|
Summary
The PC police understand very well that those
who control language and history also control people's minds and
the future.
Main text word count: 778
|
|
When President Clinton finally admitted to what, in standard English,
was adultery, he said only that he had had an "inappropriate"
relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This was rather like saying
that he once used the wrong fork at a state dinner.
Universities have attempted to impose speech
codes in order to outlaw language that makes some students "uncomfortable"
or that contradicts doctrines that, because they are difficult
to defend in argument, must be insulated from criticism.
Attention Editors and ProducersVirginia Viewpoint commentaries are provided for reprint in newspapers and other publications. Authors are available for print or broadcast interviews. Electronic text is available at www.VirginiaInstitute.org or on disk. Please contact:
John Taylor
Virginia Institute for Public Policy
20461 Tappahannock Place
Potomac Falls, Virginia
20165-4791
Phone: (703) 421-8635
Fax: (703) 421-8631
www.VirginiaInstitute.org
JTaylor@VirginiaInstitute.org
|
|
|
April 2002 · No. 2002-11
The Age of Newspeak
By Lee Congdon, Ph.D.
Although some Americans dismiss "political correctness"
as an aberration, its purveyors have succeeded in replacing standard
English with a form of "Newspeak," the language of totalitarianism
that George Orwell invented by taking verbal trends of his day to their
logical conclusion. "It was intended," he wrote in Nineteen
Eighty-Four (1949), "that when Newspeak had been adopted once
and for all and Oldspeak [standard English] forgotten, a heretical thought-that
is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc [English socialism]-should
be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on
words." The politically correct know that they can control thought
by framing contentious issues in language that predisposes others to
see things their way.
They never, for example, use "right" or "wrong"
when, as often happens, one of their own has been compromised. The word
to be employed in such an embarrassing event is "inappropriate."
When President Clinton finally admitted to what, in standard English,
was adultery, he said only that he had had an "inappropriate"
relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This was rather like saying that
he once used the wrong fork at a state dinner. It was a way of making
light of immoral behavior and of avoiding words that would implicitly
have recognized the authority of a traditional morality that, because
it is rooted in Judaism and Christianity, upholds standards that are
not relative to their political utility.
Should the subject turn, as it often does, to abortion,
PC advocates choose their words with particular care. No one who works
in the media would risk his career by letting slip the word "pro-abortion,"
because it is likely to place too many consciences on alert. Everyone,
therefore, speaks of "pro-choice," which has a more appealing
ring and can make black seem white. (One bumper sticker I have seen
read: "Pro-choice and therefore pro-child." It reminded me
of the Party slogans in Nineteen Eighty-Four: "WAR IS PEACE,
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.") At the same time,
of course, no one dares refer to the "pro-life" movement.
Here the politically-correct term is "anti-abortion," which
sounds negative and conveys the impression that religious fanatics are
attempting to prevent young women from exercising a "human right"-never
defined, but best understood as something that the PC crowd endorses.
Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, not the "events"
(vague and passive) or the "tragedy" (a killer earthquake
is a tragedy), PC regulars have mounted a massive media campaign to
persuade people that those who express doubt concerning the peace-loving
impulses of Islam are vile slanderers guilty of "crimethink"
(in Newspeak). When confronted with a series of suicide bombings, media
reporters are careful to avoid the word "terrorist." They
prefer "militant" because it evokes an image of a courageous
and uncompromising freedom fighter.
If anything I have said thus far makes you feel "uncomfortable,"
you have only to say so in order to gain the upper hand. This is a favorite
tactic of those who would prefer not to engage in reasoned debate and
who therefore attempt to silence opposition by insisting that any contradiction
of their beliefs is tantamount to criminal assault on their psyche.
The great advantage of such psychological claims is that they are almost
always subjective and hence exempt from challenge.
In the right circumstances, making someone "uncomfortable"
may rise to the level of a "hate crime," a term that fits
nicely into the vocabulary of Newspeak. A hate crime may be no more
than an opinion that the politically correct seek to discredit. "Hate
speech" is the stating of such an opinion. Universities have attempted
to impose speech codes in order to outlaw language that makes some students
"uncomfortable" or that contradicts doctrines that, because
they are difficult to defend in argument, must be insulated from criticism.
One of the strategies here is to find a real crime that can be turned
to ideological advantage. Thugs murder a homosexual, but rather than
call for their trial and execution (though here opposition to the death
penalty loses its voice), the politically correct seize the opportunity
to silence opposition to homosexual practices by proclaiming that its
expression "creates an atmosphere" that leads directly to
criminal violence. In other words, anyone who questions the public acceptance
of homosexuality is a party to murder.
Orwell used the Soviet Union as the model for "Oceania,"
though he was aware that the English left also hijacked language in
order to advance its causes. One wonders, however, if he ever envisioned
the kind of linguistically-constructed surreality that now forces Western
minds into desired channels. One thing remains certain: were he alive
today he would be among the leading defenders of Oldspeak.
#####
(Lee Congdon is professor of history at James Madison
University, and a member of the Board of Scholars of the Virginia Institute
for Public Policy, an education and research organization headquartered
in Potomac Falls, Virginia. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is hereby granted, provided the author and his affiliations are
cited.)
|