The Language of Politics

The article I read for this post talked about George Orwell's idea that better writing can create a better society, one of the aspects of which would be clearer, more honest political speech. The writer, Nicholas Lemann, ( http://newshopper.sulekha.com/news/2007/11/l-a-times-op-ed-the-limits-of-language.htm ), states that "The primary villain in 'Politics and the English Language' [Orwell's essay] is the kind of fancy, pretentious, imprecise prose usually purveyed by intellectuals [...] Orwell issues a blanket condemnation of all use of abstractions in political discussion -- such words as 'democracy,' 'justice,' 'science,' 'class' and 'equality.'" Lemann then applies Orwell's ideas to recent topics, suchs as the War in Iraq: "The words used to denote something the government does should have to do with the activity itself, not the values it is meant to embody or the feelings it is meant to activate. The war in Iraq, yes; Operation Enduring Freedom, no."
This is a very valid point. By changing the language and labels of events or organizations, politicians can create an inherent bias that sways people in favor or against a certain view. This concept works hand-in-hand with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which states that the language a person speaks is directly related to how that person thinks and understands the world, and thus how he behaves in the world. The hypothesis itself is stated by Edward Sapir as follows: "Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society [...] The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. [...] We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation." (from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf.html ). This 'prisonbox' concept of language is very unpopular, and has received a lot of criticism from academics. However, there are empirical examples that support the idea that different languages influence people to think differently, such as the ones we have discussed in class. By grouping different pots and pans together in different ways, for instance, Russians and Americans understand these categorizations and the uses of said pots and pans differently. The same applies to the stereotype of inuits having many words for snow: their ability to differentiate types of snow determines their reality. For instance, an English speaker caught ina blizzard may always go through the same thought process of how to adapt (eg: this is a blizzard -> find direction -> find shelter -> stay warm -> don't break a sweat). However, inuits may have completely different thought processes based on the type of snow they are encountering (eg: this is snow type 13 -> head south -> dig a hole in the north face of a hill -> stay there until snow 13 is over or subsides to snow 12).
An example of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can even be found in literature, and most notably in Orwell's literature ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis ), "George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is a striking example of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity in fiction, in which a language known as Newspeak has trimmed and supplanted Modern English. In this case, Orwell says that if humans cannot form the words to express the ideas underlying a revolution, then they cannot revolt. All of the theory of Newspeak is aimed at eliminating such words. For example, bad has been replaced by ungood, and the concept of freedom has been eliminated over time. According to Nineteen Eighty-Four's appendix on Newspeak, the result of the adoption of the language would be that "a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words."
There are more examples of this in modern-day politics. Pro-abortion people call themselves “pro-choice” and anti-abortion “pro-life”. This plays into our values: as living beings, we value life, and with free wills, we value choice. But you won’t find people labeling themselves ‘anti-life’ or ‘anti-choice.’ Thus, going back to the idea of the article, there is a visible trend in politics (and there has been since democratic choice was introduced into politics) to label things according to values. In Orwell's "1984," there was a Ministry of Truth committed to disinformation and a Ministry of Peace dedicated to waging war. Scarily enough, we can observe that in the US too, where we have a Department of Justice (even though there are decisions which are overturned as 'unjust') and a Department of Homeland Security (which extends to pre-emptive strikes on other nations rather than being confined to national defense).
Lemman concludes that "an even more frightening political prospect than the corruption of language is the corruption of information [...] Intellectual honesty about the gathering and use of facts and data is a riskier and more precious part of a free society than is intellectual honesty in language. We ought to guard it with the same zeal that animates Orwell's work on political speech." Though this is a valid concern, information itself can be changed by the speech used to present it. For instance, there is a definite difference between labeling killed soldiers in Iraq as 'casualties,' 'wounded,' 'dead,' 'murdered,' or 'fallen.' The labeling changes the information, even if it can imply the same thing. Thus, I believe that it is necessary we pay close attention to language in order to prevent it from affecting both our perception and information.