Control through language

[inaiiiwhile]

Hello!

I'm new here. An aspect of 1984 that I found particularly interesting was the party's attempt to eradicate language from society and insert Newspeak instead; by limiting the framework of expression through the removal of the English language altogether, the party removed the actual feelings that were trying to be expressed. If it can't be verbalized, is something actually there?

I was wondering if anybody has anything to say regarding this beyond what I've written--specificially how this works in a more detailed fashion. I'm interested in the concept of Newspeak, and the idea that eradication of terminology would eventually result in a thinning of internal emotions.

Any discussion on the principles/motives/potential outcome of Newspeak in a society would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[imaditzyreader]

Herm. 1984 seems rather popular at the moment no?? I also thought that it was intreging (sp) how it would be to only speak in a few words. It is true that you cannot conciously think that you are feeling something that to you does not exist. (In Mary Shelley's Frankenstien, the doctor sais that he had no knowledge of the word hate or unhappiness.) However, is it possible to eradicate the common thoughts and feelings of humans. I guess that the thought portion would be simpler, and they had alread worked to eradicate feelings??

I wish that we could set up an experiment such as this with perhaps ten young children, too bad!

[starrwriter]

An aspect of 1984 that I found particularly interesting was the party's attempt to eradicate language from society and insert Newspeak instead; by limiting the framework of expression through the removal of the English language altogether, the party removed the actual feelings that were trying to be expressed. If it can't be verbalized, is something actually there?
I was wondering if anybody has anything to say regarding this beyond what I've written--specificially how this works in a more detailed fashion. I'm interested in the concept of Newspeak, and the idea that eradication of terminology would eventually result in a thinning of internal emotions. Any discussion on the principles/motives/potential outcome of Newspeak in a society would be greatly appreciated.
Read the work of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who argued that language is reality. Here's a link to one website:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm

[Countess]

Newspeak is already a reality. Engineers communicate almost entirely through rudimentary English. Most would flunk 6th grade language if I were the teacher.

This tragedy is only compounded by teen text-speak: How R U? LOL! He's a QT! (This drives me mad, by the way.)

I predict a future where communication is almost entirely non-verbal and is accompanied by very crude language, ie; "Ugah, ugah, microcroprocessor. 10GM RAM = good. Me sell. C U L8R. BI"

(Please Lord God, spare us from this fate...)

PS: Without language we would not cease feeling or thinking but we would no longer be able to express ourselves. Those unconcerned with self-expression (like engineers) would survive. Those for whom self-expression is a requisite part of existence (artists, writers and yes, even teenagers) will become so frustrated and tormented with their thoughts and emotions that they will either go mad or commit suicide. (Virginia Woolf's "Shakespeare's Sister" reflects this on a miniature scale.)

I like Wittgenstein, btw. He stands up against the nihilistic deconstructionists who argue nothing can be known outside and apart from the self (ie: language has no meaning.)

[inaiiiwhile]

I predict a future where communication is almost entirely non-verbal and is accompanied by very crude language, ie; "Ugah, ugah, microcroprocessor. 10GM RAM = good. Me sell. C U L8R. BI"



Hahaha. That's great.

I also agree that language does not affect feelings/emotions, but without language is it possible to even mentally form a concept/theory?

[inaiiiwhile]

Read the work of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who argued that language is reality. Here's a link to one website:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm

Excellent. Thank you.

[kilted exile]

Newspeak is already a reality. Engineers communicate almost entirely through rudimentary English. Most would flunk 6th grade language if I were the teacher.

On behalf of my profession, HEY!!!! We engineers use rudimentary language because we deal with exacts and specifics. When we are not explaining the inner workings of something we express ourselves in fuller ways.

[Rosalind]

...by limiting the framework of expression through the removal of the English language altogether, the party removed the actual feelings that were trying to be expressed. If it can't be verbalized, is something actually there?


I believe that strong emotions are always present in humans, no matter how much they are repressed or ignored. However, if you can't verbalize the emotions, you can't control them. Isn't that what a lot of writing, especially, say, poetry, is about? The need to verbalize and therefore express and confront emotion. It's certainly how a lot of shrinks make their living. The more thoroughly you can express your emotions, the better you can understand them, and the more sophisticatedly (is that even a word?) you can express them, the more in control you feel. Language has always been important for control. In 1984, this control is simply reversed. If people can not fully express themselves, then they are more easily controlled by external forces. And, like you said, the party tries to remove the emotions themselves. I don't think they fully succeed, but they take away people's understanding of emotion and make it easier to repress.

People always have and likely always will use language to influence and control others' emotions--just not as drastically as in 1984 (we certainly hope). Look at the names given to different projects and ideas by politicians and spin doctors.

