Newspeak or New-Speak?

I’m watching you, too. 

L. M. Chavdarov

IN GEORGE ORWELL’S DYSTOPIAN NOVEL, NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, the concept of Newspeak stands as a haunting reminder of the power language holds in shaping thought, and controlling society. Newspeak, a constructed language designed to eliminate unorthodox thoughts, and simplify language to its bare essentials, serves as a tool for the totalitarian regime to enforce conformity, and suppress dissent. However, the implementation of Newspeak is but a dictator’s pipe dream, given the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of language, culture, and communication.

Language, by its very nature, is a living, breathing entity that evolves over time, shaped by the social, cultural, and historical contexts in which it is used. The constant evolution of language, driven by the creativity, and innovation of its users, acts as a natural barrier to the standardisation and simplification envisioned by Orwell. Slang, jargon, and colloquialisms continually emerge, creating a rich tapestry of linguistic expression that defies rigid control. Even some of the most common modern words such as ‘goodbye’ have their roots in proletariat slang – a shortened form of ‘God be with ye’ – but now, there’s barely anyone who knows the original version.

The creation of slang is inevitable, not least because these linguistic innovations often arise from subcultures, and communities seeking to establish their own identity, and voice, creating a coded language that those ‘out of the know’ struggle to comprehend, or even perceive. In the digital age, this phenomenon has only accelerated, with the internet serving as a breeding ground for new words, phrases, and meanings. Memes, tweets, and online forums become the modern-day equivalent of Orwell’s Secret Brotherhood, a space where language is liberated from the constraints of conformity, and allowed to flourish in all of its chaotic glory.

In addition to the creation of new words and slang, the modern world also witnesses the cultural evolution in the meaning of existing words. Language is not a static entity; it is shaped by the collective consciousness of its users, and as society’s values and beliefs change, so too does the language it employs. Words that once held specific meanings evolve, their connotations shifting, and transforming over time. The journey of words such as ‘retard’ and ‘idiot’ from medical terms to pejorative ones, serves as a testament to this linguistic metamorphosis.

The transformation of these words reflects a broader societal shift towards inclusivity, and awareness, as well as a recognition of the power words hold in shaping our perceptions of one another. It is a reminder that language is not simply a tool for communication, but a reflection of our very values, beliefs, and identity. In this way, language becomes a battleground; a space where power dynamics are contested and negotiated. The idea of enforcing a static, rigid language like Newspeak would be like trying to hold back the tide with a broom.

In this context, the implementation of Newspeak would require a radical restructuring of society – a silencing of voices and a stifling of creativity and innovation. It would require a world where conformity is valued above all else – where diversity is seen as a threat rather than a strength. Such a world seems increasingly out of step with the direction in which our society is moving, as we grapple with the complexities of our interconnected, multicultural world.

To all the aspiring dictators in my School – you’ll never be able to control what gets said behind your back, or how the words which you mandate be used get used. It is the speaker’s intent, not the spoken word, which dictates the meaning of the conveyed message.

So, on a more positive note, if you really want to limit thought, and keep a population ignorant, and stupid, it’s not enough to control language – because that can’t be done. It’s about controlling ideas, instead – gaoling the opposition, like modern regimes, or surveilling everyone to create a panopticon-like effect. Inviting your opposition to speak can only create dissent. (Follow me for more great tips on how to oppress people).

In conclusion, the concept of Newspeak, while serving as a powerful literary device, and a chilling reminder of the power of language, seems unlikely to find a foothold in the modern world. The constant evolution of language, the creation of slang, and the cultural evolution in the meaning of existing words, serve as natural barriers to the inexpressiveness imagined by Orwell. Language is a reflection of our humanity; a tool for connection, and expression, and its richness and diversity are a testament to the complexity and beauty of the human experience. So, while Newspeak may provide food for thought, and a cautionary tale, it remains a linguistic mirage in the vast desert of human expression. And that, dear reader, is something worth talking about.