The ‘Woke’ Word Mangle: How Language Became Dangerous

If you've not already done so, I suggest reading Orwell's The Principles of Newspeak for a prophetic look at what wokeism is doing to the language.

From The European Conservative

By Jack Watson

'Offence archaeologists' seek ways either to be offended themselves or to seek offence for others, where none exists.

The English language emerged in the 5th century when Germanic people invaded Britain. English today is a changing language that has been influenced by different cultures and languages, including Latin, French, and Dutch. As of 2022, there are 1.4 billion English speakers across the world. Meaning that 17.5% of the world’s population speaks the language. In fact, it is the most widely spoken language.

This wonderful language, though, is being destroyed by people changing the meaning of certain words. Some of this is merely slang, or what might be called ‘street language,’ which evolves within given social groups. However, with the rise of social media and the growth of more popular and youth-oriented television series, like Top Boy using the colloquial words ‘fam’, ‘wagwan’ and ‘peng’  throughout the show, films, like Blue Story with the characters saying ‘innit’ and ‘bruv’, and a complete genre of adolescent fiction, such as The Hate U Give series using the ‘N-word,’ these words creep into the everyday lexicon of wider society. In that sense, the appearance of neologisms is relatively harmless. 

Taking the word ‘sick’ as an example. The meaning of ‘sick’ is ‘feeling nauseated’ or ‘affected by physical or mental illness.’ That is what I have always known the word to mean until I heard somebody say: ‘that was a sick film.’ I initially thought that the film made the person feel sick; in fact, they were saying it in a complimentary manner. They were actually saying that the film was enjoyable. Is is strange how a word that is often used in a negative way, is used in a positive way.

Next take the word ‘bare’—which has recently entered the Urban Dictionary— as another example. The word ‘bare’ traditionally means ‘not clothed or covered’ or ‘without addition; basic and simple.’ It is also a short way of saying ‘barely,’ which means ‘only just; almost not.’ When I heard someone say ‘I have bare of those’ I thought that the person meant that he did not have many of them. But I was wrong, he was using it to describe the large quantity of items that he had. I do not know how people can think that a word meaning ‘in fewer quantities’ can be used to describe large amounts of something; it does not make sense. But it’s infectious. I accidentally use this word in the wrong way, sometimes, and that is because it is becoming very common amongst most of the people I know. That just shows how the actual meaning of the word ‘bare’ is becoming buried day by day.

On the other hand, the changes we are witnessing in our use of language can lead to harm. The reason these changes occur is that, over time, some people begin to find certain words offensive. As they grow less common, words referring to groups of people are particularly likely to have this fate. As a result, those offended by a given term wish for the word to be stigmatised or even banned from use in polite society. In time, they may even want to punish any person who has, even inadvertently, run afoul of the preferred idiom. This punishment tends to involve calling that he be removed from positions of visibility and influence—‘cancelled,’ in current parlance—and expecting him to make a public apology. For example, the actor Benedict Cumberbatch had to make a grovelling apology for accidentally using the word “coloured” with reference to ‘people of colour.’ This is despite the fact that the NAACP (the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People) still exists in the United States.

Some words have already been ruined, and you can get into trouble for using some of them in the wrong circumstances. Take the word ‘gay’ as an example—one that was used frequently, in its original meaning, by authors such as J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord Of The Rings (however, it is not used once in the series of films based on the trilogy). The word ‘gay, in today’s parlance, means ‘sexually or romantically attracted exclusively to people of one’s own sex or gender (used especially of a man).’ People of my generation have been brought up with that meaning. However, when I was in year six at school, I came across the word being used in a book and the teacher had to tell most of us that the word meant: light-hearted and carefree or happy. The original meaning has become completely obscured to the point that it is rarely used in its original context. Even Google says that the old meaning is “archaic.”

