1984

I once asked a student what they thought of 1984. They responded that they preferred Brave New World, because the latter was more relevant. After all, all the things Orwell described did not come to pass, the Soviet Empire fell, etc etc. I was very surprised by this remark, because I've always found 1984 to be a tremendously relevant book. But maybe they just weren't paying attention. Let me discuss one of the book's central themes, and its relevance: language.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
"Politics and the English Language"
by George Orwell
first published 1946

Orwell writes, "But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble [of constructing one's sentences carefully and thoughtfully]. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. The will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear... A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved, as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity."

In general, it's a great essay, and well-worth reading, especially if you spend time writing (or reading (or listening)). But I think this passage gives the gist of what I want. The point is the way in which unthinking, uncritical use of language leads one to fall into the easiest ways of expressing oneself. This leads to vague, inexact sentences that don't actually say anything, but yet give the impression of meaning. Consider the following article:

http://www.tnr.com/currentissue/story.html?id=3e721912-21ef-40ff-90b2-f70236b4f81e&p=1
"Scared Yet?"
by Jonathan Chait
December 31, 2008
The New Republic

This article discusses the use of scare quotes by the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. Chait writes, "Yet another--siding with Hank Greenberg against Eliot Spitzer--sputtered, "Mr. Spitzer's Starr 'report' claimed that Mr. Greenberg had benefitted from 'self-dealing.'"" The scare quotes around 'report' are rather odd - is the Journal suggesting that Spitzer didn't actually issue a report, but something else - and if so, what? But the use of scare quotes in this manner leaves such questions to the side. It is just a quick way of expressing disapproval (a certain sort of dismissive disapproval, a rejection of the reality of the opposition).

Or consider this article:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/sorry_to_hear_obama_talking_th.php
"Sorry to Hear Obama Talking This Way"
by James Fallows
January 8, 2009
The Atlantic

This is a short discussion of the evolution of divine references in American political speech. Fallows starts with Lincoln, who quoted scripture and in general made substantive points with his divine references (for example, in his Second Inaugural, where he suggests that the scourge of the Civil War is a divine punishment for the sin of slavery). Eventually, he comes to Reagan: "But then Ronald Reagan began using the phrase to mean "The speech is over now," and ever since then politicians have seemed afraid not to tack it on, perhaps out of fear that we'll have the aural equivalent of phantom-limb pain if we don't hear the familiar words."

This is a good example of the debasement of words. Fallows suggests, perhaps rightly, that these words no longer mean "let our Lord bless these United States," or the equivalent. Rather, they are used to express - patriotism? - and let people know it's time to clap. But we place a lot of importance in these words - if politicians didn't use them, we'd think there was something about them.

All of these points are about the misuse of language. I previously discussed the notion of being humble in a bad way - refusing to stand behind one's words. This is a similar, at times identical, sin: refusing to assign a definite meaning to one's words. There is quite literally nothing to stand behind. These words are being put to a use that does not involve meaning anything by them - they are more like (in many of these cases) shibboleths, ways of telling who the good and bad guys are, of identifying oneself as a member of a particular group. And we get to find out without even thinking about it.