Sunday, December 17, 2017

He Who Controls Language, Controls Thought



“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”

–George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1946

Given some very troubling developments in the U.S., the prescience of George Orwell, and his special concen about the manipulation of language to influence and control thought, are especially relevant today.

Jem Burkes put it this way:
George Orwell, like many other literary scholars, is interested in the modern use of the English language and, in particular, the abuse and misuse of English. He realises that language has the power in politics to mask the truth and mislead the public, and he wishes to increase public awareness of this power. He accomplishes this by placing a great focus on Newspeak and the media in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Demonstrating the repeated abuse of language by the government and by the media in his novel, Orwell shows how language can be used politically to deceive and manipulate people, leading to a society in which the people unquestioningly obey their government and mindlessly accept all propaganda as reality. Language becomes a mind-control tool, with the ultimate goal being the destruction of will and imagination.
Since his election, Donald Trump has worked hard to disparage the media, his stock response to all coverage that displeases him being the dismissive "fake news." A hallmark of incipient fascism,, there are also slightly more subtle methods taking place to bring about changes in language that will serve not only to tighten freedom of expression and range of thought, but also alter the culture of some important American institutions. One of those institutions is the Centers for Disease Control.

The New York Times reports the following very disturbing development:
The Department of Health and Human Services tried to play down on Saturday a report that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had been barred from using seven words or phrases, including “science-based,” “fetus,” “transgender” and “vulnerable,” in agency budget documents.
A quick denial by an agency spokesman asserting the primacy of evidence-based decision-making has done little to quell fears for some very good reasons:
The Washington Post [has reported] that C.D.C. policy analysts were told of the forbidden words and phrases at a meeting on Thursday with senior officials who oversee the agency’s budget. Other words included “entitlement,” “diversity” and “evidence-based.”

In some cases, The Post reported, alternative phrases were suggested. Instead of “science-based,” or “evidence-based,” The Post reported, “the suggested phrase is ‘C.D.C. bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.’’’
While some are suggesting that the interference with language is only to assuage Republicans during the budgeting process, others see much darker implications:
A former C.D.C. official, who asked not to be identified, said that some staff members were upset because the purported ban suggested that their work was being politicized.
Dr. Vivek Murthy, a former Surgeon General, expressed concern.

“Whether this is a directive from above is not clear,’’ he said. “But for C.D.C. or any agency to be censored or passively made to feel they have to self-censor to avoid retribution — that’s dangerous and not acceptable. The purpose of science is to search for truth, and when science is censored the truth is censored.”
I would argue that the threat goes beyond censorship and political pandering. Every institution has a culture. (Think of education, law enforcement, the tech industry, etc.) If such constraints at the CDC become entrenched, something that will inevitably happen if employees eventually understand them to be one of the conditions of employment, its entire ethos will, over time, mutate and increasingly become simply and exclusivity an arm of government and its inevitable biases, in the case of Trump, the pandering to the rabid and religious right.

When that happens, be prepared to bid farewell to anything remotely resembling evidence-based research. Diseases and projects skewed toward that which is anathema to the reactionaries will pay a very heavy price indeed.

4 comments:

  1. In some ways, Lorne, these people are profoundly stupid. But, in other ways, they know exactly what they're doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is definitely diabolical method in their madness, Owen.

      Delete
  2. .. I've pointed out a solution to this problem, via a 2nd comment to Mound, Lorne. Mainstream media needs to force tRumph to either identify who the author of this policy is or take ownership of it himself. I believe its the kind of toxin that a Bannon & Miller or a Hannity & Alex Jones might communicate to the fake president.

    I suggest the appropriate wording of a question posed to Sara Huckabee Sanders by one of the many credible journalists attending daily press briefings is the lateral solution to the problem. The question itself must illuminate the dangerous tactic.. and flush out a response from her that becomes public record. Of course she will spin, twist & lie.. that's her nature and in her job description. Its all she is good for.

    But she must be forced to pass the blame onto The dotsrd president or throw someone specific under the bus. There is either a signed Presidential Order or there is not. There is the genesis & approval of the policy embedded in a memo or email or there is not.

    If toxic policy decisions such as this are in violation of the Constitution or Freedom of Speech, or even just 'acceptable' toxic policy.. someone must take ownership - and certainly the people of a nation must know if 'laws' or practices evolve from whim. Yes.. whim. Where there is no ownership. Or do such practices evolve from locker room banter or on one of the tRumph golf carts.

    I will be fascinated to see others craft such a question.. to be posed to Huckabee Sanders - as her answer and the question as posed will be exposed & revealed to millions, even billions via a tRumph press briefing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good strategy, Sal, although I often marvel at Huckabee's seemingly endless capacity to transform into a pretzel at press conferences. Although I realize it is her job, public prostitution is never a pretty sight.

      Delete