Not being hyperbolic, but almost every single time I have to speak with or am spoken to by a manager/GM at work. HR at all large companies I have ever worked for as well.
I work for/with a religiously-affiliated charitable organization, so doublespeak is pretty constant. Worse, not only do people use it but they also police the speech of those around them.
In special, the sort of doublespeak where someone lists something as a bonus of whatever the person defends, but as a malus for what he doesn’t like. Often through different and partially overlapping words, such as one program being “traditional and tested” and another “archaic and outdated”. Or one politician being “in sync with the voters” and another being “a demagogue”.
However on the internet I feel like doublespeak is becoming less and less of a concern, because willingful stupidity is often more efficient, as it capitalises on Brandolini’s Law.
In special, the sort of doublespeak where someone lists something as a bonus of whatever the person defends, but as a malus for what he doesn’t like. Often through different and partially overlapping words, such as one program being “traditional and tested” and another “archaic and outdated”. Or one politician being “in sync with the voters” and another being “a demagogue”.
Oh yeah, I hate that. I find it sad that there’s a market for that kind of content. It’s not the only way, you could just say the program is 15 years old, or the politician appeals to a much larger fraction of voters than whatever specific naive measure would suggest they should.
It’s not the only way, you could just say the program is 15 years old, or the politician appeals to a much larger fraction of voters than whatever specific naive measure would suggest they should.
That requires us* to focus on the objective matters. We can’t do that. We need to wallow in all that precious, oh so precious, subjectivity. But we can’t show it, because then we can’t claim “it’s facts”, and we’re opening room for disagreement.
In other words this kind of doublespeak is backed by another type of doublespeak: disguising the subjective as objective. You see the same underlying phenomenon behind the usage of the word “toxic”.
*by “we” I mean “people in general”, not necessarily you and me.
I suspect a lot of people make the mistake of seeking out analysis, but not stopping to consider if they actually understand more after reading it, as well. They figure because they spent half an hour reading they must now be smarter, when that’s not necessarily the case, and from a writer’s perspective that gives an opportunity to make money by producing giant quantities of boilerplate text. Or at least did, before GPT and friends showed up.
In other words this kind of doublespeak is backed by another type of doublespeak: disguising the subjective as objective. You see the same underlying phenomenon behind the usage of the word “toxic”.
Can you give an example? The first thing that comes to mind is “toxic masculinity”, which is more of a “set expression”, and then “toxicity” in online spaces which in context refers to an abundance of hostility or negative emotional content.
I suspect a lot of people make the mistake of seeking out analysis, but not stopping to consider if they actually understand more after reading it, as well.
Yup. Or stopping to analyse the analysis, it isn’t just because someone analysed it that it’ll be necessarily worth a damn.
from a writer’s perspective that gives an opportunity to make money by producing giant quantities of boilerplate text.
Similarities with “self-help” are not a mere coincidence.
Can you give an example?
Sure. Made up and a bit forced, but it should be typical enough to highlight what I mean:
[Alice] Bob, I think that you should cut your hair.
[Bob] Alice, this is toxic. I didn’t ask your opinion!
Bob clearly doesn’t like uncalled advice. That’s fine for me, I don’t like it either, and it would be also fine if Bob said “hey Alice, I don’t like this, stahp”. But that’s still someone (a subject) not liking something - in other words a subjective matter. It’s an opinion and it should be treated as such.
And, yet by labelling the behaviour “toxic”, Bob makes it look like it’s something about the object (the behaviour) thus objective, something intrinsically true, shielded against the criticism that an opinion would get. But it’s still an opinion, so you can’t even criticise it as a true/false statement - you can’t “prove” an opinion.
Note that even the description that you’ve provided hints this duplicity: hostility is objective, but “negative emotional” is subjective.
(I didn’t include “toxic masculinity” because I didn’t really think about it. Plus as you said it’s a fixed expression, those tend to vary in meaning too much from the component words. )
Note that even the description that you’ve provided hints this duplicity: hostility is objective, but “negative emotional” is subjective.
