There is no swifter route to the corruption of thought than through the corruption of language
— George Orwell —
Surveying our contemporary culture, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that language is being depreciated and abused.
We humans communicate through many means, such as touch, expressions, and giving — and even our mere presence in situations where we would be more comfortable elsewhere, such as sharing grief or loss with another. Language, however, is the primary means by which we communicate.
Genesis refers to the Tower of Babel as a time where man’s incredible hubris was disrupted by the confusion of tongues. The discomfort of being in a strange environment without clear communication can be felt by anyone who has traveled to another country or culture. Yet far more insidious is the dissolution of the power of words within a culture with a nominally common language.
The Overloading of Adjectives
Overloading of adjectives is a factor contributing to this depreciation. Overloading a software object’s functionality is an feature in object-oriented software development, which translates to giving a derivative object more capabilities than its parent while maintaining the same name and core functions. In language, the effect is the opposite: words are stripped of their original meaning and lessened by hyperbole. Consider the contemporary use of the word ‘awesome.’ Derived from the Greek achos, meaning ‘pain,’ it conveys an emotion that varies from dread to veneration and wonder, inspired by authority, the sacred, or the sublime. It implies experiencing being in close proximity to someone or something far greater than oneself. In today’s culture, it is used as an adjective for anything that is mildly pleasant. Almost anything can be awesome: clothes, parties, cars, or pleasant situations. If everything is awesome, however, then nothing is awesome. Language has thus lost the capacity to describe things that truly inspire awe and remind us of things that are greater than ourselves. If we can no longer speak of awe, we forget that there are things that inspire and deserve our awe.
Term-Swapping
Another example is the term-swap, which is common in politically correct speech. The nurse in my office recently attended a conference about sexual dysfunction and counseling that was taught by a specialist from San Francisco. He stated that in his clinic, you no longer ask if people are married, but whether they are “partnered.” You no longer inquire whether people are sexually active, but ask whether they are “body-fluid bonded.” This is an attempt to influence thought by transforming speech. “Married” carries the connotation — derived from centuries of everyday use and consensus of meaning — of two people, a man and woman, committed to one another in a contractual relationship, ideally for life, for better or worse. ‘Partnering’ means any two people sharing a roof, here today and gone tomorrow, with commitment optional and conditional at best. Whatever your opinion on gay marriage, these two situations have different personal implications for those involved and unequal impact on society as a whole. Partnering is a great equalizer, making the lesser equal to the greater. And “body-fluid bonded”? Term-swapping aims to eliminate the influence of higher principles on behavior, but it is unwieldy, lacking in rhythm and impact, and downright ugly. Like music, language has its own rhythm and power. Politically correct term swapping, however, is the electronic organ of speech — playing all the right notes but abrasive and irritating to the ear. Even course street slang is preferable: “Are you two f***ing?”, while vulgar, is a slap in the face, while “Are you fluid-bonded?” is akin to lukewarm decaffeinated coffee.
Redefinition
Redefinition is another land mine in the language field, especially problematic in discussions of religion, race, and belief systems. Over time, societies and cultures develop definitions that are mutually agreeable, particularly in socially significant topics and situations. The term ‘racism’ has always referred to hatred of another person or class of people based solely on their skin color, tribal affiliation, behavioral patterns, or speech that suggests such an affiliation. Racism is now employed in modern progressivism to categorize and reject individuals who have opposing political or philosophical orientations. Consequently, the progressive African-American or liberal white perceives non-progressive whites — or all whites — as racist, while they themselves do not harbor racist tendencies. Similarly, all Christians are considered fundamentalists, intolerant, superstitious, and other disparaging designations — and are labeled so by those who are most intolerant and misinformed about the nature, convictions, and practices of believers.
The destruction of the consensus of meaning in language is becoming far more prevalent, being invoked by the media and politics, and widely preached in our educational system and workplaces. In totalitarian societies, it is a universal tool of control. We must resist this trend and encourage the restoration of integrity and honesty in language to avoid the repressive cultural outcomes that will otherwise invariably result.
Similarly, we can no longer talk about gender — previously referring only to male and female sexes, XX and XY — but now must understand it as any sexual identification, as in transgenderism: you are a female if you “identify” as one, even if your DNA is XY. The dangers of this exchange are numerous and perilous, as demonstrated in women’s sports, prisons, and other instances where this delusional fantasy puts women at a significant risk.
Doublespeak
Doublespeak is the bastard child of redefinition: creating a phrase or idiom to blunt the impact of an uncomfortable truth. Hence, abortion becomes “reproductive choice” or “women’s health”; illegal aliens become “undocumented migrants”; the mutilation of children morphs into “gender-affirming care” – and so on. The doublespeak jargon is cumbersome, graceless, and often deliberately obscure and hides the ugly reality beneath its deathly vestments.
But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.
— George Orwell —
The degradation and deterioration of language indicate a culture increasingly out of touch with consensus in communication and the substitution of fantasy and emotionalism for a world based on reality and truth. Coercion to use such language is a sign of a growing authoritarianism, as we are forced to use it at the risk of being criticized, ostracized, or even persecution if we do not succumb to its intimidation.
We should not go lightly into that linguistic darkness, for therein lies demons. Failure will result in a dark harvest that we will deeply lament for a long, long time, but resistance will require courage.
