Fakakta
I was delighted the other week to hear Jon Stewart use the word “fakakta” on “The Daily Show.” I believe he was speaking to conservative columnist Bill Kristol at the time, and he introduced the word referring to it as an expression of his own people. Then, recognizing that Kristol is also Jewish he expanded the reference to say “our people.” But you don’t have to be Jewish to love the word “fakakta,” to paraphrase an old Levy’s Rye commercial—I grew up on Levy’s Rye.
For a definition of “fakakta” you can go to www.urbandictionary.com, where you can also get some “fakakta” T-shirts, hats and mugs. No, seriously, I mean you can get T-shirts, hats and mugs with the word “fakakta” printed on them. Otherwise, I would not have put the word in quotation marks.
On the other hand, you can go with my definition, which is a hodgepodge of scanning the internet, hearing the word used, and using it myself and being understood—yes, I too use “fakakta.” So what does “fakakta” mean to me? Well it can mean “crazy,” though generally not in the diagnosable sense. So, if you are looking for a rude yet politically correct way to say somebody (or preferably just their behavior) is nuts, you can use the word “fakakta,” as in, “That was a pretty fakakta stunt you just pulled.” Note: if using the work “fakakta,” for the word “crazy” here, you would not be going with the Beat Generation version of “crazy,” as in, “Crazy, man!” which is not to be confused with “crazy man.” The former is an ejaculation (no, not that kind—I mean an ejaculation of the grammatical kind, which is complete in and of itself). It is generally meant as a compliment, whereas the latter usage is that of a noun and its adjective in search of a verb and is rarely intended as a complete compliment.
Generally speaking, somebody who does a lot of fakakta stuff is a bit of a meshugganah, though not as cute. (Go back to www.urbandictionary.com for a definition of meshugganah, where you can also find some “meshuggah” T-shirts, hats and mugs. Caution: you will also find some rude English as well.) It is possible, though not common, to use the word “meshuggah” in an endearing way—not so “fakakta.” Sometimes somewhat softer than crazy, “fakakta” can also mean something that does not quite make sense to one as in, “The machinations of Washington are fakakta.” However, no one ever finds such machinations in the least bit cute.
Given its negative connotation, “fakakta” can also be used for that other German/Yiddish word I prefer to some of its’ English counterparts. That word is “dreck,” which can mean excrement, dirt or worthless trash. (You can find a definition of “dreck” at www.urbandictionary.com, where you can also find some “dreck” T-shirts, hats…. Caution: you will also find some rude English as well.) An example of this usage of “fakakta” might be, “Your excuse is fakakta.”
So, why was I particularly delighted to hear Stewart use the word “fakakta?” Well, because as rude as it may be, to my mind it is not nearly as rude as that other “f-word” he appears to use so often—though I wouldn’t know for sure because it’s always bleeped out when I view. You know the word I mean. The word that I am told comes from English bobbies writing the initials of “for unlawful carnal knowledge” in their summons books back when attaining such knowledge in that manner was unlawful in England. Which brings me to another definition of “fakakta” that I have used and heard used. That definition is— How do I put this politely? Let me just say, when I say something is “fakakta,” I usually mean it is ‘for unlawful carnal kowledged-up.’ You get the gist—without the curse.
I believe this last sense, is the sense in which Stewart was using the word, and that is why I was so delighted to hear him use it. In truth, I’d like him and other comics to replace that other f-word with “fakakta” wherever and whenever the word fits. I know at least Stewart and his counterpart, Stephen Colbert, unlike some others, make sure the other f-word is bleeped by the time the word leaves their mouths and hits the airwaves. But what does that communicate—really? On the one hand, it communicates that that particular word is not fit for general consumption across a broad spectrum of people and venues—no matter how aptly it describes certain situations. Good for them in that. But it also communicates something else. It communicates that grown men, in this case two very cool grown men whom many would like to emulate, cannot control their mouths, and require an external censor to bleep them. Not such a good thing to communicate—even as a spoof. This is especially ironic since Stewart and Colbert made such a very good show at their “Rally to Restore Sanity” (and I mean it—I watched the whole wonderful thing) of bringing civility back to the political discourse—attacking in particular newspersons, whom I, frankly, have never heard use the f-word on air—bleeped or otherwise. Where’s a mirror when you really need one.
