Chapter 5 of 1984 is a discussion between characters about the progression of ‘newspeak’, a variation of the English language that will ‘narrow the range of thought’ by reducing the number of words with the aim of stopping independent and rebellious thoughts, meaning that ‘thoughtcrime’ would become impossible.
In the chapter examples of ‘newspeak’ are used by one of the characters who is involved in developing it. The explain how because we have the word ‘good’, there is no need for the word ‘bad’, and that instead ‘ungood’ would be a better option because it is the exact opposite of ‘good’. They then go on to explain how if you have the word ‘good’, there is no need for words like ‘excellent’, because you can instead extend it to be ‘plusgood’ or even ‘doubleplusgood’-The idea of this being that the whole notion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is covered by only a single word, ‘good’.
Even though George Orwell wrote 1984 before Political Correctness as a theory properly developed, a lot of what is discussed and described by the characters is still important. The idea that a group of people have the power to decide what words you can and cannot use is significant considering today we have something similar happening with groups of people, such as council workers, deciding what can and cannot be said, all with the aim of political correctness. Sapir-Whorf’s ideas on Linguistic Determinism and Linguistic Relativism are similar to those in the book. In 1984 Syme describes ‘oldspeak’ as vague and having useless shades of meaning, however ultimately the point of creating a whole new language is not to remove this so called vagueness, but to strip a person’s creativity in language and control what they say, meaning they cannot have rebellious thoughts. They have the belief that because the language has changed and reduces the number of possible words, people therefore cannot speak negatively and so the language they speak will not determine or influence the world around them.
However language can only go so far, and just because you are speaking in one way, does not mean that you are thinking in another. Political correctness today often only restricts what a person can say, but doesn’t actually change the way they think. The view by some people to change ‘Christmas’ to ‘Winterval’ as so not to exclude non-christians would not stop people from thinking it as ‘Christmas’, and therefore goes against the idea that the language we speak influences how we think. Similarly, in 1984, you can consider how even with ‘newspeak’ fully implemented, there is now way of stopping people from having negative thoughts, even with the lack of vocabulary someone could still decide that something or someone is ‘ungood’.
Ultimately I believe that even though 1984 is not a modern text, it is still relevant today when looking at how Political Correctness plays a part in our lives. While the idea of ‘Newspeak’ (reducing the number of words as much as possible so that thoughtcrime becomes impossible and the state maintains their power) is largely different to the aim of Political Correctness, I still believe that it’s important to consider how Political Correctness often just masks the true meaning of what people are trying to say, similar to how the true meaning of what people who speak ‘newspeak’ will also supposedly also be masked because they don’t have the vocabulary to say it.
Although Orwell did not write 1984 against the idea of political correctness (as the theory of PC didn’t come around till much later) for many people, large parts of 1984 could be applied to the theory of political correctness. For example, in 1984, Orwell sates that ‘controlling’ the way people speak and changing their language is an authoritarian strategy to change the way people think.
An example of how Orwell attempts to make the concept of people having their speech ‘controlled’ seem authoritarian is from the quote “How can you have the slogan ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished” This shows how Orwell believes that if the word for freedom is removed, then people will never experience ‘freedom’ again. He is also arguing that controlling how people speak is almost removing their freedoms. This shows how he believes PC is controlling of people.
This is the strong Sapir=-Whorf hypothesis – you cannot think outside of your language – if there’s no word for it, there’s no idea. (comprehensively proven false – no one accepts this anymore)
Although, at the time Orwell did not know it he was almost presenting the original ideas of Sapir and Whorf, as they originally believed that the language we use shapes how we view the world; instead of just influencing how we view the world. For example, in the previous paragraph Orwell believed that if the word “freedom” was no longer used in the English language or by one group of people, then these people would not be as ‘free’ as a community where a word for freedom existed. In this case Orwell may agree with the original hypothesis presented by Sapir and Whorf, however this fictional text was written before the theory of political correctness came about and before Sapir and Whorf had presented their hypothesis. Although Orwell may agree the language we use does effect we see the world, if around today, I believe he would oppose the idea of PC and view it as controlling and authoritarian.
Is PC an attempt to obfuscate? If so, Orwell would have been against it. But is it????
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought” Orwell suggest that controlling the way people talk, and the language they use is almost making the speaker simple-minded, it also limits the speaker and doesn’t let them express themselves freely. This could be applied in modern day society many people (usually racists) believe that you should be able to express yourself freely no matter what, and use this as an argument against political correctness.
“We’re destroying words” (thereby destroying thoughts / concepts) This idea of “destroying” words are often common in anti-PC narratives in modern society. Instead of people seeing it as a positive thing introduced to create a more equal world many people see it as an attack on the English language.
“He speaks too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party doesn’t like that”. In 1984, people are persecuted for even saying one thing that the state doesn’t like and many are often hanged. Many of those opposed to political correctness also hold a similar, less dramatic view. Many people believe that they are unfairly attacked, persecuted and labelled racist simply for using a word or speaking “plainly”. This is a stance many disagree with. Furthermore, this casts PC in a kind of authoritarian light, people do not like being told how to speak or act.
“When the concept of freedom has been abolished” in this passage a character is explaining how he is changing the definitions of words and their meanings. Here Orwell is showing how he believes this constant changing of the language is removing people’s freedoms, and if they no longer have a true meaning of freedom will people really be free? This can also be applied to PC, as many people feel threatened by a ‘loss of speech’ under PC.
Although Orwell doesn’t argue for or against, looking at 1984, as an example of why political correctness theory can be seen as wrong is stupid. However, PC is not an authoritarian strategy, and it does not ‘limit’ our language. It only ‘limits’ our language if we are already using slurs, which are deemed un-politically correct. I believe political-correctness is a good theory that will lead to a more equal society.
linguisticus 