I'm going through a George Orwell phase at the moment, rediscovering his books that I first read as a high school student. Perhaps it is the fact that I am re-reading them with an additional 30 years of experience of the world, or perhaps it is that the world has changed considerably since the first reading, but Orwell's books now resonate with a prescience that they did not back then. 1984, in particular, is scary in its parallels to life in the Western world today.
We have all heard of the comparison of Newspeak, the redacted language of the fictitious state of Oceania, with modern politically-correct language and its euphemistic elimination of any words considered to be insensitive or too permissive (e.g. "differently-abled" for disabled, "Afro-American" for Negro, etc.) But this is the least of the similarities.
The constant electronic surveillance by which Big Brother watches his subjects is reality today. In the book the surveillance is conducted by the somewhat primitive means of two-way television sets, whereas today it is conducted much more surreptitiously by the likes of the US National Security Agency (which surely would be part of the antonymically named Ministry of Love in the book) simply by demanding all the telephone and internet records of every American be handed over for scrutiny. The fact that the NSA does this it in complete disregard of the law (as indeed did New Zealand's own Government Communications Security Bureau did in the Kim Dotcom case) is, again, portended in the book when the protanganist Winston Smith points out, "nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws".
The scariest part of the absolute totalitarianism portrayed in the book is Big Brother's ability to not only rewrite history but to recreate the "truth" by erasing any information that is contrary to its view of the world. In New Zealand we have an obvious example of this in Treaty of Waitangi settlements for historic Maori grievances that include the government's agreement to issue an official version of the historical facts in issue that suit the claimants' version of events. Government bureaucrats decide what history should be and then attempt to create an accepted version. Anyone who tries to maintain a contrary version is branded a racist, just as in 1984 anyone who contradicts the official version of events is guilty of thoughtcrime.
Fortunately, we still live in a world that is at worst a very diluted version of 1984, but the trend in most Western countries is very much towards a more concentrated version of Orwell's distopia.
Showing posts with label Newspeak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newspeak. Show all posts
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Liberal Means Anything But
One of the common characteristics of dictatorial regimes is that they recognise early on the need to control the language. This is because language is a proxy for thought. People may dissent in their minds but that is of little effect if they are incapable of expressing their dissent. George Orwell recognised this in his novel, 1984, with Newspeak, the approved language of his fictional dictatorship. Newspeak was designed to ensure people could not communicate opposition to the regime and one of the means of doing this was to confuse synonyms and antonyms, thus eliminating words like 'bad' and replacing them with euphemistic alternatives such as 'ungood'.
Orwell's novel was prescience of the Western world today. The political left-wing in our so-called liberal democracies has achieved what Hitler and Stalin could only have dreamed of - an almost complete stranglehold on the language.
Take the terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' - what do they really mean? Left-wing originally referred to those on the left side of the French revolutionary legislative assembly. Those who sat on the left opposed the monarchy and supported the establishment of a republic. Those on the right side of the chamber supported the institutions of the Old Regime, although not the monarchy itself. In other words, the left-wing supported change, i.e. they were radicals, the right-wing didn't, i.e. they were conservatives. In the Western world of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries these terms have lost their original meaning and distinction. Left-wingers are often the most conservative in that they want to preserve the established order of a strong, central government and comprehensive welfare state. Right-wingers are often the ones advocating change, seeking to reduce the role of government in the economy and to roll-back the welfare state. Thus we had Maggie Thatcher, a Conservative who was more radical in her policies than any modern British prime minister.
Left-wingers have co-opted the term 'extreme right-wing' to imply Fascist or National Socialist beliefs. This is ironic to say the least because, as the names suggest, both Fascism (deriving from the Italian word for 'group') and National Socialism (literally Socialism to achieve nationalistic goals) have more in common, at least in desired outcomes, with the democratic Socialism that most liberals espouse than with anything their modern opponents believe.
The word 'liberal' has similarly lost almost all of its original meaning. Today it is interchangeable with the term left-wing. Classical liberalism, as typified by the writings of 17th Century English philosopher John Locke, was all about individual freedom and rights and had little in common with the political beliefs of latter-day liberals who advocate for an all-powerful (albeit, they would say, benevolent) state. In the Newspeak of today's Western democracies, 'liberal' means the exact opposite and those who think of themselves as classical liberals prefer to use the term 'libertarian' to distinguish themselves from the faux-liberals of the left-wing.
There are many examples of this topsy-turvy use of plain words for political ends. Those who advocate equal treatment of different races before the law are labelled 'racist', those who would prefer to judge individuals on their merits rather than on their sex are 'sexist', and those who dare to question the political orthodoxy on climate change are 'deniers'.
The motivation for this misuse and misappropriate of language is always the same as that of Big Brother - to prohibit debate and control thinking. This is reason enough to resist such hegemony at every turn. Language defines the terms of any debate. Concede the language and you concede the argument.
Orwell's novel was prescience of the Western world today. The political left-wing in our so-called liberal democracies has achieved what Hitler and Stalin could only have dreamed of - an almost complete stranglehold on the language.
Take the terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' - what do they really mean? Left-wing originally referred to those on the left side of the French revolutionary legislative assembly. Those who sat on the left opposed the monarchy and supported the establishment of a republic. Those on the right side of the chamber supported the institutions of the Old Regime, although not the monarchy itself. In other words, the left-wing supported change, i.e. they were radicals, the right-wing didn't, i.e. they were conservatives. In the Western world of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries these terms have lost their original meaning and distinction. Left-wingers are often the most conservative in that they want to preserve the established order of a strong, central government and comprehensive welfare state. Right-wingers are often the ones advocating change, seeking to reduce the role of government in the economy and to roll-back the welfare state. Thus we had Maggie Thatcher, a Conservative who was more radical in her policies than any modern British prime minister.
Left-wingers have co-opted the term 'extreme right-wing' to imply Fascist or National Socialist beliefs. This is ironic to say the least because, as the names suggest, both Fascism (deriving from the Italian word for 'group') and National Socialism (literally Socialism to achieve nationalistic goals) have more in common, at least in desired outcomes, with the democratic Socialism that most liberals espouse than with anything their modern opponents believe.
The word 'liberal' has similarly lost almost all of its original meaning. Today it is interchangeable with the term left-wing. Classical liberalism, as typified by the writings of 17th Century English philosopher John Locke, was all about individual freedom and rights and had little in common with the political beliefs of latter-day liberals who advocate for an all-powerful (albeit, they would say, benevolent) state. In the Newspeak of today's Western democracies, 'liberal' means the exact opposite and those who think of themselves as classical liberals prefer to use the term 'libertarian' to distinguish themselves from the faux-liberals of the left-wing.
There are many examples of this topsy-turvy use of plain words for political ends. Those who advocate equal treatment of different races before the law are labelled 'racist', those who would prefer to judge individuals on their merits rather than on their sex are 'sexist', and those who dare to question the political orthodoxy on climate change are 'deniers'.
The motivation for this misuse and misappropriate of language is always the same as that of Big Brother - to prohibit debate and control thinking. This is reason enough to resist such hegemony at every turn. Language defines the terms of any debate. Concede the language and you concede the argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)