Controlling ideology through language, in the theme of 1984

In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, a continual revision of the language (known as newspeak) is employed by the state to control the parameters of how the populace can understand a given subject.

Now I should warn you that words have created more revolutions than anything else, they are the most dangerous weapon you can wield, if used correctly…

An example of newspeak is Minitrue (Ministry of Truth) which controls the flow of information such as news, entertainment, art etc.  The main character of the story, Winston Smith works at Minitrue and continually revises historical documents to show that the party has always been right, living standards are increasing and anybody who turns against the party has always been a untoward character.

The real purpose of the modification of language however is to restrict the conceptual understanding of the people, the official newspeak dictionary continually gets smaller and so with it the ability to challenge the ideological framework of the state.

So my first example of using language to destroy ideological framework comes from former Federal reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan:

Rather than restricting the dialogue of the opposition Greenspan has simply used words that have no real content, and thus to interpret what he has said is akin to the task of nailing jelly to a tree…

Please take note of the next time you see a politician get asked a hard question, they use similar principles to avoid giving an answer.

Perhaps you have noticed the Australia has a defense force, that it uses to invade other countries…

Perhaps you have noticed that the abortion debate has two pro camps, pro life and pro choice.  Clearly neither side wishes to be viewed as negative.

In that last 50 years or so we have seen the rise of political correctness.  The history of political correctness is also known as cultural Marxism, and is associated with the philosophical school known as critical theory.  Critical theory in this author’s opinion is not philosophy as much as an anti-philosophy, for it fails to encompass all schools of thought and it’s primary modus operandi is to restrict the permissible dialogue of others.  The Frankfurt school was the base used by Herbert Marcuse to promote and modernise the concept of political correctness.

Marcuse argued that the free society was a deception and in reality oppressive, and argued for liberating tolerance, defined as: Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left

Please enjoy all three parts of the history of political correctness.

So what effect does this have on you now?

This ideology has resulted in the oppression of free speech, now both the left and right of politics dogmatically adhere to the concepts contained within the ideological framework of political correctness.

If you don’t agree with the Israeli occupation of Palestine you are branded are an anti-Semite (most likely by the ADL).

If you don’t agree with foreign countries buying up all the farmland in your country you are branded as a xenophobic or racist.

If you use the word mankind people accuse you of being sexist.

The sad fact is people have become far too precious… The author is a rabid supporter of unrestricted free speech because the fact is you don’t have to listen to anyone, but once you start censoring people it is the slippery slope on the road to tyranny and despotism.

Posted on October 24, 2012, in History, Law & Government, Media, Politics, Video and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. The problem of how we use language goes even deeper, and traces back to Aristotle. Aristotle created the misconception that everything is either one thing or another. Language abstracts automatically, and creates a variety of levels of abstraction. This leads often to more misunderstanding than to communication, unless one learns to differiate the levels of abstraction applicable to a situation.

    When I searched for common ground during a conversation after a GA, I suggested to start from the basis that we’re all human. Unfortunately, I was faced with a human who claimed to be a socialist in first place, and understood being ‘human’ subordinate to the biological classification. As we couldn’t agree on the levels of abstraction, I stopped the conversation.

    In my point of view, this goes back to either insisting on ‘isness’ (eg using the term ‘mankind’ is sexist) or embracing ‘suchness’. We learn to label from the moment we discover speech, and while this makes some sense for tangible objects, it gets quite iffy with abstract concepts like ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘left wing’, ‘right wing’.

    I consider discussions about the ‘isness’ quite futile. A red-green-blind friend of mine asked me why I put an abstract painting with lots of pink in it – he perceived the grey as shade of red. While he was aware of his lack in colour perception, many people insist that the black and white abstract concepts they cling to reflect ‘reality’.

    It takes quite some time and effort to change one’s language and thinking towards more ‘suchness’. E-prime, a variation of English that avoids the verb ‘to be’ in all its variants, can lead to more expressiveness. it still offers plenty of room for labelling by the use of adjectives, yet it prevents the nasty habit of too much labelling with relative ease.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: