Ms Lam, the moral Taliban and questions of declension
Gossip of the month: primary school teacher Lam Wei-sze frothed at the mouth against the police and a youth organization in support of a spiritual discipline (that is often referred to as a cult). In a YouTube clip that went viral, we saw her screaming at a policewoman and calling her names multiple times. Then the climax came when she used the “F-word”, in English, but in a way that made the sentence ungrammatical and somewhat amusing. (Hint: instead of “what the”, she said “what’s the”).
It is interesting to note the usage of English swear words in these contexts. If I am keeping count correctly, the last well-known incident was the one involving a barrister by the name of Lawrence Ma Yan-kwok. Although the two differ in political allegiance, they both chose to voice their contempt in English.
In linguistic anthropology, the use of two or more languages in the context of a single conversation is called codeswitching, the study of which reveals mechanisms of social and cultural operation. The Markedness Model, developed by Carol Myers-Scotton, is one of the more complete theories of code-switching motivations. It posits that language users are rational, and choose (speak) a language that clearly marks their rights and obligations, relative to other speakers, in the conversation and its setting. Other academics argue that instead of focusing on the social values inherent in the languages the speaker chooses, the analysis should try to concentrate on the meaning that the act of code-switching itself creates.
In Ms Lam’s case, both explanations arguably converge. English is considered by the society in general as a “superior” language, and it is used by Ms Lam in the context of “us (Hong Kong) against them (the Chinese communists)”. This cultural understanding is so compulsive that it imposed itself upon Ms Lam even in her most emotional moments — the rationality is ingrained in her subconscious. As she was not well-versed in English swear words, the outcome was a mixture of both spontaneity and awkwardness.
Even the so-called pro-Beijing people are not immune to this cultural logic, and thus Lawrence Ma’s “bloody Chinese” and Tang Ying-yen’s “completely rubbish”. It is no exaggeration to say that the majority of the city’s power and financial elite feel more comfortable cursing in English than in Chinese.
The truth is that obscenities are as acceptable as they are idiomatic. The last thing we want is the need to excuse a person’s French in both senses of the word: the choice of the language and the slip in its usage.
Politically, the episode brought Ms Lam both widespread support and criticism, as is only natural in a polarized society such as ours. In the not too enlightening free fight that followed, her critics were counter-criticized as “moral Taliban”, a local Internet slang denoting moral absolutism/ terrorism.
A Google search on moral terrorism returns an interesting definition: “When you push your opinion(s) as if they are an (or the) absolute truth/facts or morals on others without acknowledging that what you are saying is your beliefs and when stating this is not pertinent to the subject at hand or to the point(s) made in which you are trying to support, you’re in turn: using strong emotions (violence) to (unlawfully) change that person or persons’ morals/ideals/beliefs that governs their life through the use of moral terrorism.”
In a very sardonic sense, this definition fits Ms Lam and her supporters to a T. Cursing may or may not be appropriate; it depends on circumstances. If we looked at it as a neutral bystander, what we saw was a youth group and a spiritual discipline equally annoying in a public space. It took a highly imaginative and ideological mental operation to associate the former with wickedness and the latter with righteousness.
The dichotomy of good and evil is not particularly strong in China’s BuddhistConfucius culture, but is characteristic of monotheist cultures wherein once something is determined as evil, all means to destroy it are justifiable. Cursing is harmless, but the moral absolutism behind is more frightening and dangerous. Unfortunately, no one seemed to have pointed this out.
Perhaps what we should be asking is this: if it is ok for a primary school teacher to curse police officers in public, why can’t the secretary for development have a piece of land in the North East New Territories?