1984
discussion
Is anyone else HORRIFIED at the idea of destroying words?
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Nov 23, 2012 11:54AM
Title says all.
reply
|
flag
An idea more frightening than terrorism.
Do you have a BETTER idea to get rid of crimethink?
Are you referring to events in the book, 1984, or present day society? Either way, yes is the answer to both, with more emphasis on the latter.
Holly wrote: "Are you referring to events in the book, 1984, or present day society? Either way, yes is the answer to both, with more emphasis on the latter."Agreed. I have observed a strong push over the last few years, mostly by heavily funded 'right-wing' think tanks, partisan writers and astroturfers to redefine words and even history, claiming to be 'correcting' 'misinformation' while doing the opposite. There is a lot of spin happening these days, especially in the political world and it is intentional. I'm not sure what the goal/endgame is, but it is mindblowing to read comments that try, for instance, to claim that Hitler was a socialist -- because the word 'Socialist' is in the name of the Nazi Party. The word destruction or subversion in 1984 was inspired by populist propaganda and how it can be used for social control.
Here's a rebuttal to that idea:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.p...
I do not subscribe to 'Godwin's Law' and believe it has inadvertently created a chilling effect on discussion of 'authoritarianism' or 'totalitarianism'. Appealing to 'Godwin' has now become an indication of poor ability to debate or discuss a topic.
That being said, I think something we are neglecting to do in 21st Century society is to understand ideas and concepts within the political spectrum, as not simply 'right' and 'left' but also 'free' and 'less free'. Since 1984 is largely about totalitarianism and authoritarianism, which can come from the 'right' (Monarchy), the 'center' (Fascism) and the left (Stalinism), I find it useful to put things in the context of a political compass.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analy...
If you think about it isn't it already happening? As in plagiarism is thought as stealing so we have to simplify our words change the records. Eventually it will be so simplified from one person to another that the actual record will be lost. So in the end aren't words beginning to get destroyed because they are becoming simplified.
Re: David I think 1984 is the textbook example of how to address authoritarianism without bringing up Hitler. :)I don't worry too much about redefinitions of always slippery political terms. "Socialism" has never meant much specific. I mean Orwell had that problem specifically as a Trotskyite in the Spanish Civil War. And apparently now, probably thanks to the US Right calling basic social insurance programs as "Socialism", the approval rating of Socialism is increasing.
Try reading "Ella Minnow Pea" by Mark Dunn. It has to do with loss of words and loss of freedom as well. It's a lighter book, after a manner, and even kids can read it and get the message.
Honestly, the idea of destroying words (or thoughts) is a practice that has been going on since we started speaking stories. If an idea is not popular, it tends to disappear. If it is subversive to what is the expected norm for a society, it is destroyed where possible.The thing to remember is that nothing is new; if we lost a treasure such as 1984, it would be rewritten at a later time. While its horrifying to consider, there's always that glimmer that it is not lost forever.
As soon as I saw the question I thought of Ella Minnow Pea, but I see Lora has already mentioned it :) It's a great book for adults and children. The destruction of words a la 1984 is obviously horrifying, but the redefinition of words as described by David and Ulmer Ian is a fascinating subject.
language changes all the time, just read Dickens or Shakespeare or Chaucer and you can see that. As long as language is used intelligently and as long as we read books i'm not too worried
I'm not so worried about words coming and going in terms of usage as I am concerned about definitions being intentionally twisted or censored for political reasons."If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
~ a perfect example, that quote is most often attributed to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister. While there is no evidence that he ever wrote or spoke those words, they certainly sum up what what he was about. However, many people neither know nor care that, even though the words certainly match the man, the quote is from someone else, the assumption thus leading to an historical inaccuracy.
As for the quote itself, if people keep saying "universal health care is communism" then eventually people will think that health care truly is communism. Ironically, the geniuses who repeat such nonsense don't realize that the McCarthy era is over and a lot of younger folk don't really know or care and thus might start thinking communism is a good thing, especially if it means they can go to the doctor without having to declare bankruptcy. How many people are going to take the time to read Marx and Engels, study the Bolshevik revolution, learn about Mao and Stalin and the Cold War? Those events are likely ancient history to the post-millenial mind. Shock and Awe is what a lot of people think war really looks like and probably think 'gunboat diplomacy' is a cool name for a video game. If we learn linguistic falsehoods and conceptual confusion by rote or repetition in our early years, should we all then study Wittgenstein to undo the damage? Would it even work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DueSvc...
Brawndo - The Thirst Mutilator
It's got what plants crave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2Cr...
