David Thomases
1
Theatre Kicks the Bucket: The Exploitation of Euphemism in Urinetown Death cannot be avoided physically. Yet, human impulse tries to avoid this inevitable demise. We invent formulas and prescription medication to stave off illness and surround ourselves with distractions to keep us from thinking about death. Death is avoided mentally in common conversation unless it is brought about by some unfortunate occurrence. Euphemisms are used to discuss death while still dancing around the subject of death itself. Euphemism is defined as “the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant” (“euphemism”). Instead of saying that someone is sick, they are “under the weather.” Instead of saying that someone has died, they have “passed away.” These phrases are more comforting than the truth in dealing with death. Theatre has adopted this use of avoidance and euphemism. Urinetown, a musical written by Greg Kotis and Mark Hollman which premiered in 1999, uses the idea prominently. Centered on a city in the midst of a water shortage that has privatized toilet use, the show warns the audience of the mysterious “Urinetown,” a town where the disobedient citizens who fight against the public urination laws are sent. It is later discovered that the fabled town is no more than a misnomer for the brutal murder of the outlaws. The crooked governing body has created Urinetown as a euphemism for death, avoiding the revealing of its true nature for as long as possible. Human nature is to fear death for such reasons as the loss of power, their own lives, or loved ones, and so death is avoided, and other terms and phrases take its place in the form of euphemisms. Urinetown uses this power to its fullest potential, avoiding death much like human nature has taught us to do. The concept behind the use of euphemisms is to avoid a culturally constructed taboo in order to discuss the subject itself. “From this viewpoint,” writes Eliecer Crespo Fernández,
David Thomases
2
“euphemism is not merely a response to a forbidden subject; rather, it provides a way to speak about the taboo, that is, the unspeakable” (102). The taboo, in this case, is death, and it arises out of fear. Death brings with it a number of unknowns, which lead to this fear. Fernández points out the “fear of the loss of loved ones, fear of the corruption of the body, fear of evil spirits and fear of what comes after death” (103). This fear stretches across multiple cultures. The impulse to avoid death is so strong in Australian tribal religions that “the word associated with death is believed to possess magical powers” (Fernández 103). If such strong fear is associated with the word itself, barriers must be put in place for the avoidance of its use. In this example, euphemisms are created to avoid a spiritual consequence that may arise from the taboo surrounding death. Social consequences are also a consideration when discussing death and other taboo subjects. James Valentine writes about the use of euphemisms when politeness demands it. For this scenario, “the distasteful is given only indirect reference” (5.1). This is encouraged when politeness is highly valued. The word ‘lavatory’ originated from a society where talking about the matters of bathroom usage where socially impolite, according to Valentine. The manufacture of euphemisms at times comes from a society that demands it citizens to be polite. In this society, a social structure is maintained where politeness demands the use of euphemisms. Ideally, euphemisms are utilized in this context to keep the society at high standards of politeness and, at least at a superficial level. Finally, there is the use of euphemism for an entirely different reason, that of doublespeak. In this case, euphemisms are not used to comfort or avoid, but to confuse. As William D. Lutz explains, a euphemism becomes doublespeak when its purpose is to “mislead or deceive” (1). An example shown is when the U.S. State Department exchanged the word
David Thomases
3
‘killing’ for the phrase “unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of life” (Lutz 1). The effect is that when officials are forced to speak of government-sanctioned killings in U.S.-sanctioned nations, the act sounds less violent and more bureaucratic. This effect still includes the practice of avoiding the unpleasant, but it has gained the ability to mislead citizens into thinking that something is something else. Doublespeak pervades non-government institutions as well when a coach at a university is not fired, but officials claim that “he just won’t be asked to continue in that job” (Lutz 2). Other examples include such names as the “Caribbean Peace Keeping Force,” the group responsible for a clearly not peaceful invasion of Grenada conducted by the U.S. armed forces, as well as the War Department changing its name to the Defense Department in 1947 (Lutz 2). In both instances, the doublespeak title sounds much more agreeable than the original, and leads the casual observer to believe that the business being conducted in each situation is reactionary rather than aggressive. Doublespeak can be the most insidious form of euphemism in the way it consciously misleads the observer. All of these forms of euphemisms are present in Urinetown. The play weaves its way from a time where the policemen use doublespeak to trick the poorer citizens into believing that Urinetown is a mysterious town outside of the city where they live. “Is Urinetown actually a nice place to live?” asks a young boy of a policeman, “Gingerbread houses along golden, frothy canals? Like Venice, but different?” (Kotis 2.1). As the show moves along, the euphemism is unraveled. It takes much rebellion, but the poor eventually see how the governmental body has been fooling them all along. In the end, Urinetown has been revealed as nothing more than death, a swift push off of a tall building. However, the power that the euphemism holds throughout the show is remarkable. It is an excellent example of the avoidance of death. It is interesting to see a