The issue here is one of locus of control. Psychologists are big on talking about locus of control. Let me explain briefly. If a person is said to generally have an external locus of control, it means the person tends to view things in their own life—including their own behavior—as dependent on something outside themselves as the source of power; they tend to see others—not themselves—as the responsible parties; and they tend to look to external mediators (like a bleeping censor) to set limits or provide permission for them. If a person has an internal locus of control, it means they tend to view themselves as the source of power over things in their own life; they tend to see themselves as the responsible party for what they do and what happens to them; and they tend to set their own limits for themselves. Although it is both realistic and important to recognize external centers of power, and some things that involve networks of people—like the banking industry—require external regulation; when it comes down to personal behavior, generally speaking, I believe it most advantageous to self-regulate when possible.
I realize that some have achieved great success with overcoming addictive behavior through 12-step programs by daily employing the second step, i.e. by professing that they “Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.” But please note that the word “Power” in that context is capitalized and even YHVH in the Garden gave Adam choice, basically saying, “It’s up to you mate. Choose wisely.” (Those with an internal locus of control who are overcoming addictions, but for whom 12-step programs are not appealing, may want to view www.smartrecovery.org.)
Back in the Beat Generation, Lenny Bruce (who had his own fatal battle with addiction) broke language and social barriers, and even the law by using that other f-word in public during his stand-up comedy performances. For this perceived offence to polite society, Bruce got arrested, and arrested, and arrested. Later, the much-loved Hippy Dippy Weatherman, George Carlin, used the word as part of another routine, his famous (infamous?) “Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television.” You can go to www.youtube.com for this, and for Bruce’s second to the last stand-up performance which Carlin’s bit recalls, as well as other stand-up performances of Bruce and Carlin. These groundbreaking comics, whether you endorse their work or not, were making a social statement with their use of obscenity. When comics today use obscenity—they’re just failing to tell a joke.
Don’t get me wrong. Stewart and Colbert, make many social statements, with which I usually agree. Use of the f-word just isn’t one of them. That statement has been made. That ground has been broken, and as far as I’m concerned that f-word should be buried in it. I have such great respect for how Rita Rudner, performing in “Sin City,” where she could no doubt get away with a heck of a lot, has sworn off swearing in her Las Vegas show. That, to my mind, is a social statement for this generation. If Rita Rudner could do it and remain standing, so could the others. I hope they will follow suit.
Most of us, especially Stewart and Colbert and virtually all comics with the capacity to make it in the stand-up circuit or on TV, have enough self-control to choose their words judiciously. In my opinion, when Bruce and Carlin used the f-word they were making a judicious move of sorts. In effect, they were saying that they did not find the censors, the external locus of control, acceptable. Good. That’s half the way there. The second half comes in developing an internal locus of control, i.e. being able to self-censor. Lacing every other sentence with that other f-word is like ending every other sentence with, “You know;” you know? It’s more of a nervous tic or bad habit than anything. The only thing it communicates (now that Bruce and Carlin have broken down the barriers) is that one may not have enough control over one’s language or confidence in one’s performance, and therefore one needs to rely on a crutch.
In the interest of developing a more self-regulating society that exercises a greater central locus of control, I recommend the use of the word “fakakta.” Comics would not have to worry about censors or self-censoring when using “fakakta,” and neither would the rest of us. Fakakta, to my ear, my tongue and even my uvula (I tend to gutteralize the first “k”) has all the power of the other f-word and more, plus its meaning is often much closer to that which the speaker is trying to communicate than is that of that other f-word I so abhor. So, go ahead. You don’t have to be Jewish. Just use it. It’s fakakta not to.
By Devorah Ann Fox, PsyD
You can Google “fakakta phone” to hear, “Where’s the fakakta phone?” ringtone courtesy of Psycho Toddler.
** Nothing connected with this blog or this website should be considered counseling or treatment. **