Nevertheless, words do often have two meanings such as ‘cross’ meaning angry or ‘cross’ as in the religious symbol and words fall out of use, for example the word ‘defective’ is no longer applied to people with lower-than-average intelligence who are normally referred to now as having ‘learning difficulties. However, there is a political motivation behind the changing use of some words which, in addition to changing the use of the words, can lead people into trouble if they persist in using them.

Another example is the word ‘faggot,’ about which I recently wrote in The New Conservative. We have recently had an issue with this word, used in the famous Christmas song Fairytale of New York written in the late 1980s and performed by Irish band The Pogues. This resulted in the song being cancelled and the lyrics changed, by overdubbing, to ones considered less offensive. The word has been taken completely out of context. The word has several meanings: the original meaning was ‘a bundle of sticks bound together as fuel’; the food meaning ‘meatballs made from minced off-cuts and offal’ and the current meaning: a derogatory term for a gay man (not a happy man!) In these days, no matter in which context you say the word, you will instantly be criticised for using it. Changing the word so drastically is completely absurd. Instead of saying: “I am going to the shop to buy some faggots” you will have to replace that by saying: “I am going to the shop to buy those things made of mince.” Are more popular songs going to be altered or cancelled (as has happened very recently with the Welsh rugby anthem Delilah which the Welsh Rugby Union tried to ban) because people cannot accept their lyrics? Thankfully, the Welsh rugby fans, who are more sensible than the ‘woke’ censorship brigade, sang it as usual.

This is clear evidence of the field of etymology (the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history), which brings us nicely to the word ‘field.’ This has come from a University of Southern California School of Social Work in America (sorry, the United States) as the word ‘field’ has possible racist connotations. The meaning of field is ‘an area of open land’ or ‘a particular branch of study or sphere of activity or interest.’ They announced that the word might have unpleasant connotations for the descendants of ‘enslaved people.’ If this is the case, then is this not the same as saying grass (as found in a field, not smoked) a racist word? It seems people are deliberately finding words that could show any signs of racism—like ‘offence archaeologists’—to have them banned so that they can be praised by the people who may find it offensive. It may only be this university which has proscribed this word; however, it will spread across the world within a few months. Likewise, you will not be able to ask your mate to ‘play football on the field.’ Also, you cannot say the word ‘mate’ anymore. The reason for this is unexplained by the UK Home Office, which originally banned the word ‘mate.’ 

We must accept that the meaning and use of words changes continually, and without this language will not evolve. Therefore, changing the use of words is not in itself a bad thing. But the key word here is ‘evolution’, a gradual process of adapting to new circumstances and new times and where there is some consensus over how words are used. Thus, it is good that we no longer refer to black people using the racial epithet referred to earlier, disabled people are no longer referred to as ‘cripples’ or people with cerebral palsy as ‘spastic’ because the people involved found these words both inaccurate and offensive. Disability has a social context and spasticity is a merely feature of cerebral palsy.

However, for political reasons, there are people who try to exploit our innocent acceptance of the changing use of words and who try to speed up this process for their own ends. George Orwell saw this coming in 1984; he understood that whoever controls language controls the masses. For instance, everyday words which people use without intending to offend such as ‘savage’, ‘blindsided’, ‘blacklisted’ and even ‘spooky’ have the ‘woke’ spotlight shone on them. This is not evolution, it is the result of the deliberations of the offence archaeologists who seek ways either to be offended themselves or to seek offence for others, where none exists. This instils fear in people who are writers and public speakers as it is impossible to keep up with the ‘woke’ word manglers.

The result is that we are becoming limited in the number of words that we can use and that is going to influence future generations. They will not be able to read the same books, watch the same films and have conversations the way we do now. I believe that we will end up communicating with hand gestures, using our heads to say ‘yes’ and ‘no’ or, worryingly, not communicate at all. As Lionel Shriver speculated in The Spectator, the pages of our dictionaries are eventually going to look like those lacy snowflakes children snip at Christmas. Oh dear, did I just say ‘snowflakes?’