http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2013/12/richard-hall-orwells-new-newspeak.html
December 5. 2013
(Mod: I was digging around for
articles so that I could concoct a "Weekend News" post last Saturday
when I ran across something so good I decided to go with it alone.
Written by a gentleman named Richard Hall for a SF Bay Area blog called Save Marinwood (link), it skewers a lot of the sorts of language being used by the likes of our very own EENER Commission
in its efforts to coerce unwanted high density urbanization into our
little tree filled low density village. The phony rationale being that
block after block of stacked and packed condos are "sustainable," and
will somehow save the world from climate catastrophe. Laughable, of
course. But isn't that how you sell bad things in California? You tell
people it will save the world? Here's the article.)
Orwell's New Newspeak: Decoding Sustainability Rhetoric
In 1984
George Orwell describes a totalitarian state that
asserted control by redefining language. Advocates for urbanizing Bay
Area towns have leveraged these techniques. We need to educate ourselves
to cleanly understand the arguments.
George Orwell wrote
1984 about a totalitarian state that asserted control by appropriating and controlling language - a language called "newspeak" (
link). This aspect of 1984 was based on an essay written by Orwell in 1946 entitled "
Politics and the English language." In the essay Orwell states:
"Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
A euphemism is an expression substituted for one considered to be too
harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
While we don't necessarily face a totalitarian state (although some
readers may disagree with me), we face powerful political groups -
developers, planners, transit advocates, social equity groups and
HUD - that have united in a way that is almost as ominous.
Language is one of the tools being used by the fast growth lobby to
control the conversation, promoting high density housing and transit
oriented development.
Too often we are faced with articles written to convince us that we must
do something in the name of sustainability - accept high density
housing, use transit instead of driving ... In these articles the true
intent and meaning is concealed by tools such as euphemisms,
disinformation and demonization.
Exactly How Is Our Language Being Subverted?
Here is a list of just some of the many terms being used to convince us to accept certain policies such as "
transit oriented development" and "
high density housing".
Affordable Housing (Euphemism) = Subsidized Housing: Lets face
it, affordable housing is nothing more than subsidized housing; only
instead of focusing on the cost the term focuses exclusively on the
benefit. Who wouldn't want more affordable housing if it's free?
Sites like the monstrous
Win Cup in
Corte Madera were
approved partly to meet housing quotas for affordable housing - but turn
out in reality to be about making profits (Win Cup is almost entirely
market rate).
European (Euphoric) = Idyllic or Nostalgic Promised Land: All too
often we are sold a story that we need to be more like somewhere else
where the grass is greener - like Europe (but focusing exclusively on
the good aspects) or America of yesteryear where everyone would enjoy
traveling on trains or trolley cars in the golden age of travel.
What is omitted is that
Europe has spent vast amounts of public
money to build and operate a transit network. Even now fares are very
high and often out of reach to those with low incomes enabling true
mobility. Operation places substantial burdens on the state. To achieve
any parallel in the US would require significant tax increases making
the cost of living less affordable for all.
Smart Growth (Euphemism) = Urbanization: Remember a euphemism is
an expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt
when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
Transit Oriented Development (Glittering Generality) = Systematic Urbanization:
Transit oriented development is heralded as the progressive future, but
little evidence is produced to substantiate this approach. For instance
the fact that transit usage has been in decline in our region despite
massive increases in investment is conveniently dismissed. The fact that
cars are the preferred form of transportation for many journeys, and
that they are cleaner (lower emissions per passenger mile) than transit
on all but the most popular transit lines is dismissed. Rather the car
and it's tailpipe emissions are demonized.
Workforce Housing (Half truth) = Housing Presuming Commute Patterns:
This sells the half truth that new housing will contain a high
proportion of residents that will live nearer to their work, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. In reality:
- Little or no control can be imposed over where the residents work
(E.g. there is no criteria eliminating applicants who would extend their
commutes).
- There is rarely any study to analyze if this is achieved. When the LA Times conducted such a study in 2007 (
link) they thoroughly demolished the myth of workforce housing.
