William Lutz Doublespeak

Doublespeak, as described by William Lutz in Doublespeak, is used to convey a point by misleading someone's thought process (26). While doublespeak may not be an outright lie, it is a way of communication used to hide the truth without ever actually contradicting it. In contrast, in Stephanie Ericsson's The Ways We Lie, lying by omission consists of the truth without key facts (3). Regardless of whether doublespeak is an outright lie or just misguidance, its effects can still be detrimental. By describing a genocide as an ethnic cleansing at the time more people were willing to agree to mass killings and afterwards the events were viewed as a conflict between two groups as opposed to being systemic murder.

Over the course of history there have been multiple examples of groups using doublespeak to hide their intentions of completely obliterating entire populations. As stated by William Lutz, "language can easily distort perception and influence behavior and thus be a tool, or weapon for achieving the greatest good or the greatest evil" (30). The term 'ethnic' differentiates a group and causes them to be viewed as outsiders. The term 'cleansing' functions to make on group feel superior due to their natural heritage or 'cleanliness' which consequently

Langman 2

can lead to lack of sympathy and rising tensions.

As opposed to coexisting, a group

resents those they deem inferior. Doublespeak alters people's perspectives and can be used to cause whole societies to live in a delusion. Ericsson describes such a phenomenon as a lie by delusion, "Delusion is the tendency to see excuses as facts" (5). Perpetrators of genocides view their racist beliefs as facts and present them as such to the general population. The term ethnic cleansing hid motives of outright murder through scapegoating and false senses of

superiority.
While reflecting back on history it is easy to fall for the same propaganda and downplaying of tragedy as was presented at the time. For example, children in school are taught about the friendly relations between the Native Americans and colonists, Holocaust deniers exist, significant countries have failed to recognize the Armenian genocide and the Rwandan genocide only ended two decades ago. The harsh reality is that systemic mass murder is more common in human history than we care to admit. Instead of facing history phrasing such as ethnic cleansing is still utilized today to help justify motives for genocide. As Lutz observed, "language thus reflects our perception of reality, which in turn influences and shapes our reactions to people, events, and ideas" (25). In modern day racial tensions still exist so the idea that tensions could escalate seems almost reasonable and justifiable, mainly because the term ethnic cleansing fails to capture the tragedy and horror of what happened. Instead of viewing events as one cultural group attempting to eliminate another, the phrasing almost alludes to two rival groups. The phrasing of cleansing puts on a facade that one group may have truly been inferior. As Ericsson explains, "facades can be destructive because they are used to seduce others into an illusion" (2). Our view of history is skewed and as a result it repeats itself because it is tough to accept the
Langman 3
violence and evilness that could come from human nature. Instead, it is is easier to simply gloss over and lessen the harsh reality through ambiguous terms like ethnic cleansing.
Doublespeak is used to hide the bitter truth that we find hard to accept. As opposed to acknowledging one's desire to be superior at the cost of others people, one chooses to simply believe they are better. As opposed to acknowledging the past cruelty from human nature, one chooses to rationalize the actions of the past.