That’s interesting. My first reaction was to think it’s more the other way around. Hostility is based on intention which is in fact un-knowable unless you make assumptions about how patient an adversary is, whereas emotional content has simple litmus tests like looking at frequency of certain words. But, hostility can be seen as game theoretical and mathematical, whereas emotional content comes from an older part of our brain and is only partially shared between people, so I see what you mean. I guess sometimes more subjective things can actually be more measurable, counterintuitively.
I wonder if there’s a good example of a space that’s toxic, as measured by the effect on participant’s mental health scores, but only to some participants. I’m conjecturing that there is not, that at least 80% of the population will experience it the same way, but I could be wrong. I suppose even a very stressful interaction could make someone feel less lonely.
Hostility is objective because it’s behaviour. I were to punch or insult someone, and the definition of hostility includes those things (it should, right?), then I couldn’t bullshit “it’s a matter of opinion if I was hostile or not” - it’s a fact. However the emotional impact of the punch/insult would depend on the target of that hostility.
I guess sometimes more subjective things can actually be more measurable, counterintuitively.
Sometimes they do. Specially when it’s for multiple subjects - human experiences don’t overlap completely, but they do overlap a bit. But for that we need to acknowledge that they’re subjective.
I wonder if there’s a good example of a space that’s toxic, as measured by the effect on participant’s mental health scores, but only to some participants.
Spaces that target specific groups. Specially vulnerable groups based on sexuality, race, etc.
For example. If I were to crack gay jokes nonstop, most people would at most feel umconfortable… unless they’re homo or bisexual, for them there’s a heavy (and negative) emotional impact. Same deal with jokes targetting people based on race, gender, etc.
Once you achieve a certain level of not giving a fuck, just repeat their statement back to then in plain language and they will usually either storm off, freeing you from the conversation, or they will get the point, freeing you from at least the tedious part of the conversation.
Look at their actions, not their words specifically.
It’s a culture where being unkind is particularly unacceptable, not specifically where you’re not allowed to be honest or forthright.
You’re allowed to not like someone, but telling someone you dislike them is needlessly unkind, so you just politely decline to interact with them.
You’d “hate to intrude”, or “be a bother”. If it’s pushed, you’ll “consider it and let them know”.
Negative things just have to be conveyed in the kindest way possible, not that they can’t be conveyed.
In the broad sense of “using euphemistic language”, obviously quite often, and it’s not always intended to be bad even if it is obfuscating the truth - but only really when doing things like explaining complicated topics to a very young child, or when both people in the conversation know that doublespeak is being used (e.g. saying “he’s in a better place now”, which is technically hiding the truth with something more pallatable if you didn’t already know that that phrase is synonymous with “he died”.)
In politics, which is the most appropriate place to use the term, I would argue it’s a standard, even characteristic, part of capitalist politics and economics, because the actual truth of the matter is directly opposed to the interests of the working class, and you do not want to anger them or encourage them to organize in opposition.
“Increasing efficiency in X sector” simply means “We’re going to fire a bunch of people and reduce the money we spend on it with no increase in quality of service.”
“We should cut social security spending and stop giving handouts so people work harder” simply means “We need to increase the profits of the capitalist class, and so hundreds, thousands or even millions of people will have to suffer and die.”
“We should restore freedom and democracy in X country” simply means “This country is opposed to our capitalists in one way or another and we should kill their leaders stopping us from having greater market access, even if that plunges that country into years of suffering” for example in Libya. Countries with dictatorships and monarchies that are subservient to American rule are rarely targetted - if anything, several of them were put there by America itself (e.g. Pinochet).
Hell, the words “market access” in that previous one is just doublespeak for “widespread exploitation of that country’s resources and institutions”, like how the ex-Soviet states were massively privatized under the Shock Doctrine and their resources harvested for Western capitalists.
