This is fun to read, but there are some odd quirks to the text that I would hope wouldn't slip past an editor, and the way some of the Christian aspects are talked about feels bizarrely partisan for an academic text (it gives the impression the author might be Catholic). I wonder if it is just clumsiness.
“The Great Chain of Being” that the author mentions is an idea that dates back to Aristotle and Plato, but it developed into the concept described in the article under medieval Christianity, before the Catholic/Protestant split.
I agree the article presents it a bit weirdly, like a fact of existence. But I can see how it makes sense in a discussion of taboo, since as the article points out, taboos applied differently at different “levels” of that chain.
If the author had included a sentence or two to contextualize it, it might have helped - but he probably expects that the audience already knows about it, and (one hopes) wouldn’t take it literally. But it’s difficult to tell for sure.
I found the use of <SYMBOLS LIKE THIS> throughout the text without explanation somewhat off-putting. Clearly some sort of technical usage is being suggested, but it doesn't seem to add anything to the text.
I do not see the term "euphemism treadmill" in this anywhere. This is talking about the same thing, so I'd think the common term for it would at least be mentioned.
I agree the article presents it a bit weirdly, like a fact of existence. But I can see how it makes sense in a discussion of taboo, since as the article points out, taboos applied differently at different “levels” of that chain.
If the author had included a sentence or two to contextualize it, it might have helped - but he probably expects that the audience already knows about it, and (one hopes) wouldn’t take it literally. But it’s difficult to tell for sure.