tion>
Copyright © 1989 by Blonde Bear, Inc.
Copyright © 2015 by William Lutz
All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission of the publisher. Please direct inquires to:
Ig Publishing
Box 2547
New York, NY 10163
ISBN: 978-1-63246-018-9 (ebook)
For my wife, Denise
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Preface
I. Involuntary Conversions, Preemptive Counterattacks, and Incomplete Successes: The World of Doublespeak
II. Therapeutic Misadventures, the Economically Nonaffluent, and Deep-Chilled Chickens: The Doublespeak of Everyday Living
III. Virgin Vinyl, Real Counterfeit Diamonds, and Genuine Imitation Leather: With These Words I Can Sell You Anything
IV. Negative Deficits and the Elimination of Redundancies in the Human Resources Area: Business Communication, Sort Of
V. Protein Spills, Vehicle Appearance Specialists, and Earth Engaging Equipment: Doublespeak Around the World
VI. Predawn Vertical Insertions and Hexiform Rotatable Surface Compression Units: The Pentagon Word Machine Grinds On
VII. Nothing in Life Is Certain Except Negative Patient Care Outcome and Revenue Enhancement: Your Government at Work
VIII. Winnable Nuclear Wars and Energetic Disassemblies: Nuclear Doublespeak
APPENDIXES
Quarterly Review of Doublespeak
Recipients of the Doublespeak Award
Recipients of the George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language
Index of Doublespeak
General Index
I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Rutgers University Research Council for grants that assisted in constructing a database of examples of doublespeak, thus making the writing of this book a manageable task. I also gratefully acknowledge the National Council of Teachers of English for allowing me to use material from the Quarterly Review of Doublespeak.
I would like to thank the gracious women of the Four Arts Club of Elkhart, Indiana, who listened to an early version of Chapter II and laughed at all the right places. My thanks, too, to Harry Brent and Murl Barker, colleagues and good friends, who read earlier versions of parts of this book and were generous with their helpful comments. My thanks also to Jean Nagger and Hugh Van Dusen for their faith in this project and their support. And special thanks to all the readers of the Quarterly Review of Doublespeak who sent me examples of doublespeak, many of which I have used in the Review and in this book. But, most of all, I want to give very special thanks to my wife, Denise, who, in addition to providing me with the perfect writing environment, convinced me that I could write this book and then served as my best, most helpful critic and reader, even while writing her second novel. I owe her more than I can say, or ever repay.
“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. . . . Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
—GEORGE ORWELL
“Politics and the English Language,” 1946
“So, would you say that doublespeak is increasing or decreasing?” the interviewer would ask. I was asked that question repeatedly after I wrote this first book on doublespeak. At that time I demurred, claiming I had no data or evidence to answer the question one way or another. Certainly there was a lot of doublespeak flowing through the channels of public discourse as my book documented, and doublespeak did indeed appear to be increasing, as the dozens of examples sent to me every week seemed to indicate. I would like to think that the publication of my book had made people more aware of the language directed at them. Perhaps the frog in the pan of hot water suddenly realized that the water was getting hotter and maybe he should do something about it.
It’s been over 25 years since this book was published, and over 35 years since I started collecting examples of doublespeak. Much has happened to and with the English language since then. The development and spread of new technology—the internet, cell phones, social media, etc.—has contributed a large number of new words to our language, and the language is the better for it. More importantly, social media is all about language, so now more than ever people are using language more in their daily lives. However, with this increasing use of language and all the very useful new words has come an increasing stream of doublespeak. More importantly, and most disturbing, there has come an acquiescence to, if not an acceptance of, doublespeak. So, yes, doublespeak is increasing, both in amount and usage. For the past 25 years it has continued to grow and spread, infecting public discourse at all levels in all areas.
With this growth in the amount and usage of doublespeak has come a kind of resignation to such language, if not acceptance. Where once people would laugh at or even object to doublespeak now we find a quiet acceptance. Doublespeak that once prompted disbelief or in some cases outrage now passes unnoticed and without comment. Doublespeak has become part of the working vocabulary of public discourse. Thousands of people are killed in misdirected drone strikes but we do not speak of dead children or entire wedding parties slaughtered by aerial bombardment. We speak instead of “collateral damage” during an “aerial interdiction mission.” We do not torture but use “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the same “techniques” used by German and Japanese soldiers during World War II that resulted in their trials for committing war crimes. People, especially politicians and other public figures, do not lie but merely “misspeak,” or their words are “taken out of context.” Nor do such people make racist, sexist, or other offensive statements. They make “inappropriate remarks” and are therefore not to be criticized for being racist or sexist.
Of course there is plenty of new doublespeak, created to mislead by pretending to be the opposite of what it really means. When the opinion polls revealed that the public did not want Social Security privatization, proponents started talking about “personal accounts” for Social Security, which is the same as privatization. While many people, and the US Constitution, oppose government support for religion, proponents invented “faith-based initiatives” that channel government money to churches. Ending an individual right to sue when you are injured by the neglect of a corporation or others is called “tort reform” which does not reform the tort process but ends it. And when some politicians wanted to give immense tax breaks to the super rich they invented the term “death tax”