The reality is that such housing may cause people to extend their
commutes, or simply have no such impact, yet it may impose substantial
costs, congestion and parking issues.
Open Up the Waterfront (Big Lie, Misinformation) = Close Off with High Rises:
The biggest lie that was well spotted by residents was the attempt to
build high density housing across the San Francisco waterfront at
Embarcadero. Luckily San Francisco voters saw right through this
masquerade (
link).
Sustainable (Glittering Generality) = Superior Based on Rules We Made Up:
While there are many that use this term correctly, there are a sizable
number that use it as a method of convincing others that their approach
is superior, and it is not to be questioned.
Community Outreach (Obfuscation) = Obtaining the Appearance of Community Support:
ABAG and MTC like to state that Plan Bay Area had over 250 community
meetings to collect community input - but what is omitted and obfuscated
is that most of those meetings were attended by a sizable number of
vocal opponents. Many supporters of PBA were organizations that received
money (patronage) and contracts, and shaped the plan before community
input truly began.
Vibrant (Oversimplification) = Success that will follow if you adhere to our doctrine:
Vibrant describes a positive state but typically there is no concrete
argument or analysis or definition of this end state. As such it is a
gross oversimplification. For instance it is often stated that transit
oriented development helps town centers become "more vibrant." What they
may intend is "there will be more business as there will be more people
walking around."
However it would be easy to argue that improving access to cars through
improved roads and parking may be much more likely to achieve such an
effect. Just look at the success of malls. This
Washington Post article (
link) explains the quandary well ultimately surmising that a big box store like
Target with car parking in a town center is what drives shoppers.
Our Ability To Judge Is Being Removed
Ultimately this double-speak is removing the ability for many of us to
make an accurate judgment. The judgement is being made for us and built
into convincing words.
This is an intellectual travesty. We need to have conversations about the reality.
Orwell's Remedy Of Six Rules
Thankfully
George Orwell left us with a 6 point approach to solving the issue:
1)
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
The majority of the times that these types of phrases are being used,
they are being used without the knowledge of what is truly being said.
By using these techniques the phrases are rendered meaningless. I would
say that the following terms fall into this category: smart,
sustainable.
2)
Never use a long word where a short one will do. Orwell
describes"Pretentious diction" and "Meaningless Words". He cites
“romantic, plastic, values, human, [and] dead” stating “they not only
do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly even expected to
do so by the reader”. Here I would point to: vibrant, workforce
housing, social equity...
3)
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. E.g. Smart growth = growth. Smart train = train.
4)
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5)
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Of all the rules this is where we are being bombarded the most with jargon like:
- Transit Oriented Development
- Walkable Communities (I can walk 10 minutes and get to shops and cinema right now, but apparently it's not walkable enough)
- Priority Development Areas - areas marked for intensive urbanization
- Workforce Stabilization
Orwell's condemns such "grand phrases".
6)
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Orwell's last rule means that the writer should break the previous
rules when necessary for a proper sentence. The writer should not use
the English language to manipulate or deceive the reader.
Postscript
There are many good people working to fight climate change. I for one
see the need. We need to be having the right conversations following
Orwell's rules, not using propaganda techniques.
We can have fact-based undistorted conversations, we can fight climate
change and recognize that there are cost effective, market based
transportation solutions that don't necessarily need us to make radical
shifts to high density or transit. As mentioned in my prior article -
car and highway technology is rapidly changing, and the car offers a
degree of convenience that is hard for transit to beat. And we do need
to be providing transportation ensuring that those with low incomes are
provided opportunity.
Achieving these objectives should occur based on truth in conversation.
(Mod: Another article worth checking out is called "Smart Growth is Not Green. Low Density Housing Better for the Environment." Click here.)
Interesting SCAG-centric article up on the Pasadena Star News site this morning
New report says poverty on the rise throughout Southern California (
link): Speaking of the Orwellian,
SCAG informs us that poverty is on the rise in Southern California. Forgive me for asking, but as our
Regional Planning Organization responsible for dealing with such things as poverty and economic displacement, wouldn't
SCAG have to bear some of the blame for this deplorable condition?