Having re-read Kyle Erickson’s post on language and finally gotten to Stephen Fry’s entry on the subject, I’ve belatedly realized there’s something of a distinction between the natural evolution of a word’s meaning and imposing a new terminology to obscure comprehension. So, for example, if the American public gradually replaced the word “torture” with the phrase “really fuck somebody up,” I can’t say I’d complain because the latter’s meaning would be exactly analogous to our current understanding of what constitutes illegal detainee treatment. The terminology may have changed, but the transition doesn’t obscure the words’ descriptive force (if anything, it enhances it).
The danger of bullshit euphemisms is that they actively obscure meaning. Common usage can’t afford to beat around the bush because most people rely on language to accurately convey concepts and observations, whereas euphemisms are intended to disfigure our understanding of reality. So when some odious Bush Administration spokesperson mouths the phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques” in place of the word “torture,” the effect is to fundamentally shift our perception of what’s being done to detainees. This, of course, isn’t an organic cultural transition towards a more popular or aesthetically pleasing or powerful term of art. It’s a deliberate attempt on the part of a few bad people to prevent the public from understanding exactly what’s going on.
5 Comments
November 14, 2008 at 7:38 pm
This is brilliant, and I can’t wait to link to it. I’ve been less eloquently writing (ranting?) about the obfuscation of bureaucratic language over on my blog, and I’m happy to find a co-commiserator.
Given our shared interest, you might appreciate this piece that tries to refocus the debate on the definition of torture by looking at something that sounds really simple: what it is, literally, that happens to a body, and why, medically, we think that it’s torture. It’s a piece of mine, full and bashful disclosure, but it’s remarkably apropos to what you’ve just posted:
Reading the Wounds
November 14, 2008 at 8:05 pm
[...] insightful look at what the bureacratization of language does to experience, from William’s Dispatches The danger of bullshit euphemisms is that they actively obscure meaning. Common usage can’t [...]
November 14, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Thanks jina, I’ll be sure to take a look.
November 14, 2008 at 10:47 pm
[...] Jump to Comments In comments, Jina Moore highlights her excellent article on the doctors who treat torture victims. This is [...]
November 14, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Thanks for the blog post on the article; very much appreciated.