Doublespeak

Doublespeak is language that is strategically chosen to distort or obscure reality. It is often associated with misleading advertising claims, unethical politicians, and public relations “spin doctors,” who use language to frame a subject in the most positive light. When doublespeak is exposed, it may generate public distrust and be counterproductive to long-term public relations goals.

William Lutz (1989) identifies four types of doublespeak: euphemisms, jargon, “bureaucratese,” and inflated language. Euphemism is language that sugarcoats negative or unpleasant realities. For example, people have their pets “put to sleep,” an overweight boy is “husky” rather than fat, and a down payment is “an initial investment.” Jargon is specialized language that may be unique to a particular industry, occupation, or social group. It may be used to intentionally obscure meaning for those who are outside the group. For example, the term collateral damage has been used to describe the deaths of innocent civilians in wartime. Lutz wrote that sewage sludge may be labeled “regulated organic nutrients” (1997, n.p.). Bureaucratese is characterized by the combination of jargon with lengthy, wandering sentences that attempt to conceal the truth or confuse the listener. This type of doublespeak may be used by officials who wish to appear to be answering a question or addressing an issue, but who are in fact revealing nothing. Inflated language is intended to make the ordinary seem extraordinary. A common tactic is renaming. Store clerks may become “sales associates,” beauty parlors “day spas,” and college home economics programs “family and consumer science” majors. Sometimes doublespeak is introduced so successfully that the terms become accepted as the appropriate, standard terms to use.

Doublespeak is often associated with newspeak, as coined by George Orwell in his 1949 novel, 1984, in which a fictional government attempts to control public thought through the manipulation of language. However, Orwell did not use the term doublespeak. The term entered the popular vocabulary in the United States in the early 1970s as antiwar sentiment spurred challenges to government characterizations of the Vietnam War. In 1972, the National Council of Teachers of English created a Committee on Public Doublespeak to expose the misuse of language by government, military, and corporate officials. The committee began publishing a newsletter in 1974 that eventually became the Quarterly Review of Doublespeak. Although the newsletter ceased publication after more than 20 years, the committee continues to present an annual Doublespeak Award for “language that is grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing or self-contradictory and which has pernicious social or political consequences” (National Council of Teachers of English, 2003). Recent awards have gone to the tobacco industry (2000), the Department of Defense (2001), and a state school system that removed references to Judaism from a literary work about Jewish life in Europe (2002).

Scholars of doublespeak agree that the growth of mass media, advertising, and public relations have contributed to the ubiquitous presence of doublespeak. In particular, demands from news media for spokesperson accessibility and quick public [Page 261]comment may lead pressured officials to resort to doublespeak.

Although most scholars denounce the use of doublespeak, it has been noted that intentional ambiguity may be helpful to organizations confronted by multiple challenges in turbulent environments. “Strategic ambiguity” (1984), according to Eric Eisenberg, strikes a balance among being understood, not offending others, and maintaining one's self-image. He contends that by employing vague, ambiguous, equivocal communication, organizations may avoid creating factions and smooth the path for organizational change. Whether the strategy is ethical, Eisenberg notes, depends on the goals of the communicator.

...