Words Are Power (Jesus, ritual, Jehovah, myth, experience)

[doppelgänger]

I know the title of this thread is true because I'm a lawyer. I see the power of words operating over the lives of individuals everyday in the things I write and the things I read and in ways most people haven't even begun to fathom. When you become aware of the power and nature of words, you open the doorway to seeing the way in which symbols generally are used to shape our collective vision of reality.

In this, the fifth post about George Orwell's 1984, I want to consider Orwell's writings on the manipulation of thought and discourse through the careful manipulation of language. Much of this comes from the the Appendix to the book, "The Principles of Newspeak." But one sign of Orwell's genius is that it's also actually buried throughout the text of the story itself, and one can treat reading it as a sort of treasure hunt. For those who haven't read 1984, "Newspeak" is the preferred language of the party they are imposing over "Oldspeak," the language we think we are familiar with and "Ingsoc" is the name given to the orthodox way of thinking.

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 to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods . . .

The special function of certain Newspeak words, of which oldthink was one, was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them. These words, necessarily few in number, had had their meanings extended until they contained within themselves whole batteries of words which , as they were sufficiently covered by a single comprehensive term, could now be scrapped and forgotten. . . . All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and equality, for instance, were contained in the single word crimethink, while all words grouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained in the single word oldthink. What was required in a Party member was an outlook similar to that of the ancient Hebrew who knew, even without knowing much else, that all nations other than his own worshipped "false gods." He did not need to know that these gods were called Baal, Osiris, Moloch, Ashtaroth, and the like; probably the less he knew about them the better for his orthodoxy. He knew Jehovah and the commandments of Jehovah; he knew, therefore, that all gods with other names or other attributes were false gods.

Of course, on another level, Orwell isn't just talking about language but the tendency of people in groups to demand that individual modes of expression and experience be subjugated to further conformity - i.e. he is talking about orthodoxy or "right thinking" in any form. As Winston's acquaintance Syme, an expert on Newspeak and dedicated "orthodox", explains:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten . . . The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." . . .

There is a word in Newspeak," said Syme, "I don't know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent it is abuse; applied to someone you agree with, it is praise."

Is that the nature of an "orthodoxy"? To destroy the diversity of expression and create uniformity and conformity?

Can you think of examples of thought being manipulated and controlled by the collective through the control of the permissible use of certain words?

[Sunstone]

I've long thought that Jesus could have made his message much clearer and easier to understand had he been born into a language culture with a better vocabulary for spiritual things.

[Sunstone]

I don't think language absolutely determines thought or perception, but it certainly facilitates it. And it is crucial to communication. So, the real danger of Newspeak isn't that it would prevent someone from a seditious thought, but that it would prevent them from communicating that seditious thought with any efficiency.

[michel]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Is that the nature of an "orthodoxy"? To destroy the diversity of expression and create uniformity and conformity?

I thoroughly enjoyed "1984" .. and yes, I do believe that 'orthodoxy" is a way of destroying expression - and yet, in practice, it often has the opposite effect - we humans have an undeniable need to feel '"Different from the crowd" - and to express that difference not only by appearance, but by language.

Can you think of examples of thought being manipulated and controlled by the collective through the control of the permissible use of certain words?

Languages are forever 'alive'; words are in - or out of vogue. The meaning of words also change; I shall never forget the vogue here in England of the use of the word "Peasant" as a very derogatory way of implying that someone was slow in thought, and lacking in imagination. I will also never forget the look of hurt in my father's eyes when he once heard me use the word... "But, you see", he told me, "I was raised as a peasant, in a peasant family"..........

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I don't think language absolutely determines thought or perception, but it certainly facilitates it. And it is crucial to communication. So, the real danger of Newspeak isn't that it would prevent someone from a seditious thought, but that it would prevent them from communicating that seditious thought with any efficiency.

If Newspeak contains within it the capacity to group meanings, reducing diversity in expression through constraint in usage of terms, then there is a real danger not only of being unable to express a seditious thought, but of being able to form the thought in the first place. Otherwise, even if a capacity to form a seditious thought is maintained, without having the capacity to express it, the thought is powerless (it can serve no purpose even for the conceiver) because no one would understand you even if you did say it. The language of the thought would fall from usage and comprehension. Eliminative materialism talks of this as a process of redundancy in language and consequent belief in what is real.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

I know the title of this thread is true because I'm a lawyer. I see the power of words operating over the lives of individuals everyday in the things I write and the things I read and in ways most people haven't even begun to fathom. When you become aware of the power and nature of words, you open the doorway to seeing the way in which symbols generally are used to shape our collective vision of reality.

In this, the fifth post about George Orwell's 1984, I want to consider Orwell's writings on the manipulation of thought and discourse through the careful manipulation of language. Much of this comes from the the Appendix to the book, "The Principles of Newspeak." But one sign of Orwell's genius is that it's also actually buried throughout the text of the story itself, and one can treat reading it as a sort of treasure hunt. For those who haven't read 1984, "Newspeak" is the preferred language of the party they are imposing over "Oldspeak," the language we think we are familiar with and "Ingsoc" is the name given to the orthodox way of thinking.



Of course, on another level, Orwell isn't just talking about language but the tendency of people in groups to demand that individual modes of expression and experience be subjugated to further conformity - i.e. he is talking about orthodoxy or "right thinking" in any form. As Winston's acquaintance Syme, an expert on Newspeak and dedicated "orthodox", explains:


Is that the nature of an "orthodoxy"? To destroy the diversity of expression and create uniformity and conformity?

Can you think of examples of thought being manipulated and controlled by the collective through the control of the permissible use of certain words?

For examples look no further than legislation and lists of exhaustive meanings applied to terms in a statute. I think of orthodoxy as a power structure. Orthodoxy may attempt to constrain the meaning of words in order to maintain its power, but meaning cannot be contained. Meaning is contextual and as new unforseen scenarios arise either new categories of language must be developed to account for novel circumstances or the system will become irrelevant to the contigencies of communication experienced in life.

Orthodoxy is any prescribed method to maintain power structures. Isn't democracy an orthodoxy?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Can you think of examples of thought being manipulated and controlled by the collective through the control of the permissible use of certain words?

Myth, art, god, demon, truth, spirit... All have been given new meaning. It doesn't work, though, to create reality because the new meanings are usually at odds with the way the words are used. Take "existence," for example: even today people will insist that things that they imagine don't eixst.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I've long thought that Jesus could have made his message much clearer and easier to understand had he been born into a language culture with a better vocabulary for spiritual things.

Actually, I thought it was the best language for spiritual things: utlizing metaphor.