Norwegian, ‘devil’ is highly taboo… Among the Xoxa tribe of South Africa the most provocative remark is ‘hlebshako’ – ‘your mother’s ears’!”

Bill Bryson, Mother Tongue
Stephen Fry examines why we use euphemisms and politeness to hide behind some dark truths.

Language is a mirror of cultural values and social boundaries. In this regard, language plays a fascinating role in negotiating taboo. Throughout history, certain words have carried immense power, capable of shocking, offending, or even endangering the speaker. Yet taboos are not fixed; they shift as societies evolve. Words once considered scandalous, like zounds or bloody, now sound quaint, while new linguistic flashpoints emerge around politics, identity, and morality.

To manage these taboos, we often turn to euphemism: softening harsh realities with gentler terms. Political correctness, for example, seeks to avoid offense by replacing direct language with more inclusive or neutral alternatives. But euphemism can also serve as a shield, hiding uncomfortable truths behind sanitized words. This is especially evident in industries like animal agriculture, where phrases such as “processing plant” or “harvesting” obscure the violence of slaughter. Jonathan Safran Foer, in his book Eating Animals, calls this “obfuscation as strategy” – a deliberate effort to make the unpalatable more acceptable to consumers.

Taboo is not just about what we cannot say; it is about how language shapes what we think and feel. When words lose their bite, or when euphemisms mask reality, we see language’s power to both liberate and deceive. In this section, we’ll explore historical swear words, modern euphemisms, and campaigns that challenge comfort zones – all the while asking if language is supposed to protect us or reveal the truth? Start lifting the veil by choosing one or two of the following extracts and articles to read:

Reading Challenge

This is a longer and more challenging piece of reading, but spending time on this piece, and discussing it with your teacher, will help you master this topic:

Discussion Points

After you’ve got your head around the material in this section, pair up, pick a question, spend five minutes thinking and noting down your thoughts – then discuss your ideas with a friend and report back to the class:

  1. What is the difference between euphemism and political correctness? Do you find one more acceptable – or more unacceptable – than the other? Why?
  2. You may use language that is offensive in your every day life. Is that a problem? Why or why not? Does it matter how offensive a word is before you consider not using it? Are there degrees of taboo?
  3. Should certain words be banned from public discourse? Why or why not? What are the implications on free speech if this occurs? Should certain people (such as politicians, teachers, celebrities and the like) be held to a higher standard in terms of the language they use in comparison to the general public?

1. Euphemism and Dysphemism

“A euphemism is a kind of lie.”

Making Murder Respectable
In a time when torture has become “enhanced interrogation techniques”; when the rich are “job creators”; when murdered children are “collateral damage”; it is good to remember these brilliant words from the late, great, George Carlin.

George Carlin is an American comedian and speaker. In this excerpt from one of his stand up routines, he speaks about the decline of language in America. He makes several points about ‘euphemism’ and illuminates his concerns with examples from his life listening to and working in language. George Carlin is not to everyone’s taste, and you should exercise caution with this recording as he uses profanity and some of his opinions are blunt. But… that’s kind of the point of this section. Because Carlin is railing against a particularly dangerous and pervasive use of language: euphemism. On one hand, euphemisms are simply polite words that allow us to talk about things others may find offensive. But on the other, euphemisms can be used not just to soften the rough edges of life, but to conceal truth.

Activity: War Euphemisms

President George W. Bush Issues Ultimatum to Saddam Hussein in Address to the Nation, delivered 17 March 2003 from the White House.

As you might imagine after hearing George Carlin’s thoughts, one place in which you’ll hear plenty of euphemism is the lexical field of war, where ‘death’ is softened to ‘casualties’, ‘shell shock’ becomes ‘PTSD’, and the action of shooting one’s own comrades is described as ‘friendly fire’. This strategic use of language isn’t just historical; it’s alive in modern politics. For example, on March 17, 2003, President George W. Bush delivered a televised address giving Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or face military action. This speech marked the final step before the US-led invasion began. Bush framed the decision as necessary for global security, using language designed to justify war and rally public support. Instead of blunt terms like “kill,” or “bomb,” Bush relied on euphemisms – phrases that soften harsh realities – and dysphemisms – phrases that make the enemy sound worse. For example, he spoke of “weapons of mass destruction” and “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and called Iraq part of the “axis of evil.”

Watch and listen to Bush’s ‘Ultimatum Speech’ (embedded above) or read the transcript. Below is a table of euphemistic and dysphemistic phrases from the speech. In the blank column, write a plain speech alternative that Bush might have said if he were being more direct and literal… or more honest:

2. Politically Correct Language

“Comedians are afraid to make jokes in clubs, because somebody will tape it and send it out on Twitter and get the mob after you.”

Bill Maher, interviewed for the NYT magazine

Language shapes how we perceive the world, and the words we choose often carry more weight than we realise. While both political correctness and euphemism involve deliberate word choice, their purposes differ significantly. Euphemisms soften harsh or uncomfortable realities (such as saying “passed away” instead of “died”) to make difficult topics easier to discuss. Political correctness, however, goes beyond softening language; it seeks to avoid expressions that could marginalise or offend, promoting respect and inclusivity in communication. Using “firefighter” rather than “fireman,” for instance, removes gender bias and reflects a commitment to equality. In essence, politically correct language refers to expressions that consciously respect social and cultural sensitivities, ensuring fairness and consideration toward all groups.

However, the use of politically correct language in some contexts has sparked debate. Supporters argue that adopting inclusive terms promotes respect and equality, helping to dismantle stereotypes and reduce harm caused by discriminatory language. They see it as the natural evolution of communication in a diverse society, where words carry real social impact. Critics, on the other hand, contend that political correctness is restrictive, limiting free speech and discouraging honest dialogue. Some believe it fosters over-sensitivity, making people hesitant to engage in frank discussions or humour. Others argue that focusing on language alone risks becoming performative; changing words without addressing issues simply allows underlying inequality to perpetuate.

Join the debate by playing this simple game in which you’ll be presented with examples of politically correct terms, used to replace words and phrases that have gone out of fashion, or may be perceived as offensive. Simply decide whether the new terms feel smooth and natural, or forced, over-engineered, and cringeworthy:

Activity: Scope Name Change Debate

The story of how the well-known UK charity The Spastics Society changed its name and relaunched as Scope in November 1994 continues to attract interest from other organisations, voluntary and commercial sector alike. This short film will give you an idea of Scope’s mission and values before you complete the activity below.

In 1994, one of the UK’s most prominent disability charities made a bold move: it changed its name from the ‘Spastic Society’ to Scope. Founded in 1952 to support people with cerebral palsy, the organisation originally used “spastic” as a clinical term. But by the late 20th century, the word had become a playground insult, carrying stigma and discouraging families from seeking help. After extensive consultation, members voted for a new name that was more modern and neutral. “Scope” was chosen from hundreds of suggestions, signalling a shift toward the social model of disability, which emphasises that societal barriers, not impairments, disable people.

However, not everyone welcomed the change. While the majority of members supported dropping the word “spastic,” some older parents and long-time supporters resisted, feeling attached to the charity’s original identity. A few even expressed pride in the term, arguing it reflected their history of disability. Others worried that removing “spastic” would dilute the organisation’s link to cerebral palsy. However, younger members and families strongly favoured the shift, pointing out that the word had become a playground insult and was harming the charity’s image and fundraising efforts. In the end, the vote passed, and Scope emerged as a name that took the charity forward into a new age.

For this activity, cast your imagination back to 1994 and imagine you have a vote in this decision. Divide members of your group or class into two teams: Supporters of the name change, and Opponents who want to keep the original name. Set a preparation time (such as 30 minutes, or prepare your arguments for homework) and present your cases for why you support or oppose the name change. Each member of the team should present a specific argument that you develop into a contribution to the debate. Once you are ready, set the guidelines (such as how long each person is given to speak), and hold a town hall style debate on this decision. Appoint people to listen and judge on the decision based on how compelling arguments were made.

3. Insults and Profanity

“Swearing… expresses two contradictory conditions simultaneously: we swear to show fear and also to show we’re not afraid.”

Mind Your Language, Balderdash and Piffle
Even if you normally don’t like documentaries, you might like this one! Hosted by Nicolas Cage, The History of Swear Words teaches you where common profanity words come from, what they mean and what makes them offensive. This is the sixth episode in the series and follows the tumultuous history of the word ‘damn’. Needless to say: contains offensive language.

What makes a word offensive? Perhaps understandably, you may not study the language of insults too much at school! But studying language that people find offensive can tell you much about language in society. Swearing isn’t just about the words themselves, it’s about where, how, and by whom they’re used. A curse in a Victorian novel might appear as coy while on social media today, strong language is common and often casual. Context matters: what sounds shocking in a formal speech or workplace meeting might feel normal in a private conversation among friends. Social attitudes also vary by gender and age as historically, women were judged more harshly for swearing, and older generations often find certain words more offensive than younger ones. Studying these differences reveals how language shifts with culture, technology, and social norms.