A culture without words is more terrifying than a culture with the wrong words.Shelley, Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com
We've always destroyed words, abandoning or reconfiguring them as it suits. If we didn't, we'd still speak the ancient languages and in Britain we'd need to speak at least five languages to preserve every word ever used. We at least now record words so that even when their use has waned, they can be retrieved. At some point the newspeak currently developing in the real world may be abandoned and the dumbing down of language once more thought to be a bad thing. To preserve words, use them - speak them, write them, think them.
Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 presented an answer to the problem whereby people became books, committing the stories and facts to memory so the words could never be lost. Essentially reverting to the oral tradition from whence literature in time grew.
Words are there to be used as the author chooses, 'Artistic license' gives the writer authority to change, mature or even create his language. Whilst searching for an agent to send my book to, I came across a publisher looking for the next 'Clockwork Orange' the next book to 'bastardise the English Language.'
This is a site to talk about books and writing not politics.
Given the use of symbols we use in the operation of a lot of technology, it is possible we could end up with pictograms again. Or we might end up like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIwe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2Cr...
Faisal wrote: "I am not horrified. Words can be, and are indeed, destroyed all the time.Ideas, on the other hand, are hard to destroy. Their destruction, when it occurs, is disquieting and distressing."
That is precisely how ideas are destroyed, the systematic extermination of any and all means of their expression. And this what is feared so often when it comes to the loss of languages all over the world. Concepts and ideas that are not easily expressed in English and other forced languages that were once very clear in their native dialect. Does the loss of so many languages of an annual basis seriously not bother you, because it bothers the hell out of me.
David Krae wrote: "Given the use of symbols we use in the operation of a lot of technology, it is possible we could end up with pictograms again. Or we might end up like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIwe..."
That's the second time you've mentioned Idiocricy. Damn good movie though, and horribly prophetic!
Lol. I couldn't resist. (I also couldn't remember if I'd already mentioned it in this thread, I must admit. :) )Also, I think the destruction of concepts and ideas through "the systematic extermination of any and all means of their expression" occurs not just through the destruction of words and languages, but through the intentional skewing of meaning as well.
David Krae wrote: "Lol. I couldn't resist. (I also couldn't remember if I'd already mentioned it in this thread, I must admit. :) )Also, I think the destruction of concepts and ideas through "the systematic extermi..."
I agree, and in that respect, Orwell was well ahead of his time. In his mind, it was an exercise in power politics by ideologues who would purge society of concepts through censorship and punitive measures. But in our world, its a willing exercise by people unaware of how memory and meaning are being assaulted by forces which are "dumbing down" things for our benefit. I think that is another way in which our world is resembling Brave New World more than 1984.
From a perspective of strategy, I found the concept intriguing. I actually was trying to explain this idea to someone just other day.I find that it's a scary idea, but somewhat flawed. People don't necessarily need a word for revolution to start one. What creeped me out about the book 1984 is the utter inability for the main characters to fight the system.
I can live with words falling out of common use through the evolution of language.Not so comfortable with the modern fad of altering texts of books past to conform with our modern sensibilities.
Still undecided about words whose meanings have now evolved to the point the original meanings are no longer the present meaning.
When those words now have darker meaning than originally intended it is a bad development.
I really enjoyed the part where Syme was complaining that there were only 7 words in the English language that rhymed with rod.
Walk said some of what I've been thinking. Thanks.
Yes indeed. Kindles, Nooks, tablets, iphones, e-readers are truly horrifying.
For a treatment both hilarious and depressing of political language, see George Carlin on that subject on YouTube. I think the thread misses the larger point that now we can alter history on a massive electronic scale. Records are fluid and can be altered at a touch. Legislation in the US a few years back put almost all communications media in the hands of about five mega-corporations. Control of communication is control of the public mind.
Destroying of words is horrifying and really frightening.
Mary wrote: "Destroying of words is horrifying and really frightening."If find it hard to believe it is possible to "destroy" words. Does anyone have an example of a destroyed word? Isn't that a paradox?
Faisal wrote: "I am not horrified. Words can be, and are indeed, destroyed all the time.Ideas, on the other hand, are hard to destroy. Their destruction, when it occurs, is disquieting and distressing."
I'm not either. Copyright, a good idea until recently, has become the bane of everybody but greedy exploiters. DVDs begin with the message that copying them is theft. Humbug. Copying them spreads an artist's work through the world. It's those who imprison art who are the destroyers of words.
