‘Newspeak’ Comes to the Department of Energy

In George Orwell’s novel “1984,” a totalitarian regime now rules the homeland and operates by three slogans: 1) War is peace, 2) freedom is slavery and 3) ignorance is strength. In “1984,” the term “Newspeak” refers to what is essentially a mandatory style guide for using the English language under that regime by substituting Newspeak formulations for common words and phrases so as to make public discourse conform to the ruling party’s orthodoxy. (For a list of Newspeak words and phrases, check here.)

Not surprisingly, failure to conform to this style in written and oral communications is considered a crime. In fact, to think thoughts contrary to those expressed in Newspeak terms is considered a “thoughtcrime” because it implies one’s personal values are not in harmony with official party dogma. Even having a facial expression that appears to imply disagreement with that dogma is a “facecrime.”

Every modern regime tries to regulate the language used by its citizens (or subjects, as the case may be). As I have written previously, “If you want to corrupt a people, corrupt the language.” So, it’s not particularly surprising that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), now controlled by an oil industry insider, has put out its own Newspeak-like manual in the form of an email to department employees which is focused on subtracting certain words and phrases, according to Politico. In the email the DOE is doing to the vocabulary of its personnel what the Trump administration is doing to the government, namely, cutting it.

The latest announcement appears to apply to those working for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and adds to a list that was started some time ago. The list of “words to avoid” now includes:

• clean or dirty energy
• carbon/CO2 footprint
• climate change
• decarbonization
• emissions
• energy transition
• green
• sustainability/sustainable
• tax breaks/tax credits/subsidies

Of course, this off-limits list seems ludicrous, since all of these topics have been widely discussed in publications that fill library shelves and online repositories of scholarly work, journalism and policy papers. How could this directive actually enforce the kind of rigorous elimination of ideas and words, à la “1984,” that are “misaligned with the Administration’s perspectives and priorities” as the email puts it? Of course, it cannot.

However, DOE employees will henceforth not be allowed to use such words, and that will have definite effects on policy discussions for the simple reason that none of the ideas associated with those words will be contemplated in those discussions.

As social psychologist Erich Fromm explains in an afterword to the edition of “1984” that I have, the goal is not simply to force people to say the opposite of what they think. Fromm writes: “[I]n a successful manipulation of the mind the person is no longer saying the opposite of what he thinks, but he thinks the opposite of what it true.”

There is a lot of that going around these days, thanks to social media. People often only have discourse with those with whom they agree and agree to facts that they cannot personally verify and which may be the opposite of what they are told. If this were merely a benign process — say, revolving around the best way to make a Bundt cake — we’d have little to worry about. But it involves the very essence of how we will govern ourselves and how we will face a future of increasingly dangerous climate change and resource depletion.

In “1984,” the main character, Winston, works for the Ministry of Truth, where he helps to rewrite history to conform to the ideological views of the single political party that controls his country. Since the party changes its ideas and policies not infrequently, there are many people like Winston at the ministry rewriting history on a daily basis.

I am reminded of the “Great Soviet Encyclopedia.” In 1953, following the arrest and execution of Lavrentiy Beria, former head of the interior ministry and secret police, the publishers sent out three pages to owners of the encyclopedia on the topics of the Bering Sea and Bishop Berkeley (an Irish philosopher and clergyman), and asked owners to cut out the three pages in their encyclopedias that covered the life of Beria and replace them with these new pages.

As the DOE tries to turn the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy into a mini ministry of truth, we should remember that forces representing the full spectrum of ideological beliefs are constantly putting out versions of history and versions of the present to advance their goals. Some may be accurate, some may merely be selective — no one can write a history of everything or cover the entire span of current events — and some may be flat-out lies.

One telltale sign that you are reading or listening to something that is not giving you the full story will be the language used. If the vocabulary is limited, repetitive and/or sounds like sloganeering, you would do well to be skeptical of the writer or speaker. If the language is expansive and nuanced, there’s a better chance that what you are reading or listening to will have some value.