“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” Imagine, for a moment, that the text before you began to disappear: verbs, nouns, and adjectives fading away, one by one, until there was nothing left. Picture a page—once brimming with thoughts, passions, and individuality—rendered blank. Nothing left of my arguments, musings, or idiosyncrasies. Nothing left of me.
In times of oppression, language often becomes a weapon in the hands of the perpetrator: something used to rewrite history, entrap victims, and, ultimately, eradicate the will for freedom. And so, the question begs to be asked: why language? What is it that makes language so precious—and, in the eyes of tyrants, so dangerous? What can the war on words tell us about the underlying …show more content…
Arendt addresses the question of language in The Human Condition: a 1958 work that, through its insightful social and political commentaries, “has proved both timeless and perpetually timely.” “The web of human relationships,” starts Arendt, “is sustained by communicative interaction.” She continues, “In acting and speaking, men show who they are, reveal actively their unique personal identities and thus make their appearance in the human world.” Accordingly, we can view language as a transmitter of hidden truths and a bridge between individuals—the mode by which humans express their interior selves to the outside world. Language is both deeply personal and deeply powerful. By conveying that which the eye cannot see, speech breeds both interaction and action. “No other human performance,” says Arendt, “requires speech to the same extent as action.” Speech is the foundation for action—and action, in times of oppression, often breeds rebellion. Herein lies the danger of language—the threat to the oppressor. Thus, to curb rebellion, oppressors regularly resort to a war on words. And—as proven by history and literature alike—language is highly …show more content…
How can one express a desire for freedom when the very word has never entered his vernacular? As stated in the novel’s appendix, “The Principles of Newspeak,” the purpose of Newspeak is “not only to provide a medium of expression for the world view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.” By revising and shrinking the human lexicon, the government can do the same to the minds of its inhabitants. In the haunting words of O’Brien, power “is tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your choosing.” Asserts Arendt, “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” By reinventing language entirely, the Party can mold Oceania’s citizens to fit the totalitarian ideal. Two plus two can equal five. The ally one day can become the enemy the next. War can be peace, freedom can be slavery, ignorance can be strength, and fiction can be fact.
In his popular 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell discusses the debasement that occurs when language is used (as in Nineteen Eighty-Four) to serve political aims. Language, Orwell asserts, has immense potential—and can thus
In times of oppression, language often becomes a weapon in the hands of the perpetrator: something used to rewrite history, entrap victims, and, ultimately, eradicate the will for freedom. And so, the question begs to be asked: why language? What is it that makes language so precious—and, in the eyes of tyrants, so dangerous? What can the war on words tell us about the underlying …show more content…
Arendt addresses the question of language in The Human Condition: a 1958 work that, through its insightful social and political commentaries, “has proved both timeless and perpetually timely.” “The web of human relationships,” starts Arendt, “is sustained by communicative interaction.” She continues, “In acting and speaking, men show who they are, reveal actively their unique personal identities and thus make their appearance in the human world.” Accordingly, we can view language as a transmitter of hidden truths and a bridge between individuals—the mode by which humans express their interior selves to the outside world. Language is both deeply personal and deeply powerful. By conveying that which the eye cannot see, speech breeds both interaction and action. “No other human performance,” says Arendt, “requires speech to the same extent as action.” Speech is the foundation for action—and action, in times of oppression, often breeds rebellion. Herein lies the danger of language—the threat to the oppressor. Thus, to curb rebellion, oppressors regularly resort to a war on words. And—as proven by history and literature alike—language is highly …show more content…
How can one express a desire for freedom when the very word has never entered his vernacular? As stated in the novel’s appendix, “The Principles of Newspeak,” the purpose of Newspeak is “not only to provide a medium of expression for the world view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.” By revising and shrinking the human lexicon, the government can do the same to the minds of its inhabitants. In the haunting words of O’Brien, power “is tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your choosing.” Asserts Arendt, “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” By reinventing language entirely, the Party can mold Oceania’s citizens to fit the totalitarian ideal. Two plus two can equal five. The ally one day can become the enemy the next. War can be peace, freedom can be slavery, ignorance can be strength, and fiction can be fact.
In his popular 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell discusses the debasement that occurs when language is used (as in Nineteen Eighty-Four) to serve political aims. Language, Orwell asserts, has immense potential—and can thus