Activity: When Words Lose Their Bite (Semantic Bleaching)

The New Art and Mystery of Gossiping, Being a Genuine Account of All the Women’s Clubs in and about the City and Suburbs of London, c.1760 showing some of the swear words that most raised pulses in early modern England.

Swear words are a perfect way to study a linguistic phenomenon called ‘semantic bleaching’. This occurs as words gradually lose their meaning and intensity over time. Terms that once shocked and offended now sound mild or even quaint, while newer words arise that still carry strong taboos. This process reflects cultural change and shifts in generational attitudes, as well as the influence of the media (such as films, television, and the music industry), as to what counts as offensive in a given society.

Here are two resources for you to study. The first is a chart illustrating how certain historical swear words have lost their intensity over time, often becoming quaint and ridiculous in a modern context. The second is a word cloud of more modern swear words with offensiveness that peaked in the twentieth century. Discuss these words, what made them offensive, and whether you think the words still carry the same offensive power today. Work together to rank the words according to what you think is their current level of offensiveness. Compare your ranking with others:

Learner Portfolio: Eating Animals

Watch this episode of What’s the Catch to discover the reality behind terms like ‘cage-free’ eggs, ‘free range’ eggs, and ‘organic’ eggs

Jonathan Safran Foer is an American novelist and essayist who has written influential nonfiction exploring ethical issues around food and sustainability. His book Eating Animals (2009) combines investigative journalism and personal narrative to examine the realities of industrial farming and the moral choices behind what we eat. In Eating Animals, Foer argues that language often functions as a shield in the context of animal agriculture. Euphemistic and technical terms (such as “processing plant” instead of “slaughterhouse” or “harvesting” instead of “killing”) are deliberately employed to obscure the violence and suffering behind meat production. This obfuscation is an industry strategy designed to make consumers feel comfortable and maintain cognitive dissonance. The chapter “Words/Meaning” invites readers to examine these linguistic manoeuvers critically, asking what certain words are used for and what realities they cover up.

Read “Words/Meaning” and create a chart that captures examples of euphemistic or obfuscatory language from farming or animal agriculture. Alongside the examples you find, note down what truths about practices in animal agriculture such language covers up, and what ‘distorted reality’ is created instead.

Body of Work: Erik Ravelo’s Untouchables Photography

Los Intocables (The Untouchables) by Erik Ravelo is a campaign to raise awareness on the right to childhood and the factors that threaten it.

Discussions of euphemism and political correctness often highlight how societies attempt to soften or sanitise language to avoid offence. While these linguistic strategies aim to protect sensibilities, they also reveal deeper tensions about what topics remain “untouchable.” This concern extends beyond words to issues that are often hidden, ignored, or glossed over. One striking example of confronting these taboos head-on is the Unhate Foundation’s 2013 campaign, which sought to expose global violations of children’s rights without euphemism or compromise.

In 2013, the Unhate foundation approached creative ad agency Fabrica, and photographer Erik Ravelo, with a project to produce an effective campaign addressing human rights, in particular the rights of the child. They wanted to raise awareness of issues plaguing children around the world: paedophilia inside religious walls, sexual tourism, the civil war in Syria, liberal circulation of firearms, obesity, illegal organ trafficking, and nuclear pollution. The tagline of the campaign was: The right to childhood should be UNTOUCHABLE.

The campaign consists of seven pictures, recreating the image of a child victim of abuse juxtaposed against an adult embodying a ‘threat’. Controversially, the adult is posed in the shape of a cross, whereby the child becomes the victim crucified on his back. In several images the face of the child is blurred so he or she cannot be identified. The images imply the child is weak and powerless, without a voice and denied their rights. The controversial choice of the cross was intended to raise awareness and to provoke debate. Ravelo wants his audience to feel outraged, getting a reaction from viewers to defend the children’s rights. You can discuss your reaction to these images and research the wider controversy if you study Erik Ravelo’s photographs as a Body of Work.

Towards Assessment: Individual Oral

Supported by an extract from one non-literary text and one from a literary work, students will offer a prepared response of 10 minutes, followed by 5 minutes of questions by the teacher, to the following prompt: Examine the ways in which the global issue of your choice is presented through the content and form of two of the texts that you have studied. (40 marks)

Extracts from Erik Ravelo’s photograph exhibition would be a perfect text for you to bring to your Individual Oral. Here are suggestions as to how you might use this Body of Work to create a Global Issue. You can use one of these ideas, or develop your own. You should always be mindful of your own ideas and class discussions and follow the direction of your own thoughts, discussions and programme of study when devising your assessment tasks:

  • Field of Inquiry: Beliefs, Values and Education
  • Global Issue: The use of shocking images in texts
  • Rationale:

Shock factor is a legitimate tactic used by advertisers, artists and writers to impact an audience. The idea is to open the eyes of the reader by means of making them feel surprised, uncomfortable or possibly even disgusted. Shock factor can have a powerful effect – but it can also backfire, turning readers against the writer and possibly even leading to censorship. An example of a poetry pairing that might work for this issue is Ocean Vuong’s Night Sky with Exit Wounds. In several poems, Ocean imagines historical events that might have caused his father’s PTSD: Aubade on a Burning City in particular contains many graphic images, as shocking as they are beautiful. Alternatively, consider Kayo Chingonyi’s Kumukanda. At the end of calling a spade a spade, Kayo breaks convention by putting the N-word front and center, a moment of shock for the reader that gives just a taste of the offence and upset that this word can cause people with black skin.

  • Field of Inquiry: Power, Politics and Justice
  • Global Issue: Child Exploitation
  • Rationale:

Erik Ravelo designed his images around the statement: ‘The rights of the child should be untouchable.’ However, it is a sad fact that in many societies children are exploited: some are means of exploitation are obvious and shocking (for example, children being victims of paedophilia). Others, though, are more covert; for example, Ravelo’s ‘fast food’ image might make you think twice about how seemingly ordinary companies and corporations may exploit children for financial gain. An example of a literary work which also explores this global issue is Barbara Demick’s Nothing to Envy. A scene which will stick in the mind of anyone who’s read this is when schoolteacher Mi-ran witnesses her students coming to school emaciated, lacking in protein, with extended bellies and changing hair colour – eventually vanishing from class altogether. Other children stay slumped over their desks all day in a scene that is a sad indictment of a state that is unable – or unwilling – to consider the rights of the child.

Sample Individual Oral

Here is a recording of the first ten minutes of an individual oral for you to listen to. You can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this talk as a way of improving your own oral presentations. Be mindful of academic honesty when constructing your own oral talk. To avoid plagiarism you can: talk about a different global issue; pair The Untouchables with a different literary work; select different passages to bring into your talk; develop an original thesis.

Towards Assessment: Higher Level Essay

Students submit an essay on one non-literary text or a collection of non-literary texts by one same author, or a literary text or work studied during the course. The essay must be 1,200-1,500 words in length. (20 marks).

If you are an HL student, you might consider using Los Intocables to write your HL Essay. Here are one or two examples of lines of inquiry suitable for this text – but remember to follow your own interests and the direction of your own class discussion to generate your own line of inquiry. It is not appropriate for students to submit responses to an essay question that has been assigned:

  • How does Eric Ravela use compositional techniques to explore the vulnerability of children in his photographic work Los Intocables (Untouchables)?

Paper 1 Text Type Focus: Opinion Columns

At the end of your course you will be asked to analyse unseen texts (1 at Standard Level and 2 at Higher Level) in an examination. You will be given a guiding question that will focus your attention on formal or stylistic elements of the text(s), and help you decode the text(s)’ purpose(s). Below are a collection of Opinion Pieces. Use these practice texts to familiarise yourself with the different features of Opinion Columns and add them to your Learner Portfolio; you will want to revise text types thoroughly before your Paper 1 exam. You can find more information – including text type features and sample Paper 1 analysis – by visiting 20/20. Read through one or two of the exemplars, then choose a new paper and have a go at writing your own Paper 1 analysis response:

Key features of opinion pieces
  • Perspective: as an expression of a personal viewpoint, the first person is most commonly adopted for opinion pieces. Look out for ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ – a clever way of implying the viewpoint is commonly held.
  • Solid Arguments: expect to see opinions backed up by studies, research or evidence of some kind (such as the presentation of statistics). Keep an eye out for assertion, though, where a writer presents an opinion as if it is a fact.
  • Anecdotes: sometimes a writer will relate a small story from his or her personal experience in order to demonstrate a thoughtful approach to the topic at hand. You may find the opinion piece begins with this story, which acts as a kind of hook into the main article.
  • Register and tone: you should be especially alert to the writer’s choices in this regard. Opinion pieces are often formal, but the writer may adopt an irreverent tone, be passionate, conversational, friendly, challenging, even sarcastic depending on the tactics used to convince you of a particular opinion.
  • Concession: although similar in many ways, opinion pieces are not quite the same as persuasive speeches, so the writer is not necessarily trying to change your opinion. In this case, you might find concessions to the other side of the argument or even an acknowledgement that the writer’s opinion is flawed in some way.

Further Reading

Categories:Taboo or Not Taboo

Leave a comment