One of the important first steps for any leftist is seeing these phrases for what they actually are, because otherwise you just continue to exist in the dreamy world of capitalism where actions are disconnected from consequences, and the problems and what caused those problems are shrouded in fog and confusion and become difficult to discuss. For example:
“Wow, cool, we should definitely increase efficiencies in the healthcare sector! Efficiency is a good word that means good things!” -> five years later -> “Dang, it sucks how our healthcare sector is in such dire straits, look at these long waiting lists, look at these burned-out nurses, how could this have possibly happened? Perhaps we didn’t increase efficiences enough! As efficiency is a good word that means good things, it is inconceivable to me that it might have done something bad!” -> read a post online from a leftist -> “This person is saying that we should hire more nurses and doctors and give them free degrees and training and lower housing/rent prices! Don’t they know that this will decrease efficiency and lead to - gasp! - bloating in the healthcare sector? That’s how we got into this bad situation in the first place! Socialists are so ridiculous, they need to read a book on the subject because they clearly don’t see what is patently obvious to people like me, who can see common sense without even needing to have read a book on it, I’m just that smart and read all the articles! (most of which are owned by the people trying to privatize healthcare)”
It’s likely that at no point have the people arguing for “increasing efficiency” actually laid out exactly what they mean by that word, or if they have then it’s couched in further doublespeak (“incentivizing hard work” = “increase hours without a meaningful pay rise so we can fire people and save labor costs”), whereas because left-wingers are too honest to come up with their own doublespeak phrase for what we propose, we have to lay it out bare.
William Lutz is an American linguist who specializes in the use of plain language and the avoidance of doublespeak (deceptive language). He wrote a famous essay “The World of Doublespeak” on this subject as well as the book Doublespeak, which described the four different types of doublespeak (euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook, and inflated language) and the social dangers of doublespeak.
My understanding was it was a conceptually-poor language that artificially constrained one’s cognitive faculties through the nexus of a limited language/vocabulary emphasizing economy of expression. Sort of like a programming language with very few keywords and only ones that were absolutely necessary to receive and nominally participate in a minimal discourse.
Edit: I think this is actually Newspeak I’m contemplating as opposed to doublespeak. Doublespeak seems to refer to intentionally ambiguous language that obfuscates meaning and emotional content and usually for a political purpose. Like calling unintentional war victims “collateral damage” to reduce the bad publicity from one’s war efforts. The wrongfully-dead victims are hidden behind what sounds like oblique accounting or financial jargon.
If you haven't, take some time to read 1984. It's a fairly easy read and this thread will make a lot more sense. Also, there's a reason it's a timeless classic and referred to so often - Orwell hit on a lot of prevalent themes authoritarians like to use. Once you know how to identify them, it's easy to see when someone is using something like double speak (consciously or subconsciously)
well the two aren’t necessarily exclusive. A speech pattern that obfuscates has many uses. But I think you’re conflating doublespeech and doublethink a bit.
(Fun fact: the term Doublespeak / speech is never actually used in 1984. Like, at all. It gets thrown in because of the doublethink concept, and the fact that everyone weaselwords, but it’s not actually used in the book.)
Saying one thing but meaning another. But in a deceptive sort of way, not like double entendre.
The word kinda comes from the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, which described concepts known as doublethink and newspeak, though “doublespeak” is never actually used in the book.
Newspeak is how the government in that book redid the English language to remove words/grammar it didn’t approve of. Not from the book, but something of an example you might see jokingly used on the internet today is saying “unalive” as a euphemism for “die/kill” because it expresses a concept and avoids the implications.
Doublethink is the phenomenon of simultaneously accepting contradictory ideas. The government in the book needs to be able to convince people that the blatantly bad things they’re doing are actually good things. Think along the lines of peace through conquest, or the idea that the solution to gun violence is more guns.
Doublespeak is sort of a synthesis of these ideas. As a concept, I’d imagine that it long predates Nineteen Eighty-Four, but it’s about changing language or word choice to obfuscate truth or imply contradictory meaning. It’s like how calling someone “special” can be used to imply mental deficiency, how sugary cereal is “part of a balanced breakfast” when it’s one of the least healthy things a child could eat, or when racists say “All Lives Matter” to protect the racially discriminatory status quo that the Black Lives Matter movement was created to challenge.
Add comment