David Thomases
4
musical that deals with so much avoidance, seeing as many musicals avoid everything in life at all costs, acting as escapist theatre. Urinetown embraces its escapism. Urinetown begins its euphemistic avoidance of death at the very beginning of the show. In only the second line, Penelope Pennywise, who runs the cheapest, dirtiest toilet in town says to her assistant (and future hero) Bobby Strong, “You hear the news? They carted Old So-and-So off to Urinetown the other day” (Kotis 1.1). At the start, the story is set that Urinetown is firmly driven into the citizens’ minds that it is simply a place, nothing more. The only knowledge about it is that it is a place no one wants to go. Officer Lockstock, head of the police force and narrator of the show, explains a few lines later that Urinetown is “kind of a mythical place […]. A bad place. A place you won’t see until Act Two. And then…? Well, let’s just say it’s filled with symbolism and things like that” (Kotis 1.1). The play, which is significantly meta-theatrical, acknowledges the symbolism apparent in the euphemism surrounding Urinetown, giving the audience a hint that the identity of Urinetown will become an important plot point. The audience does not yet know this significance, but the show is quick to clue them into the symbolism that drives the connection between Urinetown and death. The action moves along to show what happens when someone actually breaks the law and suffers the consequence. Old Man Strong, Bobby Strong’s father, cannot afford the fee to use the toilet, so he relieves himself on the wall. Lockstock and his accomplice, Officer Barrel, are quick to apprehend him, and Lockstock informs the mob that “breaking the Public Health Act is an exiling offence.” Barrel adds, “Quite exiling” (Kotis 1.1). Lockstock’s proclamation is using ‘exiling’ as a euphemism for death, and Barrel’s addition cues the close observer in to the subtext. This is a good example of doublespeak being used. To say that someone is exiled does not necessarily mean that they have been killed, but death is a form of exile. In this exchange,
David Thomases
5
Lockstock does not lie, but he bends his words to mislead the citizens. The two men laugh over Old Man Strong’s “trip” to Urinetown a few scenes later. “[T]hey all scream in the end, now, don’t they?” Lockstock says, “As their long journey into ‘exile’ comes to a close and the spires of Urinetown peek above the horizon?” (Kotis 1.3). Lockstock acknowledges himself that he has used ‘exile’ as a euphemism. The use of euphemism in the form of doublespeak characterizes the policemen as being slightly crooked, as they mislead those that they are sworn to protect. The rest of the story continues to portray them in this light. Direct avoidance of death without the use of euphemism first surfaces in Urinetown when Bobby asks Lockstock and Barrel exactly what happened to his father. Upon hearing the question, the officers pause, then avoid its answer and exit saying goodnight. This is a realistic portrayal of what may happen in society, and it displays Fernández’s claim that there is a “reluctance to mention the subject of death” (102). This could be extenuated by the fact that the person asking the question is a relative of the deceased, what may lead the officers to skirt around death out of the “fear of the loss of loved ones” (Fernández 103). It can be noted that Lockstock and Barrel would not only be reluctant to disclose details of Old Man Strong’s death due to the social pressures surrounding the discussion of death, but also out of respect for Bobby’s relationship with his father. While neither is explicitly confirmed nor denied, these pressures weigh in on the theatrical situation much as they would in everyday life. Meta-theatricality returns in dealing with euphemism shortly thereafter as Lockstock converses with Little Sally, a poor girl. Sally asks what Urinetown is like, the question that is beginning to drive the characters forward in the show. Lockstock evades the answer by saying that he cannot tell her. “Its power depends on mystery.” Lockstock adds, “I can’t just blurt it out, like ‘There is no Urinetown! We just kill people!’ Oh no. The information must be oozed out
David Thomases
6