Whoops, didn't mean to go on. Just one more thing--I share Countess' dread of text speak and a grim future of abbreviations and laziness, but I agree with Kilted Exile. My granddad is a (very) proud engineer of many, many years, but in his house, saying 'kid' for anything but a baby goat is a sin punishable by stoning. ;)

[Teacher]

You're interpretation of Newspeak is right on. You should concentrate on the fact that Orwell is focused on warning us of the ultimate control that our government can claim...specifically when it comes to controlling the communications of emotions.

Words are tools and limiting those tools limits our ability to communicate especially when it comes to emotions. Newspeak is eradicating our ability to be emotional.
The motive by Big Brother is simple: CONTROL. How does one question the actions of their government when they've lost the ability to formulate a clear expression?

Orwell was right on with this warning/forecast.

[sarlacc]

How can you express love to another if you don't have a word for it. You may kiss them or show it in some other physical way however those ways have been banned from use so you can't say it and can't show it. Can you really say you feel it or know what it is your feeling?

[ShoutGrace]

Can you really say you feel it or know what it is your feeling?


Words are how we define our world, and how we see and experience it. The limiting or restricting of them is abhorrent.

[SheykAbdullah]

I was wondering if anybody has anything to say regarding this beyond what I've written--specificially how this works in a more detailed fashion. I'm interested in the concept of Newspeak, and the idea that eradication of terminology would eventually result in a thinning of internal emotions.


I don't think that the goal of Newspeak was necesarily the thinning of internal emotions. The government of 1984 liked emotions, but the emotions had to be simple, directed, and amplified beyond any rational proportion.

The idea of Newspeak was ultimately to cast everything in a linguistic pale of unity, to create a situation where everything was ultimately ambivalent, which is why 'bad' became 'ungood.' 'Ungood' is a much vaguer word than 'bad' and it can be stretched farther to cover things where 'bad' itself may not work. Even more, it changes the inherint nature of something when, say, the annual rice quota is announced in the papers as being 'ungood.' Things can never be bad when good is somewhere in the word, or at least that is the perception. When someting would be 'bad' as we precieve it they use another word which has even more intense emotional connotations behind it like 'war,' 'treason,' and 'hate' all retaining their emotional complexity, but being twisted in such a way that understanding them cognitively is impossible.

Newspeak further acted as a restricter on independant thought by restricting the ultimate expression of language. By stripping away the 'justness' of the word 'justice (taking it out of its context of fairness and equal treatment and recasting it to mean loyalty and obedience) the dialogue for equal treatment vanishes with the capacity of people to express it. The emotions of justice and fairness, the striving of people to attain it, remain, but they are twisted in such a way that even the people themselves are led to believe that justice is whatever the state does, or that truth is whatever the state says, even though they still desperately want 'truth' and 'justice.' For example, in 1984 there was 'love' everywhere. Everyone 'loved,' but they loved the state and their comrades, not husbands, wives, children, or friends.

An excellant example of this manipulation of language can be seen in old speeches given by Khrushcev. He employed wonderful double-speak language like 'peaceful coexistence,' 'economic competition' or 'disarmament' in such a way where the emotion of the words are retained but their ultimate meaning is twisted and obscured so while you think you are getting one of them, in reality what you are getting is totally opposite, and that is ultimately the goal of all propoganda machines; not to destroy emotion and language, but to change it into something that is more desirable by the state or institution that creates it. In such a way Soviet tanks rolling into Hungary to oppose a popular revolution was enacting 'justice for the proletariat' by 'defending their revolution' and the US in Vietnam, or the British in Lebanon and Israel was 'impearlist aggression' and 'foreign intervention in the internal affairs of a country.'

[lil_angel]

Hello!

I'm new here. An aspect of 1984 that I found particularly interesting was the party's attempt to eradicate language from society and insert Newspeak instead; by limiting the framework of expression through the removal of the English language altogether, the party removed the actual feelings that were trying to be expressed. If it can't be verbalized, is something actually there?


Hello!
I'm also new here and I have some thoughts on the purpose of Newspeak. I feel that Newspeak is the governments attempt to get rid of or to shrink language. The government wants total control and they feel that to help get there they need to have only one language that everyone will speak and know. Also, i feel, Newspeak is the governments attempt to get rid of emotions. If there is no emotions there can be no rebellion; total control. I hope that helps! :thumbs_up :banana:

[ennison]

Friendly fire
Collateral damage
Termination
Partner
Inclusive practice

It's here. It's growing. It's euphemistic and/or hypocritical. And the meejah love it.

[sdblackhawk]

hello inaiiiwhile

As an answer to your question of "If it can't be verbalized, is something actually there?" is... yes there is something there. You can tell this beacuse of mainly Winston's fellings tword Newspeak and his rebelius ways. Yes there is a feeling there but it is hidden from the authority.

hope I was sime help