Limes with Orange

Was watching last night's intro to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and was quite tickled by the segment about the latest report critiquing U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities (and the NY Times' use of the phrase "doody-headed nincompoopery"... one can't help but wonder if the decline in their vocabulary is the result of William Safire's retirement... but I digress). While pondering why the authors of this report didn't seem to have access to the three previous reports that reached the same conclusions, Stewart suggested that a new report would be issued to explain this lack of communication, entitled:

"The Report Commission:
Reporting on Reporting Redundancy on Commission Reporting"
>>> watch segment

Naturally, this made me think of the phrase "Department of Redundancy Department." (Did I mention that this was going to be one of those tangentially meandering blog posts?) And I started trying to figure out who first coined that phrase. I remember reading it in "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer, but I'm sure it was around before then. It almost sounds Orwellian but it's kinda the antithesis of the Newspeak in "1984," which is intended to simplify language to its barest, most essential parts rather than make it more complicated than it needs to be (hmm... complicated like my run-on sentences that spew verbosity at every turn). Ironically, the Newspeak translation of "extremely bad" into "doubleplusungood" actually sounds more complicated to me, even though its root words are simplistic. (By the way, check out this Complete Newspeak Dictionary.) But I'm digressing yet again. (Though how can one tell in such a tangent-based rambling?)

Now where was I? Oh yes, Newspeak. The purpose of Newspeak is to dehumanize language and discount the emotion behind complex constructions of words. So if a culture's language does not contain the word for a concept, will the people of that culture be unable to comprehend it? Apparently, some linguistic anthropologists seem to think so (one website that I stumbled across claimed that Noam Chomsky is one of them, but being more familiar with his anarchist politics than his lingustic theories, I can't vouch for that). Taken to its extreme: if no word for "suffering" exists, how can one appreciate that they are, indeed, suffering? Likewise, how can an oppressed people rebel if they do not understand what "to rebel" means?

Hmm, interesting idea. But I counter with Buffy creator Joss Whedon's claim that language can sometimes have the effect of inhibiting true communication. (Have you seen the Emmy-nominated Buffy episode "Hush"? The majority of the episode is completely without dialogue and what little dialogue there is at the beginning and end of the show focuses on speech and communication... very on theme.) Who was it who said that words conceal as much as they reveal? [Google search result: "Words, like nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within." ~ Alfred, Lord Tennyson]

Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE words (as anybody who reads my blog can attest). But I would argue that the hypothetical culture that doesn't have a word for suffering or rebellion will still suffer and rebel AND communicate about it. That communication may involve action or art instead of language, but the lack of a word doesn't prevent the intuitive thought. Does it? Or maybe I'm naive and uneducated and I just need to read more about the various theories of linguistics. And maybe that's more than enough inconclusive ramblings for today.

Labels: books and literature, buffy, humour, jon stewart, language, philosophy, politics, tv