Not really. This happens all the time, but not to the extent that a language ends up completely or mostly destroyed.The history of language and slang tells us that a lot of words and commonly used phrases back then are slowly fading. Soon they will be replaced by the new slang invented by the young populace.
Certain commercials replace certain words. The words they use to replace the others are juxtaposed to imply a subtle and subliminal meaning to the overall advertisement, even if the word does not mean what it's implying. So the advertising team is controlling words to say what they want it to say.
But in both examples the language is not destroyed. It is merely evolving to match up with the new generation. Soon this stage of its evolution will come to a stop, and words/phrases like Y.O.L.O. will no longer exist as well.
Faisal wrote: "Matthew wrote: "That is precisely how ideas are destroyed, the systematic extermination of any and all means of their expression. And this..."Well, no arguing that words are the most efficient ve..."
How do ideas exist independently of words? Words are the means of expressing ideas and without them, they remain unarticulated and incommunicable. Destroying the word freedom might not erase the very concept of it - and that's a big might - but removing the means to communicate it would be the final step in erasing it.
In all cases of political repressions, dictators have done their foremost to ensure that people lacked the intellectual tools to challenge them once they were deprived of the physical means. Keep them poor, keep them ignorant, keep them down, that's the totalitarian mantra. And Orwell paid particular attention to this in Goldstein's Manifesto: he said that all dictatorships were forced to ensure some degree of scientific and intellectual progress to avoid falling behind and being conquered.
As for other periods where words were lost - you referred to the 11th and 17th centuries - what you fail to point out was the circumstances. Words that fall into disuse or due to transformation die a natural death. Erasing words through censorship or assimilation is a forced process, which is different. Europe not only lost much of its cultural diversity as a result of Roman and Christian conquests, it lost a great deal of its history and lore because the means to convey them were destroyed.
As for other means of communication, sign language and visual art cannot fill the gap left by lost words. If there's one thing human being have learned it's that the spoken and written words are indispensable to conveying complicated ideas and detailed stories and concepts.
You say this is not a big deal, but I think doing so is to miss the point entirely. Countless words die everyday as a result of assimilation, mass media and political repressions, and the loss to our collective intellectual wealth is immeasurable. Concept, notions of beauty, means of expressing the inexpressable; when those are gone, it IS a big deal.
Santiago wrote: "I agree with Sandyboy and Michael. Language DOES change over time. The language we use today is not the same as a hundred, fifty, or even ten years ago. I think looking at slang gives the best exam..."Language change is not the same as language destruction. Slang involves the creation of words to express things more easily. It's a substitution at worst, not a destructive act.
Santiago wrote: "It depends on how you define "change." In the way I used it, language change is any manner of alteration of language, be it to add words to a lexicon, to change them, or to remove them. By that tok..."And I said, there is a difference between alteration that occurs naturally and that which is forced, which is the kind we are talking about here. Newspeak in 1984 was not an evolutionary change in the sense that it arose from new conditions or changes in the way people interacted. It was a forced simplification and censorship of language to assist in the dumbing down and dis-articulation of peoples minds in Oceania. That was the purpose behind destroying words. It wasn't mere change, it was rewriting language to fit the Party's definition of reality, much in the same way they would rewrite history to make it fit with their current policies.
As some people have mentioned above, language is always changing and that's fine so it wasn't that they were changing language that horrified me but how they were changing it. As someone who often resorts to words to express themselves or vent or whatever the thought of not having something to express an emotion or an idea with is, well, horrifying.
Sadly, killing words happens every day. By no longer using a lot of words we allow them to pass into extinction. Sometimes killing something is simply not letting it live to the extent that it could, and that is what happens when languages, parts of languages, and words go out of use.
I wouldn't say I'd die for a lot of things. If someone were to make the English language have as few words as possible, yeah, I'd join the army.
Of course. It was just another ruse for the Party to gain more control and power.
Lia wrote: "Sadly, killing words happens every day. By no longer using a lot of words we allow them to pass into extinction. Sometimes killing something is simply not letting it live to the extent that it coul..."Yeah, I understand what you mean. Language defines a culture. Lol, I guess were not as prim and proper as our ancestors in the past, where English was very grammatically spoken and written, like in some of the old regency novels I sometimes read. It is kind of sad though; maybe with our words lessening, we can't speak as elegantly as we once did.
To Sandra and Lia,I remember years ago when George W Bush called a world leader "Loony Tunes." Contrast that with Lincoln: "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Pretty big gap, right?
