Finally, a non-Dostoyevsky book. Doublespeak is a book I've been wanting to write about for a long time, but it wasn't until now that I had the time and willpower to do it (yeah, I'm a lazy arse).
The book Doublespeak, written by William Lutz in the late 1980's is a book talking about the confusion and the corruption of language in order for certain types and groups of people to dodge accountability for their actions or mistakes.
It comes largely inspired from George Orwell's famous dystopian novel "1984" in which there is "doublethink", the idea of holding two differing ideas in your head and consciously accepting them (basically a turbo version of cognitive dissonance) and "newspeak",
a "variant" of English used by Big Brothers English Socialst Party to control people's language, conversation, and thoughts via language. Doublespeak comes from both of these terms, in the name and in the definition.
It makes the false seem true, blurs things which would otherwise seem clear, and manipulates listeners into thinking that an otherwise dire or other generally bad situation is actually all good. It is lying without lying. Now, as listed in the book, there are 4 types of doublespeak:
euphemisms, jargon, gobbledygook (also known as "bureaucratese"), and inflated language. Euphemisms are generally used to "soften the blow" when it comes to letting someone know about a terrible situation, such as if a beloved one "passes away" (rather than "dies") or when your
girlfriend "slept with" someone else (rather than cheated on you). But euphemism becomes doublespeak when it it used to decieve someone by making a situation otherwise considered bad or horrible seem okay and digestible, such as the Pentagon calling their 1983 invasion of Grenada a "pre-dawn vertical insertion". (I don't want to list too much examples, there are plenty in the book)
Jargon is usually language which professionals in their prospective fields use to communicate each other better, but when used on a non-professional with the purpose of confusing them or manipulating them it also becomes doublespeak.
Gobbledygook is probably the most confusing type of doublespeak. It is used by bureaucrats (hence its nickname "bureaucratese") to obfuscate situations they don't want people to understand and spread awareness of.
The language in gobbledygook is very (and purposefully) hard to even COMPREHEND less understand and you'd have to read through the passage several times before you even think you got the gist of whatever Mr. Bureaucrat said.
The last example of doublespeak is "inflated language". Its purpose is to make ordinary things seem extraordinary, and to make an otherwise boring title or word seem super fancy and important. It's kind of like the opposite, per se, of the euphemism.
But both are used to confuse people into thinking that false things are true.
He also briefly explores the history of doublespeak, from the Ancient Greeks to Nazi Germany and how they used doublespeak, but the large majority of examples he refers to is in his, and my, very own home, the good ol' United States of America.
As for most of the rest of the book, Lutz goes into deep detail of how US politicians, the military, salesmen, and corporations all use doublespeak to advance their goals or cover something up. He lists so many examples of each that it would just be better if you read the book itself to see all of them, lawl.
(Note that since he published his book in the late 1980s some examples may seem outdated, but the thought is still there and doublespeak still very much permeates and infests language to this day, of course.)
Now I should actually review the book instead of just summarizing it. Alright! well, the book itself is pretty easy to read (aside from the doublespeak of course.) Lutz goes through all of the details of each type of doublespeak and lists so much examples that the book is practically a dictionary.
He divides each type of "users" (e.g. the military or corpos) into separate chapters, maybe with some overlap. One thing I do wish he expanded on further is how to identify doublespeak more clearly, as he did go through it, but it was a bit brief. Nonetheless, his instructions on identifying doublespeak remains true, and should not only just be used to identify doublespeak,
but the motives of the agents at hand as a whole. But sometimes, the examples are just so obvious. Here's an exerpt from the book, from a New York governor by the name of Nelson Rockerfeller on his position of the Vietnam War:
"My position on Vietnam is very simple. And I feel this way. I
haven't spoken on it because I haven't felt there was any major
contribution that I had to make at the time. I think that our
concepts as a nation and that our actions have not kept pace with
the changing conditions. And therefore our actions are not
completely relevant today to the realities of the magnitude and the
complexity of the problems that we face in this conflict."
What a whole load of nothing! Read through it again, chances are you're scratching your head at whatever politibabble you've just read. But basically what he's saying is that he doesn't have a specific position because of the fact that our nation hasn't kept up with changes
and because of that, any actions are not meaningful towards how big this conflict is. In other words, he's dodging the question because he doesn't wanna answer it.
This is just one of the sea of examples in the book. Anyways, what the book is getting at here is that people in power will often obscure things they don't want you to see, and exaggerate the things you do want to see. The news does it all the time with their stupid attention-grabbing headlines.
If anything, the grand moral from this book is not only should you doubt the language that politicians and other powerful people speak, but them as a whole. This doesn't mean fullblown cynicism against the government as a whole (as that is also equally damaging) but it does mean that, considering that politics involve the current and future
situation of our nation, maybe we should start to look at things from a more skeptical angle. What did Politician John mean when he said that in his speech? Is there more context? Maybe some history leading up to what he said? Who are his sponsors or his "friends"? Etc etc.
Also, keep in mind that this book was originally published at the end of the 1980's, about time when the berlin wall fell and the USSR was starting to break down. Now it is the end of 2023, and things have only gotten worse with the Internet, and particually social media, which has dumbed down the use of English even more.
I highly recommend a read on this book, as while it may seem obvious that politicians and corporations lie, they can do it so subtly and professionally you might not even suspect it.
And have a good night. God bless.