Obstreperous: A jovial word with an ominous back story

It's a learned, yet folksy, way to describe someone as unruly or troublesome. Its roots are innocuous, but it was also used to describe slaves.

Staff

As bills that were passed by the United States House of Representatives pile up in the Senate, remarks that President Joe Biden made last year about whether to abolish the filibuster are back in the news. “It’s going to depend on how obstreperous they become,” Mr. Biden told journalists during his campaign, a humorous reference to the Republican senators. Obstreperous sounds like something Mark Twain might have said if he’d been a middle school teacher – it’s both learned and folksy. It also played a small, though sinister, role in the most appalling period of American history, which raises questions about how we use it and words like it today.

Obstreperous comes from the root strepere, “to make a noise” in Latin, and in its earliest uses meant just that: “clamorous, noisy,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary. A character in a 1600 play, for example, expresses frustration with someone who won’t stop arguing: “Proceed’st thou still with thy ostreperous noise?”

The word quickly acquired a more specific sense as well – “noisily or aggressively resisting control, advice, etc.; turbulent, unruly; ... argumentative” – which remains its primary meaning today. Implicit in obstreperous is the idea that the control is justified and the threat minimal – its tone is patronizing. Students throwing spitballs are obstreperous; militants fighting a rebellion against a government they consider to be unjust are not, though both are “aggressively resisting control.” When President Biden calls Senate Republicans “obstreperous,” he is suggesting that they are fractious, but harmless.  

Obstreperous was not always such a jovial word, however. In 18th- and 19th-century America, it was a common way to describe enslaved people whom plantation owners considered to be “troublesome.” A Virginia memoirist remembered, for example, that his father “had to threaten to sell one obstreperous slave ... in order to make him behave.” In his autobiography, noted educator Robert Moton recounts how his father fought back against an overseer who tried to whip him, then “took the only course, as it seems, that was open to ‘obstreperous’ slaves” and fled to the woods. 

Where does that leave obstreperous? It remains a humorous word to many English speakers today, while others aren’t familiar with it. How much do its ties to American slavery matter? What about the fact that it implicitly creates a hierarchy, setting up an unequal relationship? English speakers are increasingly concerned about language that has these two characteristics, but there has been no public outcry against obstreperous. This is not the case with master, however, and that’s our subject next week. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.