Two-thirds of the Russians admit using unprintable words at times. They say that their friends do it too. However, the above people strongly object to foul language if it’s used in public by politicians, actors, athletes or journalists. This twist of the national mentality seems to explain why half of the people who heard of the “foul language scandal” involving Filip Kirkorov have changed their attitude to him for the worse.

“Obscene language is like a mantra for the Russians. They feel easier after swearing,” according to one of the persons who was answering ‘Why do some people use obscenities?’ for a nationwide opinion poll. The above explanation of foul language is the most typical. As a rule, the Russians swear when going through some unpleasant experience (only 2 percent of the polled use bad language in a state of joy). So Kirkorov’s public outburst appears only logical from this viewpoint. He resented something and flipped out, things like that can happen to anyone, no big deal. But the public opinion is much more complex than it seems.

The hearing of the Kirkorov case resumed in Rostov-on-Don last Thursday at the request of the prosecution. The lawyer of Irina Aroyan, a journalist who’s a plaintiff at the trial, read an opinion prepared by philologists of the Rostov State University. The scholars believe that a number of phrases used by above pop artist at the press conference broadcast all over Russia on May 20 this year “contain profanities that are abusive and were used in a public venue.” Looks like the public took the last two definitions as aggravating circumstance. One of the polled put it like this:

“Swear words can be forgiven if they’re used as a link between the phrases. But they can’t be forgiven if used for expressing somebody’s bad emotions and anger. You just shouldn’t talk dirty in public like that.”

Those who took part in the poll agreed that colloquial use of foul language was quite common. However, they pointed out that they didn’t use unprintable words at random. They claimed to use it only when talking to close friends, at work, and at home. In other words, swearing is Okay if no outsider is at sight.

“Despite being deep-rooted in the Russian language and Russian culture, foul language is regarded as words whose usage is confined to private life. It’s barely appropriate to public places,” according to sociologists.

The other important reason for the fuss generated by the Rostov scandal stems from the popular belief that has many supporters in this country. They believe that using bad language is bad. 67 percent of the Russians who took part in the poll say that “under no circumstances one should use foul language.” A third of those who swear frequently says obscenity may not be permitted. As paradoxically as may seem, the majority of the polled don’t view foul language as standard means of expression despite using it themselves, say experts at the Public Opinion Fund.

According to social psychologists, this duality of the national mentality (I can swear alright but others shouldn’t do it) can partly explain the negative attitude towards many politicians in Russia (especially to the Duma deputies). 64 percent of the poll claim to have heard dirty language used in public by politicians. Vladimir Zhirinovski and a few other parliamentarians top the list of the most foul-mouthed Russian personalities (every third one out of 64 percent of the polled reportedly heard him swearing). The second slot is occupied by show biz people while “politicians in general” sit on the third position. When asked to name such politicians the respondents could only recall the celebrities with an extremely low rating in terms of public confidence – Boris Berezovski and Irina Khakamada.

Language of politics and politicians’ vocabularies

While thinking of the issue of language, Izvestia looked at it from a different angle:
what are the changes that took place in the modern Russia’s political lexicon? What did we retain as a legacy from the politicians of the old days and what novelties arrived at the scene? We also gave a thought to language used as a means of manipulation of the public.

It takes at least 150 years to change the mentality of the people completely, according to historians and linguists. A much smaller change could happen within 15 years. So how did the national mentality change during those years?

Speech doesn’t matter while speaker does

“It’s quite difficult to monitor the changes. The task may be just pointless,” warns us Professor Yuri Sorokin, a senior fellow with the Institute of Linguistics. “Language isn’t of particular importance for that matter. Instead, we should focus on purposes and policies pursued by those who use it. We should analyze the speakers, not language.”

The above method was applied by linguists who studied the language used by Leonid Brezhnev and other Party bosses of the Soviet era. The contents of a speech were to be largely overlooked while audiences and inflection used while delivering it were put through a special scrutiny. The way apparatchiks took their turns as they took the floor was also very important. It could show you who’s in favor and who fell from grace.
How do things stand these days?

Seduce and rule

“Today’s voter reminds me of a 15-year-old teenager. His intentions are subject to his mood swings. One day he wants to cast his ballot, the next day he doesn’t. He might as well go to the polls and vote for some candidate or against all of them ‘just for fun’. These days lots of things are done in this manner by individuals who’re grownups, not kids,” says Stanislav Rassadnikov, a spin doctor.

It takes much more than bare rhetoric to win the support of such a voter. A candidate should use his artistry, his guts plus assorted manipulative methods that are hard to see by the average viewer. As regards the manipulation of language, it includes the following components: seduction an audience by using authority; predominance of imperative wording; statements and repetitions; using somebody’s name to make a point while forming an associative line aimed at creating a negative or positive effect. You can put it this way: “Pushkin is dead. So is Heine. I’m not feeling good either...” Or you can fire it away like this: “Chubais is Pinochet of our time.”

“Speakers of today feel more freedom in choosing manipulative means. But those means are latent,” says Professor Sorokin. “However, the old school politicians can’t make the right choice anyway due to the following reasons:1) it’s too late to revamp them
2) they’re tied to the Party ideas hand and foot

More bans bring out more rituals

Linguists believe that Soviet-era politicians used the manipulative means less frequently since the language of that time was quite ritualized.

“Standard forms of address, ways of expressing gratitude, widespread use of lofty words, license to touch on some subjects while passing over the others – those were the parts of the ritualization,” says Anatoly Baranov, a head of experimental linguistics department of the Institute of Russian Language named after V.V.Vinogradov. “More bans will normally result in a more ritualized language.”

There’re undoubtedly fewer bans in today’s political phraseology. Political language is getting nearer to the colloquial style. These days the restrictions applicable to the use tabooed vocabulary are shrinking , it doesn’t necessarily imply a wider use of foul language, rather words and expressions of the underworld. Linguists consider the development as a sign of greater freedom of expression.