{"id":18662,"date":"2011-09-17T00:04:37","date_gmt":"2011-09-17T07:04:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/?p=18662"},"modified":"2016-09-16T19:47:06","modified_gmt":"2016-09-17T02:47:06","slug":"give-me-doubleplusgood-or-give-me-death","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/give-me-doubleplusgood-or-give-me-death\/","title":{"rendered":"Give Me Doubleplusgood or Give Me Death!"},"content":{"rendered":"

FFF.org<\/a> | George Orwell\u2019s dystopian novel, 1984,<\/cite> got a few things wrong \u2014 for example, the date. But he was dead-on in depicting the cause-and-effect relationship between language and politics, between language and our ability to think clearly; the process of using words as social control was called Newspeak. What cannot be expressed cannot be effectively understood or opposed. Neutralizing language defuses the most powerful weapon against oppression: the ability to think.<\/p>\n

In his essay \u201cPolitics and the English Language<\/a>\u201d (1946), Orwell wrote, \u201c[The] decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes…. [To] think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous.\u201d Nor is the political use of bad or distorted English accidental.<\/p>\n

Since the advent of political correctness, a vigorous war on words has been waged.<\/p>\n

Some of attacks are blatant. For example, \u201cgender\u201d has replaced the word \u201csex\u201d and this replacement has been key to embedding the idea of sexual orientation as a social construct and not a biological fact. Words have been demonized as de\u00a0facto acts of violence, so that using a slang term for a race is viewed as a hate-filled attack that might result in retaliatory violence or even arrest. Other attacks on words are subtler. Terms have come mean their opposite, so that \u201cequality\u201d now requires the disadvantaging of men in law and with policies such as affirmative action in order to favor women. Euphemistic terms are used to describe vicious practices; for example, \u201csensitivity training\u201d refers to mandatory re-education sessions at which participants are harangued for possessing wrong<\/em> beliefs such as a traditional Christian view of women or gays.<\/p>\n

Political correctness has so infused the public schools and academia that the institutions no longer offer education (to the extent they ever did) but, instead, offer propaganda that \u201cteaches\u201d proper attitudes and positions on social issues. Thus, language is degraded not merely by the production of illiteracy but also by shutting down entire areas of discussion.<\/p>\n

One expression of the war on words is currently unfolding: the circus of rhetoric that precedes the 2012 presidential election. It will do nothing but intensify as that election draws nigh and rhetoric ramps up. Words will be used to confuse not inform; lies will masquerade as truth and become weapons against awareness; the meaning of words such as \u201cjustice\u201d and \u201cequality\u201d will be gutted or reversed, so that analysis or even understanding becomes tortuous.<\/p>\n

One of the characters of 1984,<\/cite> Party member Syme, proclaims, \u201cThe whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought.\u201d He adds, \u201cThe Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.\u201d<\/p>\n

What does \u201cis\u201d mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Consider merely one instance of political doublespeak from a myriad of possible examples. In his \u201cjobs\u201d speech of September\u00a08, President Obama claimed that his job-stimulus bill \u201cis\u201d paid for. The Wall Street Journal<\/cite> reported,<\/a> \u201cMr. Obama insisted that it\u2019s all \u2018paid for,\u2019 but with unspecified future entitlement cuts and tax hikes on small business owners and the energy industry.\u201d In short, Obama front-ended the spending and back-ended how it would be paid through unspecified means.<\/p>\n

Obama\u2019s statement is reminiscent of one made by Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky sex scandal. In front of a grand jury, Clinton countered a direct question about his alleged impropriety with a linguistic challenge to the meaning of the word \u201cis.\u201d He stated,<\/a><\/p>\n

It depends on what the meaning of the word \u201cis\u201d is. If the \u2014 if he \u2014 if \u201cis\u201d means is and never has been, that is not \u2014 that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Similarly, Obama\u2019s use of the word \u201cis\u201d regarding payment echoes the words of the portly Popeye character Wimpy:<\/a> \u201cI\u2019ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.\u201d It is a meaning of \u201cit is<\/strong>paid for\u201d with which most people are unfamiliar. But the sleight- of-hand reassures people; it makes objections to the stimulus bill seem less reasonable and, so, more difficult to pursue. Much of current politics involves similar linguistic sleights-of-hand.<\/span><\/span>What\u2019s in a word? A rose by any other name …<\/strong><\/p>\n

Impoverishment of the language is an impoverishment of our very ability to think. Try a thought experiment. Chose a belief you hold strongly but have never expressed orally or in writing; for example, \u201cI believe that peace is still feasible in a world at war.\u201d Construct an argument for your position and express it out loud. Typically, what seems clear in your thoughts will sound clumsy and incomplete when spoken for the first time because the spoken word is a refinement of thought that challenges fuzziness. Now write your argument down. It may be extremely difficult to do because the written word is also a refinement of thought. To argue cogently requires the definition of terms, the weighing of distinctions, the evaluation of evidence (also presented in words), et cetera. At every step, precise language is essential to precise thought.<\/p>\n

Language as social control<\/strong><\/p>\n

Orwell\u2019s totalitarian state Oceania imposes its will over language through Newspeak,<\/a> which serves the ideological goals of Ingsoc \u2014 English Socialism. Newspeak is a form of English that has been radically simplified in content and grammar in order to prevent \u201ccrimethink\u201d \u2014 thought that questions or contradicts official views. Wikipedia explains, \u201cThe basic idea behind Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) which reinforce the total dominance of the State.\u201d One manner in which the State reinforced itself by destroying language was to eliminate words \u2014 and so eliminate the ideas they expressed. Syme eulogizes the impact of Newspeak:<\/p>\n

