Doublespeak and the War on Terrorism

Five years have passed since the catastrophic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Those attacks ushered in the war on terror. Since some high-ranking government officials and pundits are now referring to the war on terror as the "Long War" or "World War III," because its duration is not clear, now is an appropriate time to take a few steps back and examine the disturbing new vocabulary that has emerged from this conflict. One of the central insights of George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four concerned the manipulative use of language, which he called "newspeak" and "doublethink," and which we now call "doublespeak" and "Orwellian." Orwell was alarmed by government propaganda and the seemingly rampant use of euphemisms and halftruths -- and he conveyed his discomfort with such tactics to generations of readers by using vivid examples in his novel. Despite our general awareness of the tactic, government officials routinely use doublespeak to expand, or at least maintain, their power. The purpose of this paper is not to criticize any particular policy initiative. Reasonable people can honestly disagree about what needs to be done to combat the terrorists who are bent on killing Americans. However, a conscientious discussion of our policy options must begin with a clear understanding of what our government is actually doing and what it is really proposing to do next. The aim here is to enhance the understanding of both policymakers and the interested lay public by exposing doublespeak

Doublespeak: The Empowerment of the Self and the Dis-Empowerment of the Other

Regarding the ability doublespeak offers to its users to distort and mislead, the question about how power is (re)produce, distributed, and enacted becomes of great concern. Within this context, the present paper seeks to study how the use of doublespeak serves for the empowerment of the self and the dis-empowerment of the other. The study of this topic consists in the analysis of some examples that are taken from political speeches delivered by the US presidents; Bush, Obama, and Trump. To analyze these examples, a combination of three theories—theories of discourse analysis, theories of power, and theories of politics—is used. The application of this theoretical combination is based on the use of a simple method of research. This method follows three successive steps. First, the traces of doublespeak are detected and classified. Second, interest is given to the study of how each of the traced uses of doublespeak serves for empowerment. Third, interest shifts to the interpretation of the obtained results to highlight the political ends standing behind any struggle for power. The paper ended by offering a multi-disciplinary approach to the study of empowerment in the political uses of doublespeak as well as a simple method of research. Also, it proved that the use of doublespeak represents a strategy of empowerment that the speakers resorted to while seeking to get more power to dominate and to achieve personal goals. The paper might show as well some limitations like the uses of examples from other political contexts. However, this did not affect the quality of the research nor the results that are sought to be reached, instead, it represents a good start for future researches to look into other contexts

Truths and euphemisms: How euphemisms are used in the political arena

Politicians are notorious for their employment of words in a disguised fashion through the usage of euphemisms. Consequently, their message becomes a recurrent theme of conspicuous deception. Elected government representatives deliberately engage in grandiloquent expression conscious of its subversive capacity. The deviancy of euphemisms is guided by social norms that politicians are permitted to exercise in order to safeguard their images. When politicians envelop seemingly good intentions with conscious deception, people are harmed in the process. Those in power transgress justice and commit crimes with their overwhelming command of euphemisms. In fact, euphemisms are utilized as masks, hiding truths under the protective tones of a speaker with a genuine, worthwhile goal. Selective vocabulary is employed to arouse, rationalize and justify. To achieve this end, politicians misrepresent the facts of various political situations by using terms that completely transform or falsify them. Euphemisms are used simplistically in daily conversations. However, where they are used and misused more frequently is in the political arena, in such cases as “soft targets” or “peace keepers” or “collateral damage.” These expressions are heard frequently, while past ones are forgotten and new ones primed in their place as transgressions continue. In this paper, I will make use of Jurgen Habermas’ public sphere theory, a critical theory that demonstrates how the audience’s outlook affects political action. This article will demonstrate the deliberate use of euphemisms in political language both as a cultural element and as one that is constantly changing to suit the ever-changing political arena

How can philosophy of language help us navigate the political news cycle?

In this chapter, I try to answer the above question, and another question that it presupposes: can philosophy of language help us navigate the political news cycle? A reader can be sceptical of a positive answer to the latter question; after all, citizens, political theorists, and journalists seem to be capable of following current politics and its coverage in the news, and there is no reason to think that philosophy of language in particular should be capable of helping people make sense and respond to the news. I will illustrate the application of philosophy of language to three contrasting strategies of political propaganda: dogwhistles, meaning perversions, and bald-faced lies. I hope that these help us see that philosophy of language can be a good tool in diagnosing demagoguery, and in resisting it

Doblespeak: Using language to conceal the message in a political, military and medical context

Half a century has passed since Marshall McLuhan\u27s \u27The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man\u27 came into being, introducing the now famous term \u27global village\u27, but the passing years have only added to the actuality of the phrase. In 2012 the world seems to have shrunk to the dimensions of one\u27s own living room, where one can witness Alexander the Great\u27s army defeating the Persians in the Battle of Issus in 333 BC, and contemporary Baghdad being bombed at night, all while having dinner. In a world, where economic interests dictate the unleashing of global wars, controlling the proliferation of message content in the global village has become exponentially important. Confucius\u27 rectification of names seems to have fallen from grace with the rulers of today: those in power have found a way to use language as a smoke screen – or a concave mirror – and words have been utilized to conceal meaning rather than convey it. Doublespeak has become the norm of political and military language, as well as certain aspects of communication within a medical context: the general public has been willfully deceived into misinterpreting the message

CPR Crash Course

Poetry by Aylin Malcolm