slowly, until it bursts forth in one mighty, cathartic moment!” (Kotis 1.3). Doublespeak here is at its finest and funniest moment. The humor exists in Lockstock’s denial that he can blurt out the truth behind Urinetown, even though he immediately does so, but the seriousness lives in the truth that is revealed, albeit stealthily. The audience is not directly told that what Lockstock says is true, but with the knowledge of the other instances where Urinetown is connected to death, certain audience members may start to pick up on the idea. However, the connection is lost on the poor characters who are on the verge of starting a rebellion against the high toilet fees, as one remarks in the next scene, “It’ll be off to Urinetown for the lot of us sooner or later” (Kotis 1.4). They are still duped into believing that Urinetown is a physical place by the policemen’s doublespeak. The confusion over the true identity of Urinetown finally comes to its climax as the second act opens. The poor see the truth (still unproven for the audience) that Urinetown is death, but every party caught in the struggle over paying for toilet usage sees the message differently. Caldwell B. Cladwell, the businessman in control of the toilets, sees Urinetown as “a tool,” and “an instrument of power to enforce [his] iron rule” (Kotis 2.1). Displaying the methodology behind his doublespeak, Cladwell does not offer any concrete physical definition for Urinetown, only its political meaning. Bobby, politically opposed to Cladwell as he leads the uprising, believes that Urinetown is “a lie” as well as “a means to keep the poor in check until the day they die” (Kotis 2.1). Like Cladwell, Bobby does not look for a physical answer for Urinetown, only for the political rationale behind it, which he views as unfounded. Finally, Little Sally weighs in on the cacophony with probably the most accurate answer. She says that Urinetown is the city in which they all live. It is “the town wherever people learn to live in fear.” She ends with the idea that “Urinetown is your town if you’re hopeless, down-and-out!” (Kotis
David Thomases
7
2.1). Sally connects the idea of Urinetown to death through hopelessness and fear, two attributes closely associated with death. This last sequence provides a spectrum of how the various characters in the show interact with Urinetown as a euphemism. The rebel poor could care less about the euphemism. They are concerned with the concrete reality that Urinetown is simple death, nothing more or less. Cladwell sees Urinetown as purely euphemism, without any connection to the reality of the killing that is taking place. Bobby and Sally are somewhere in the middle. Bobby rejects both the euphemism and the physical reality, believing that it is all just a political ploy without any substance to back it up. Sally sees it as both euphemism and physical reality. For her, Urinetown is the awful and mysterious place that everyone has been afraid of throughout the show. However, it just so happens to have its physical presence within the city. Urinetown also maintains all of the negative connotations for her as it does for the poor mob. To best explain herself, Sally (who seems much too intelligent for her age) says that Urinetown is more of a “metaphysical place” (Kotis 2.1). Both a little bit mental and physical. Eventually, the euphemism wears down, and the audience is finally shown exactly how Urinetown means death. Lockstock and Barrel have captured Bobby, and bring him, blindfolded, to the top of a building. Upon given the chance to see the gates of Urinetown with his own eyes, Bobby takes a while to fully realize what he is looking at, finally coming to his conclusion: “[Y]ou’re just going to throw me off this roof and that’s supposed to be Urinetown?! Death is Urinetown?!” (Kotis 2.3). After circling around the answer to the question for so long, the play finally owns up to its euphemistic connection between Urinetown and death. Lockstock, however, continues his old ways, and replies, “That’s one interpretation” (Kotis 2.3). Avoiding death until the end, Lockstock epitomizes the escapist. Also, at this juncture, the idea of taking a
David Thomases
8
“trip” to Urinetown is understood. When one trips, he falls, and Urinetown has just been one big trip all along, down thousands of feet. Urinetown uses many methods to euphemize its town of torture. The controlling body of policemen and Cladwell use Urinetown as a form of euphemism in doublespeak, misleading the populace into thinking that Urinetown really is not all that bad. Characters also use Urinetown as a euphemism out of fear. The poor know that Urinetown is simply death, but still call it by its misleading name out of their fear of it. Bobby Strong avoids the idea that Urinetown will mean his death by denying its existence, likely out of the fear of what happened to his father. No matter what their reasons, every character uses Urinetown as a euphemism out of human impulse. Humans fear death for such reasons as the loss of power, their own lives, or loved ones, and so they avoid it, using other terms and phrases to take death’s place. The characters in Urinetown act out of these same impulses.
David Thomases
9
Works Cited
“euphemism.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. 27 November 2008 . Fernández, Eliecer Crespo. “The Language of Death: Euphemism and Conceptual Metaphorization in Victorian Obituaries.” SKY Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 19 (2006). 27 November 2008 . Kotis, Greg, and Mark Hollman. Urinetown: The Musical. New York: Faber and Faber, Inc., 2003. Lutz, William D. “Language, Appearance, and Reality: Doublespeak in 1984.” Goat-roast.com. 1987. 27 November 2008 . Valentine, James. “Naming the Other: Power, Politeness and the Inflation of Euphemisms.” Sociological Research Online. 31 December 1998. 27 November 2008 .
