Toiletnation, USA

Home » Posts tagged 'newspeak'

Tag Archives: newspeak

Newspeak: Linguistic Status Symbol of the Easily Convinced

Consider the following words and phrases:

  • Fat-shaming
  • Privilege (White privilege, thin privilege, male privilege)
  • Marriage equality
  • Triggering or triggered
  • Larger person
  • Pro-choice
  • Women’s clinic

Seven simple words or combinations of simple words that have each been meticulously engineered to “trigger” a cascade of ideas and emotions meant to rewrite and reinforce new moral definitions every time they are used. If you are honest and aware of what the engineers of these word-concepts are trying to do, you have to admit that they have been very successful.

A quick Google Trends search for the search term “fat shaming” shows that, before the end of 2012, that particular combination of those two words was practically unheard of in popular culture. But now, just two or three years later, those two words beside each other have a very precise political meaning that tells the listener or reader volumes about the user’s values, background, politics and viewpoint. And most of the Western world is familiar with the concept. Impressive.

If someone uses the term “fat-shaming” (or any of the terms bullet-listed above) un-ironically, you can immediately deduce with a pretty decent degree of certainty that the person is:

  • female
  • white
  • upper middle-class
  • on the leftward end of the political spectrum
  • overweight to a greater or lesser degree
  • college-educated
  • studying (or studied) the humanities or social sciences

(The sorts of people who invent and use a term like “fat-shaming” bristle at how easily astute listeners or readers can peg their social status and political/intellectual position on just about any issue after just after a brief conversation. I know this from experience. )

But the phenomenon isn’t a new one. It’s a cliche’ by now, but whenever totalitarian political movements appear, a struggle for the language of whatever nation being taken over always follows. George Orwell made his career on this fact. 

When the Communists took over Russia, they instituted a well thought-out and organized government censorship plan within ten days of coming to power. They did so for a reason:

“Soviet censors regard[ed] the world as a semantic system in which the information that is let through is the only reality….In terms of truth or falsehood, the objective sense of the world no longer exists. Instead of dealing with real things, the censor hopes that his world view will be accepted. Only what the censor approves is said to exist; what he disapproves has no independent existence.”

From I Must Speak Out: The Best of the Voluntaryist 1982-1999, edited by Carl Watner

In other words, totalitarians believe that reality is a consensus and that if enough people can be convinced that a concept is real (or unreal), it will either magically exist or cease to exist. Americans have seen this theory in action since the 1960s, as concepts of what people have traditionally considered natural or unnatural are continually under semantic assault. Consider ideas of gender, sexuality, body image, race, nationhood, etc. “Normal”and “decent”–two words which once had understood meanings–have been deliberately destroyed. Or, at least, damaged.

But more than a tool of social re-engineering, progressive Newspeak serves as a conversational identifier to differentiate the in-crowd from the politically unacceptable. The use of the words is a status symbol, announcing to the world that the user is superior to the non-user and that the convinced are superior to the unconvinced and that the New Soviet Man is superior to the parasite.

Consider which you are the next time you consider using a word like “transgendered.”

Daily Chain Pull: 1984 in Seattle (Cherchez le Juif)

First, read this:

From the essay “Principles of Newspeak” from the Appendix of Orwell’s “1984”:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression  to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.”

Then, this:

Seattle City Officials Aim to Ban ‘Potentially Offensive’ Language

"Citizen!? How RACIST! Howsabout...uh...'goy'? Er...I mean..'RESIDENT!'"

Bronstein: “Citizen!? How RACIST! Howsabout…uh…’goy’? Er…I mean..’RESIDENT!'”

“For example, member Elliot Bronstein(!) says, “for ‘citizens,’ how about ‘residents?” Bronstein also told KOMO by phone that the term “brown bag” used to be a way people judged skin color and shouldn’t be used the way it is now. City leaders typically use “brown bag” when talking about “brown bag” lunch meetings — an opportunity to bring one’s own lunch to a city event, “

***KER-FLUSH!***