The Dangers of Doublespeak

When George Orwell introduced us to the idea of “Newspeak” in the classic novel “1984,” he wanted to make the point that broad, nonspecific and euphemistic words and phrases can not only distort meaning but also impoverish language and diminish the range of thought. Light could become “undark” and a lie could become “minitrue.”

In his book “Doublespeak: From Revenue Enhancement to Terminal Living,” English professor William Lutz of Rutgers University warns that a real-life deterioration of language is already under way, fed by a desire to avoid saying directly what we really mean.

Thus, Lutz says, lawyers can call a plane crash “the involuntary conversion of a 727.” A company getting ready to lay off thousands is initiating “a career alternative enhancement program.” The fired employees become “non-retained,” “non-renewed,” or “selected out.” A used car becomes one that is “pre-owned” or “experienced.” Poor people become “economically non-affluent.” Death can be called “negative patient care outcome.”

Euphemisms are certainly not new to language. They spring in part from a human desire to soften a blow, to make an unpleasant truth more palatable, as in saying “he passed away” instead of “he died.” Euphemistic language also has proliferated because the world has become more complicated: For example, as formerly taboo relationships became acceptable, we started hearing the often clumsy attempts to describe a “significant other” or a “lifetime partner.”

But at least the meanings behind such euphemisms are clear. The danger of doublespeak is that it obfuscates meaning. Could anyone easily ascertain that a “petroleum transfer engineer” is really a gas station attendant?

Similar obfuscation is probably most often heard from politicians and bureaucrats. Recently ousted East German leader Erich Honecker had called the Berlin Wall an “anti-fascist protective rampart;” the South African government, instead of the unequivocal term “apartheid” to describe racial segregation, prefers “cultural group concept.” U.S. leaders have given us some gems, too, including former President Jimmy Carter’s calling the failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran an “incomplete success,” or the Reagan Administration’s description of the invasion of Grenada as a “pre-dawn vertical insertion.”

Professor Lutz suggests that we can battle the use of doublespeak by simply refusing to accept it. One of the reasons most politicians now shy away from using the term “revenue enhancement” is because the press and public stripped away the shroud and called it what it was--taxes. That sounds like a good way to begin transitioning, er, changing, an insidious language habit.