Should I censor a vulgar word in my psychology paper?

Question

I have to use the word "c-nt" in a psychology paper on video games and childhood aggression. One of the essay prompts specifically asks about profanity, and so the vulgarity of this word is relevant to my argument. Would I be misrepresenting my argument if I wrote it as "c-nt"? I'm just a bit nervous about including such a widely offensive word in an academic paper.

Answer 1

Actually, you are "using" the word as a word, no matter how you spell it. It has become common to spell certain words as you have with dash or asterisk. People understand what you mean and some will appreciate that you "soften" the expression a bit, though without changing the meaning. The concept behind the word doesn't change if you spell it with an underscore.

In academic writing, one needs to be honest, even when it seems offensive. There are some words and concepts that offend people, but if the research around them is to be honest and not suppressed, then some things need to be said. The word is offensive when used to refer to a woman or to her bodily parts, but as a word in research it is just a word.

I wouldn't object to either the use of the word spelled completely, nor the slight obfuscation. People will understand either way. And it is the understanding in research that is important.

---

Note that when referring to the word as a word, it is common and valid to put it in quotes, in which case "cunt" is (a bit) more appropriate.

I'll also note that papers intended for an international or multi lingual audience may need to be a bit more literal with such things as the understanding doesn't necessarily cross borders.

Answer 2

In most academic fields where the use/mention of epithets/vulgarity commonly arises (e.g., linguistics, law, sociology, etc.) it is common to use the full term in the relevant quotation without bleeping. Academic readers are adults and we can handle seeing epithets used in academic work, particularly when used to describe the use of epithets/vulgarity in society. Consequently, it is perfectly acceptable to use the word "cunt" openly in your paper (without censorship) when discussing the use of profanity in video games.

As to your specific question, no, it would not misrepresent your argument if you use bleeping, so long as you make it clear to your reader that you have have added this form of censoring yourself (i.e., it was not in the original response) and so long as the censoring is done in a way that does not mislead the reader as to what epithet/vulgar term was actually used. If you decided to go by this route you would say something like this:

Gamer 16 responded to his gaming partner by saying, "You are such a noob [c-nt]!" (epithet censored by present author).

While the latter method is not misleading, your reader is just going to read this as "cunt" anyway, so my own view is that it is really not a useful censoring practice. Indeed, there has been some research that suggests that randomising interior letters of a word does not have a strong adverse effect on readability, so long as the two letters at each end are correct (see e.g., Rawlinson 1999). The same is roughly true of censoring interior letters of a word, so long as the censorship does not lead to a situation where there are multiple words in the context that could fit the censored word. In the present case, "c-nt" has only one fitting word so it would not be misread. Ultimately, either the censorship is going to be ineffective (if there is only one word it could be) or it is going to raise a problem of potentially misleading your reader (if the censored word could be misread as another word).

Answer 3

One thing you should probably be careful about is ambiguity - right now the word you have in mind is very clear to us, but in the future and across cultures (especially for foreign speakers) the exact word might not be so obvious.

Remember that over time some words have lost their offensiveness and some words became offensive - but only in certain cultures and regions. This can lead to confusion by the reader over WHICH word exactly are you talking about - especially if you'll also be mentioning other offensive words which could be mistaken for non-offensive words when bleeped.

As such, I'd strongly recommend that you write it in full at least once (in quotes). Afterwards, you can bleep it out if you feel like protecting sensibilities. But for academic clarity and future readers, the word(s) you're talking about should be spelled in full at least once in the paper.

Answer 4

Since this is for a class, ask your teacher. If you are comfortable with it, do it in class. There are valid arguments for and against censoring, and going through those arguments could be a worthwhile teaching moment for the entire class.

Answer 5

Where the word has no specific significance, and is simply being used to express emotions, or for shock value, it may not be necessary to use it at all, and it is acceptable to use a generic placeholder as the word can usually be determined from context. Not including it will not impact on the paper's conclusions or how they are received.

Child A: [expletive] your mom, noob

Child B: Oh [expletive], that was so messed up.

Where the word has specific significance or has significance in specific context, for example a profanity that is a sexual or racial slur, or where it may be more offensive in specific situations, it is typically necessary to introduce the word by writing it in full, and to explain its context and any sensitivities surrounding it.

Under these circumstances, the word does not need to be repeated after its initial introduction, and can instead by substituted for an indexed entry referring to a table in your appendix.

For example

Child A: I [exp1] your mother lasted night

Child B: [exp2] off you stupid [exp3]

Mild profanity

exp1 - Hugged

Culturally sensitive profanity

exp2 - dance

exp3 - clodhopper