For a moment of levity this weekend, I offer you an exploration of the politics of flatulence. For a very serious post tomorrow, subscribe to LJ-Pro, my professional blog. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy this introduction to a universal question: To hold or to release?
Meanings of the Choice
In this amusing and instructive video, Dr. Orion Taraban introduces “holding” and “sniffing” as contrasting relationship styles. What distinguishes these styles from each other is that they favor one of two responses to a problem that arises in any relationship. Superficially, the problem sounds silly, but it presents an inescapable binary choice. This choice divides people into two diametrically opposed attitudes toward openness in relationships.
Both literally and metaphorically, what separates people into these two categories is what they do with their farts. In a literal sense, some people hold their intestinal gas until they can release it in private, while others release without waiting. But metaphorically, farting here represents the open expression of the most unpleasant parts of our personalities.
As Taraban explains, the two contrasting relationship styles are motivated by different values. Holders value harmony, and they choose not to bring their unseemly parts into the relationship. Sniffers release their farts because they value authenticity. Both these values are defensible but also mutually antithetical.
Both of these relationship styles come with pros and cons. Holders sacrifice authenticity to maintain a clean relational space, while releasers (sniffers) pollute the relational space in the name of authenticity. Either way, something is sacrificed.
Of course, reality is always messier than any typology. There are no absolute holders or sniffers. There’s a time to hold and a time to release, a time to value the smoothness of our interactions and a time to let one rip. Through discernment, we determine what kind of response best fits the needs of the moment.
Speech Without Language: Speaking through the Body (Second Edition)
A couple of years ago, I read this story in Vice about a court case instigated by a fart on a park bench. Here, I revisit this story as a case study of justifiable farting in protest. I invite readers to consider the blind spots this story reveals in the legal system’s treatment of farts and torts.
In addition to the article in Vice, the story received coverage on BBC, the Associated Press, The Guardian and in local newspapers in Austria including Der Standard and Kurier. All this interest stemmed from the ruling of the Vienna Regional Administrative Court that imposed a fine of €500 for a fart “addressed” to police officers by a grinning 22-year-old man.
Because I only read the ruling with the help of Google Translate, I can’t critique it fully, but I can point to one contradiction. On the one hand, the police believe that the fine was justified because the flatulist “let go a massive intestinal wind apparently with full intent”. On the other hand, the court has ruled that farts (and burps) do not constitute a protected form of expression because they don’t contain “communicative content”.
Part of me wanted to quote Marshall McLuhan here, but I’ll keep this simple: If the police felt insulted by the fart, it obviously contains communicative content. The court apparently anticipated this criticism and, according to Kurier, argued:
And even if one were to see in a fart a “communicative content” — that is, an expression of opinion — then this would be limited to the violation of decency, the court argues. For: it would be “a form of expression that transcends the limits of decency, which cannot be compared with the general criticism of police activity and the need for demarcation from the state’s power of order.
I don’t think of myself as a free-speech absolutist, but the use of “decency” as a basis for limiting free expression seems misguided. As William Hughes argues:
Austria is a member state of the European Union, and, as such, is bound by the strictures of the Union’s Charter Of Fundamental Rights, first signed in 2009 — and yes, we looked up the Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union for this stupid fart-law article. Article 11 of that same document clearly spells out (with no mention of “decency” requirements) that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” The wording is unambiguous: Let the farts be free!
In several posts, I've written about ways of speaking about the unspeakable. I've mentioned poetry, music and psychedelics. But flatulence also flirts with the limits of language.
In cultures with warped standards of decency, quoting Diogenes doesn’t serve as an argument from authority. After all, the father of cynicism elevated indecency to an irreverent art form, sometimes by urinating on people or defecating and masturbating in public, or by plucking out a chicken’s feathers to rebut Plato’s definition of man as a featherless biped. Whether people agreed or disagreed with the substance of Diogenes’ arguments, no one questioned their “communicative content”.
Everything Communicates
To hold or to release? That’s a personal question, answerable only in a specific context. Whatever the context-specific answer, it seems silly to deny the reality that everything communicates — everything we say and do and everything we don’t say and do. The patterns of alternating sounds and silences characterize people as uniquely as their fingerprints.
When we choose to make a sound, we must also choose a medium. One possible choice is spoken language. The problem with this choice is that we increasingly find ourselves in unavoidable communications with people immune to language. In these unfortunate situations, we often have no better choice of a medium than “a massive intestinal wind”.1
Whether you identify as a “holder” or “sniffer”, you’re welcome to subscribe to M2D and share your thoughts on the pros and cons of these relationship styles.
About the Author
My name is Lev Janashvili, and I am the publisher of five blogs focused on five horizons of possibility.
LJ-Pro (levjanashvili.substack.com) is my professional blog in search of alternatives to the perverse incentives of the attention economy.
MISM (mism.substack.com) is dedicated to understanding media.
M2D (m2dialogue.substack.com) studies the subtle art of maintaining balance at the intersection of matter and metaphor.
DaaS (daas.substack.com) explores dialogue as a path to becoming fully human.
BS”D (bsdm.substack.com) studies fruitful responses to fractal falsehood.
I bring to this work more than 50 years of life experience, not counting my experience in any past lives. The most relevant skills I continually develop are the skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. My math skills are an area of development, probably in my future lives. If you’d like to hire me in this lifetime, start by subscribing to LJ-Pro.