Do you ever wonder why many do not realise that they are being lied to when they listen to business or political communication? The stark reality is that most of us do not want to hear words or news that are dished out in objectively too blunt or unembellished ways. Corporate communicators exploit this reality. They resort to doublespeak as they know that language works “not in what you say, but in what they hear”.
On the international political scene, we have recently been exposed to alarming doses of doublespeak by political leaders from both ends of the democracy spectrum. Russian President Vladimir Putin talks about the war in Ukraine using words to mean precisely the opposite of what they usually do.
Mark Satta is an assistant professor of philosophy at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Satta gives examples of how Putin manipulates the language by using doublespeak to justify his military aggression. For instance, he labels the war “peacekeeping duties”. He also claims to be engaging in “denazification” of Ukraine while seeking to overthrow Ukraine’s Jewish president, the grandson of a Holocaust survivor.
Politicians at the other end of the democracy spectrum are no less prone to using doublespeak to get out of the tight corners in which they have painted themselves. The UK’s new prime minister, Liz Truss, likes to project herself as a Thatcherite reformist. She claims she can rescue the UK economy from the structural decline many economists argue is behind its present socio-economic problems.
Within a few days of announcing significant tax cuts for the rich, Truss and her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, were forced to make an embarrassing U-turn after a rebellion within their Tory ranks.
Both Truss and Kwarteng, in an orchestrated comment on Twitter, declared: “We get it, and we have listened. The abolition of the 45pc rate had become a distraction from our mission to get Britain moving”. It does not take a communications expert to detect the insincerity of this message.
In an essay published in 1946 titled Politics and the English Language, George Orwell wrote that “political language is designed to make lies sound like truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”.
The business world is also no stranger to doublespeak. In his book Words That Work, Frank Luntz gives an excellent example of corporate doublespeak. The American political and communications consultant argues that the gambling industry updated its image drastically by a single phrase change when it described itself as a “gaming” industry, without changing internally.
We must protect our language if we want democracy to serve society. Words have the power to shape thought
Luntz says: “Gambling looks like what an old man with a crumbled racing form does at the track, or feels like the services provided by some seedy back-alley bookie in some smoke-filled room. Gaming is what families do together. Gambling is a vice; gaming is a choice”.
There are times when doublespeak can become helpful when one is obliged to communicate without having to straight up lie. That is why euphemisms are a vital part of social communication. We often use words to avoid a cruel reality, like calling a fat person big-boned or a prison a correctional facility.
The dangers of doublespeak are most apparent when words are used not to convey meaning but to undermine it, corrupting the very ideas they refer to. Society encourages doublespeak in our everyday lives because, from a young age, we understand the consequences of confronting behavioural failures.
Still, many prefer to constantly ask themselves: “what exactly is this person trying to say?” when they suspect that they are listening to doublespeak from anyone trying to attract their attention. Orwell argues that our ability to think and communicate clearly is what stands between us and a world ‘where peace and freedom is slavery’.
Social scientists search for reasons so many people disengage from the democratic process by not voting in elections. Social surveys frequently confirm that politicians are among the least trustworthy societal leaders, ranking almost equally with bankers and second-hand car dealers. We must protect our language if we want democracy to serve society. Words have the power to shape thought. Language is the currency of political and business life, forming the basis of society from the most common everyday interactions to the highest of ideals.
We must protect ourselves from the worst effects of doublespeak by seeking the true meaning of what we are told. Societal leaders must really mind their language, as complete truthfulness in communication is always better than telling carefully constructed lies.