Arizona Daily Wildcat advertising info
UA news
world news
sports
arts
perspectives
comics
crossword
cat calls
police beat
photo features
special reports
classifieds
archives
search
advertising

UA Basketball
Housing Guide - Spring 2002
restaurant, bar and party guide
FEEDBACK
Write a letter to the Editor

Contact the Daily Wildcat staff

Send feedback to the web designers


AZ STUDENT MEDIA
Arizona Student Media info...

Daily Wildcat staff alumni...

TV3 - student tv...

KAMP - student radio...

Wildcat Online Banner

Say anything

Illustration by Josh Hagler
By Caitlin Hall
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday Apr. 3, 2002

I was flipping through a copy of George Orwell's "1984" this weekend when a passage caught my eye: "For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary· to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgment should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets. His training fitted him to do this, the language gave him an almost foolproof instrument, and the texture of the words, with their harsh sound and a certain willful ugliness which was in accord with the spirit of (the Party), assisted the process still further."

Intrigued by the idea, I took to my computer in search of elaboration. On one site - whose owner, I must confess, seemed to nurse an unhealthy obsession with the book - I found this: "By removing meaning and nuance from the vocabulary, the (Party) hopes to eradicate seditious and anti-social thinking before it even has the chance to enter a person's mind. Without the vocabulary for revolution, there can be no revolution."

Those last words hit me like a freight train. Why, you might ask, would I be so affected by one man's seemingly paranoid vision of totalitarianism? Because it hits a little too close to home.

The 1980s were good times to be a conservative. Many - most - of the reforms that had been instituted as a result of the women's, civil, and human rights movements were drastically scaled back in the name of modernization and fiscal sensibility. Under the coddling auspices of two Republican presidents, a strong conservative backlash began to take hold of American politics, and it has not let up since.

One effect of this often-subtle backlash has been the uprooting of our pre-Reagan vocabulary to be more in sync with a conservative agenda. Words that were originally used as tools to reinforce a liberal viewpoint became instead weapons to advance a conservative one.

Take for example the terms "liberal" and "feminist," both of which have been perverted drastically. Either one of these terms, when strategically applied, would cause the average American to recoil in disgust or self-defense. Being called a communist or radical or atheist is considered by many to be a tremendous insult. However, there is nothing inherently sinister about any of these terms.

However, during the past 20 years, they have come to be associated - sometimes subconsciously - with all sorts of unrelated beliefs, ideas and emotions. A perfect example is the term "feminist." Through the years, it has come to have many associated terms, among them "man-hater," "lesbian," "femi-nazi," "aggressive" and "bitter."

These terms certainly have not been suggested by any liberal force - on the contrary, they are a product of willful manipulation by conservative ones. And just like in "1984," they are the result of an effort to purge words of their old meanings entirely, and hence to render them meaningless.

This campaign is not an organized one. It is often the sum of many subtle forces, rather than a single, direct one. However, its decentralization doesn't make it any less relevant to politics, or any less harmful to the liberal agenda.

Often, it has the (desired) effect of slanting political discourse by making the liberal viewpoint unapproachable. The stigma attached to necessary terms means that many debates are assumed to be ridiculous in advance, and hence unnecessary.

This situation is far preferable to actually having to address issues raised by liberalism through debate and hence legitimizing them even in some small way. I actually heard a female UofA Bookstore employee utter the words, "Yeah, I believe in equality and all that, but I'm not a FEMINIST. Those people are CRAZY!"

I wanted to ask her exactly what her definition of "feminist" was, but I restrained myself.

The point is this: We need to get back to the root meanings of words. Otherwise, the meanings behind our political statements, and the way we express them will continue to be eroded until debate is no longer useful. It's already begun to happen. So next time someone calls you a dirty name - like "feminist" - don't be so quick to react. Think about what they're saying, consult a dictionary if necessary, and thank them.

And remember: Without the vocabulary for change, there can be no change.

ARTICLES

advertising info

UA NEWS | WORLD NEWS | SPORTS | ARTS | PERSPECTIVES | COMICS
CLASSIFIEDS | ARCHIVES | CONTACT US | SEARCH
Webmaster - webmaster@wildcat.arizona.edu
© Copyright 2001 - The Arizona Daily Wildcat - Arizona Student Media