\u201cHow could you have a slogan like \u2018freedom is slavery\u2019 when the concept of freedom has been abolished?… [There] will be<\/em> no thought, as we understand it now.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A mainstay of using words as social control is to reduce the number of words in common use. In 1984,<\/cite> six words \u2014 arguably one word modified five times \u2014 describe the entire span of right and wrong, good and evil. The words are: good, plusgood, doubleplusgood, ungood, plusungood, and doubleplusungood. Using Newspeak would it be possible to write the following passage?<\/p>\n

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness \u2014 That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Indeed, and without sarcasm, it is difficult to imagine the public-school system producing people who could write that passage.<\/span><\/span>But there are many other ways to degrade the language for political purposes.<\/p>\n

One is the introduction of \u201cdoublethink.\u2019 Doublethink occurs when someone simultaneously accepts two contradictory beliefs as true. It is achieved through using one word in a contradictory manner. An example is \u201caffirmative action.\u201d Because it is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender, universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender. Or consider the concept of \u201cdiversity\u201d; because differences in human beings are to be embraced we must eliminate those differences that may offend some. \u201cAffirmative action\u201d and \u201cdiversity\u201d have become part of the PCspeak and modern doublethink that parallel Newspeak.<\/p>\n

If people embrace the incompatible ideas of doublethink, their ability to make distinctions and to critically analyze issues is crippled. This hobbling is also promoted by surrounding the doublethink idea with euphemistic language that makes it more palatable and casts a\u00a0priori aspersion upon anyone who objects. Thus, affirmative action is not \u201cclass preference embedded into law\u201d but \u201cjustice to oppressed minorities\u201d; thus, making slang terms for minorities into hate speech is not \u201ccensorship\u201d but \u201crespect for dignity.\u201d Who can righteously object to justice and dignity?<\/p>\n

A variety of other linguistic tactics are used to cloud and slant any critical analysis. In \u201cPolitics and the English Language\u201d Orwell identifies two prominent ones: \u201cThe first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision.\u201d<\/p>\n

A hallmark of \u201cstaleness\u201d is the frequent use of dying or dead metaphors and slogans. The dead metaphor has lost all specific meaning and no longer produces a vivid image even though it may still evoke an emotional response. Thus, politicians invoke \u201cAmerica, land of the brave\u201d or cry, \u201cLet freedom ring!\u201d Although the phrases lack specific meaning, they evoke a patriotic swell within many listeners almost as a matter of emotional habit.<\/p>\n

Equally, lack of precision can be achieved in many ways. Two common examples are the use of meaningless words and pretentious language. Orwell commented, \u201cAdjectives such as epoch-making<\/em>, epic<\/em>, historic<\/em>, unforgettable<\/em>, triumphant<\/em>, age-old<\/em>, inevitable<\/em>, inexorable<\/em>, veritable,<\/em> are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics….\u201d Those words add nothing to the information (or lack thereof) being communicated. They merely serve to give the impression that something of consequence is being said.<\/p>\n

Other common tactics include:<\/p>\n

1. Embedding new terms. Some of the words embedded into the presentation of \u201cdiversity\u201d are \u201cethnocentric,\u201d \u201cgender-specific,\u201d and \u201cpatriarchy.\u201d Each term is an idea and, when favored by officials, it acts to quash the circulation of opposing ideas.<\/p>\n

2. Eliminating \u201cwrong\u201d words and, thus, wrong ideas. In 1984,<\/cite> all literature was being rewritten in Newspeak so that authors such as Shakespeare either disappeared or were rewritten to serve Ingsoc\u2019s purposes. Today, school textbooks are reviewed to eliminate politically wrong words and ideas. Accuracy is a secondary consideration if, indeed, it ranks that high.<\/p>\n

3. Gutting the power of remaining words. In 1984,<\/cite> the word \u201cfree\u201d is used only in its nonpolitical, trivial meaning \u2014 e.g., \u201cMy sweater is free of lint.\u201d In most of academia today, the word \u201csex\u201d is used only as an act and not as a biological description.<\/p>\n

4. Using bureaucratic or over verbose language to describe simple ideas, thus making them inaccessible to average people. In \u201cPolitics and the English Language\u201d Orwell referred to such obscuring language as \u201cOperators or verbal false limbs\u201d that replace \u201cappropriate verbs and nouns…. Characteristic phrases are render inoperative<\/em>, militate against<\/em>, make contact with<\/em>, be subjected to<\/em>, give rise to<\/em>, give grounds for<\/em>, have the effect of<\/em>, play a leading part (role) in<\/em>, make itself felt<\/em>, take effect<\/em>, exhibit a tendency to<\/em>, serve the purpose of, etc., etc.<\/em> The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs.\u201d<\/p>\n

The list of language tactics could fill a large book. But the final resort used against those who persist in today\u2019s version of Oldspeak (Newspeak\u2019s linguistic predecessor) is punishment through lawsuits, the law itself (e.g., laws against so-called hate speech), public humiliation, the dismissal from jobs, exclusion from opportunities and, sometimes, open violence.<\/p>\n

Words are met with the force and punishment not because they are weak, babbling things but because they possess tremendous power. It is time to reclaim the power of the English language … verb by verb, adjective by adjective.<\/p>\n

A good way to begin: When listening to politicians, academics, and pundits, constantly ask yourself, \u201cWhat did he actually say?\u201d Do not take even the word \u201cis\u201d for granted.<\/p>\n

By Wendy McElroy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FFF.org | George Orwell\u2019s dystopian novel, 1984, got a few things wrong \u2014 for example, the date. But he was dead-on in depicting the cause-and-effect relationship between language and politics, between language and our ability to think clearly; the process of using words as social control was called Newspeak. What cannot be expressed cannot be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[294],"tags":[1006,477,821],"class_list":["post-18662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article","tag-critical-thinking","tag-language","tag-legalese"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18662","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18662"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18662\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}