I don't think the problem is that the words are destroyed, so much as they are warped or perverted. Their use is demented in a way that goes directly to the use of language in the first place.As several folks have noted, the definition and use of words changes over time. New words come into the vernacular. Old words fall away. Words themselves shift their focus. This process is "natural" in the sense that language is an abstraction and it will shift with use and by passing through the changeable sieve of the mind. In fact, I'd argue that most of the time, this is a positive effect. That shift allows for development of new ideas, the incorporation of old and new, and the development of culture as a whole.
In contrast, what is horrific is the legalistic and socio-political redefinition of vocabulary. When definitions are forced on people by those in authority the effect is chilling rather than innovative. When a definition is changed by those who back that redefinition with the force of law then we have not only an authoritarian oppression, but a basic stripping of the human process of social interaction. We no longer have the right to comprehend because true comprehension entails acceptance. Acceptance is, in such a process, replaced by submission, and with that submission one loses a fundamental aspect of personal integrity. That's what is so terrifying about the idea of words being redefined by the government. Because we think in language, imposition of new definitions goes directly to the continuity of the mind, and assaults our intrinsic sense of self.
Sandyboy wrote: "language changes all the time, just read Dickens or Shakespeare or Chaucer and you can see that. As long as language is used intelligently and as long as we read books i'm not too worried"Now, it changes too fast.
In my native language we're already missing words. It's not like we didn't have them before or anything. Instead, people use English words for things we have perfectly normal German words for. I don't think that has anything to do with how in earlier times it was in fashion to use French words or English words, but actually this is more like words from different languages taking over in ways that are not 'good' anymore.Especially job descriptions get instantly more complicated if you use an English description for something we have ONE word for in German. That's kind of stupid but it's a trend. And I think that's dangerous because it hides what the job is actually about. Call a cleaner a facility manager and you create the illusion that this job is better than it actually is.
Of course my example might be a bit different since my native language is different. Hence, we even called a mobile phone a 'handy' which is really unfortunate because kids these days don't seem to get that you can't call your phone like this when you talk in English to someone because that's not what a mobile phone is called in English. We make up words that sound English but are not. That's also another problem. When I was a kid it was normal to use the word 'check' in a way that actually means 'I don't get it'. (For anyone interested, the saying is: "Ich check das nicht.")
Then again, that's what language does: it changes. If it doesn't, then it's not alive. Still, I think it's not good to discard a word we might as well use.
I like the idea of slang use, like in a 'clockwork orange'. I think languages evolve with the addition and subtraction of words.
I enjoy Kindle,Gutenberg.org, and such, but I don't like the idea that my electronic collections could be rendered as useless as an old 8-track without constant updating of technology --and batteries. (Someone will probably have to look up 8 track!)
Studying languages made me realize this isn't actually possible.You could have "good" = "bigbrother"
So Orwell's dea was the sentence "Big brother is bigbrother" would make sense but "big brother is unbigbrother" would not make sense... to US it would not make sense, but to them it would.
For example for us the word "tea" and the letter "T" are homophones, but that doesn't mean we think of them in the same way or we don't store them in different parts of our brain. They are obviously more related than "tea" and "w" but there is no confusion.
There are lots of words that don't exist in English but exist in other languages, yet all of those ideas exist in English without the words, we have other ways of expressing them.
They couldn't have had a language that actually worked to communicate basic needs and yet did not allow dissent.
Language has always changed quickly, and it is changing more slowly now than before, because we all come into contact with various dialects much more than before so we need to all know a standard English.
You can take for example the word "peruse" which most people use in the new way: to read quickly, rather than the old way: to read carefully.
Does that mean we can't say read carefully anymore? No. We just say read carefully. We haven't lost anything whatsoever. (Although having a range of words to choose from is useful for lyricism etc.)
Rebecca, I enjoyed your post, but it made me ask some questions.
"Language has always changed quickly, and it is changing more slowly now than before." Before when? Yes, language is not static, but the rate of change is staggering. Information multiplies exponentially--way faster than humans can accumulate and make sense of it.
"... all of those ideas exist in English without the words, we have other ways of expressing them." Even abstract words need some frame of reference. And how can you communicate something concrete in another language/dialect if there is no awareness of what you are referencing?
The invention of Newspeak is one of the most horrifying aspects I find in the book, as well as the manipulation of the words. And sadly Orwell's imagination seems to be turning to reality.
Aye, I must confess that I was quite startled by the idea of doing away with literature, the arts, and science entirely. The idea of no more Shakespeare nearly paralyzed me.
I'm horrified at the thought of one corporation controlling a large percentage of world book sales, gobbling up all its smaller competitors. Thank God that will never happen!
