When I first encountered George Orwell’s 1984, I was too young to fully appreciate what I was reading. I picked it up for the accelerated reader points, not the politics—some required reading that I assumed would earn me a an extra prize at the upcoming book fair. At the time, the concept of Newspeak struck me as funny: a language deliberately constructed to simplify vocabulary, restrict grammar, and foster ignorance. Later, it felt like satire—but satire cuts to the bone when it’s too close to the truth.
The brilliance of Orwell’s Newspeak wasn’t how alien it seemed initially, but how familiar it gradually became as time passed and I thought back on it. “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc,” he wrote, “but to make all other modes of thought impossible.” The aim wasn’t persuasion; it was preemption. Not to win an argument, but to prevent an argument from ever arising. Not to censor thoughts already expressed, but to remove the very words needed to form them in the first place.
Orwell elaborated on this in his essay Politics and the English Language, warning that “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” This principle transcends fiction. Whenever institutions deliberately distort words—whether through corporate spin or political jargon—our very capacity for clear thinking is eroded. We can sense a problem, but find ourselves lacking the linguistic tools to name it accurately.
Such is the function of strategic language today. It doesn’t signal genuine changes so much as mask, trivialize, and rebrand. Problems sprout—corporate failures, social injustices, economic collapses—and we wait for solutions. Instead, we get a handful of new terms. An outcry becomes a “miscommunication,” a layoff morphs into “workforce optimization,” and protest movements are reframed as “unrest” or “organized disruptions.” Each rebrand diffuses urgency, flattening our sense of crisis into something that feels almost routine.
Recommended Listening:
Diminishment
Language bridges the gap between what we experience and what we understand. When euphemisms alter that bridge, our perceptions shift. A simple example is how “recession” can be recast as “economic soft landing,” numbing immediate anxieties about job losses or housing foreclosures. Homelessness re-emerges as “housing insecurity,” reframed as a temporary inconvenience rather than evidence of structural collapse. These aren’t just random linguistic tics; they’re carefully chosen deflections.
Beyond their immediate obfuscation, euphemisms also warp historical understanding. When official records adopt sanitized language, we lose the rawness that once conveyed moral urgency. “Shellshock” once captured the soul-crushing aftermath of war. After successive rebrands—“battle fatigue,” “post-traumatic stress disorder,” “adjustment disorder”—the public’s impression softens. The moral horror recedes behind terms that sound more medical or vaguely clinical. The violence itself never went away, but our collective memory loses the vocabulary for it.
This process is precisely what George Orwell cautioned against in 1984 when he wrote: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” If a crisis is renamed before it is fully acknowledged, it can be effectively hidden from public recognition. By the time the sanitized term becomes official doctrine, the raw language that once spurred action has already been retired. Instead of describing agony and injustice, we speak a language that muffles both.
The result isn’t natural linguistic evolution; it’s erasure. Over time, entire events and their underlying problems are systematically robbed of clarity, severing any real possibility of reckoning or reform.
Facade
Nowhere is this phenomenon more refined than in corporate communications. Clarity is not the aim; containment is. A product failure is not a “disaster”; it is “a deprioritization aligned with shifting business goals.” An employee is never “fired”; they are “invited to explore new career opportunities.” A fiasco that might threaten the company’s reputation gets repackaged as “brand repositioning challenges.” The result is a choreographed performance of change.
To the casual observer, each rebranding sounds like progress—new initiatives, new plans, new directions. But the actual failures or grievances remain. Activist investors may demand accountability after a scandal, only to receive a glossy pledge of “transparency” and “corporate values.” Workers might push for unionization over unsafe conditions, met instead with a “renewed commitment to well-being” that looks good in a press release but rarely changes daily realities.
This, in essence, echoes a quip often attributed to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand: “Speech was given to man to conceal his thoughts.” Under corporate-speak, language becomes a shield for harmful decisions. CEOs and spokespeople conceal human consequences behind carefully curated phrases designed to soothe shareholders and deflate public outrage.
Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in The Prince that leaders must prioritize the appearance of virtue over the reality. Although Machiavelli was speaking to rulers and princes, corporations have perfected this same art of maintaining a clean facade. Properly branded illusions can assuage investors, pacify consumers, and leave the actual victims of corporate negligence largely unheard.
Detachment
Governments adopt similar techniques, but the stakes can be even higher. Consider how the U.S. Department of War—an unambiguous title—became the Department of Defense, implying a purely protective mission. “Enhanced interrogation” replaced “torture,” making it sound like a policy detail instead of a moral and legal atrocity. Drone strikes that kill civilians are reported as “collateral damage,” quietly detaching these deaths from real human lives.
Bureaucracies thrive on what could be called the language of distance. Institutions refer to police brutality as “use-of-force incidents,” while war crimes morph into “rules of engagement violations.” The passive, bureaucratic tone creates a fog of impersonal phrasing, giving officials plausible deniability. For the public, accountability becomes a labyrinth of reports and statements that studiously avoid direct, active language.
Media outlets, for all their fact-checking, frequently replicate these official terms, either out of habit or complicity. “Unrest erupts” rather than “armed police violently suppress demonstrators.” “Kinetic engagements intensify” instead of “bombings escalate.” Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, warned that totalitarian powers thrive not by forcing the public to accept falsehoods but by making it impossible to distinguish truth from fiction. “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule,” she wrote, is not the unwavering fanatic, but the person “for whom the distinction between fact and fiction … no longer exists.” When media language defaults to euphemisms, that distinction starts to vanish.
Obfuscation
Rebranding isn’t an accidental outcome; it’s a carefully deployed strategy designed to manage problems so large that institutions would rather rename them than resolve them. Poverty is framed as “economic hardship,” implying it’s a passing misfortune rather than a systemic condition. War becomes “kinetic military action,” as if the conflict were a mere technical matter rather than a profound moral and human crisis.
This kind of strategic labeling doesn’t deny a problem outright; it transforms the lens through which the public views it. Instead of wrestling with moral questions—Is this war unjust? Why does this nation have such high poverty rates?—the debate gets shunted to procedural concerns. The conversation shifts to “management” and “oversight,” thereby deflating potential outrage.
In this context, Machiavelli’s insight remains timeless: if the veneer is convincing, many will accept that veneer as reality. True accountability or reform takes a backseat to maintaining the story—a story that assures the public that every failure is simply a “strategic pivot.” In so doing, rebranding spares the powerful from meaningful consequences. Outrage dissipates, and structural issues remain firmly in place.
Collateral
Language manipulation comes at a high cost. Its effects radiate in multiple directions:
1. Individual Disorientation
People face genuine hardship—a lost job, a national crisis, or direct state violence—and yet officials and employers describe these events in sanitized terms. That cognitive dissonance can cause many to question whether their reactions are overblown. After all, if it’s just “workforce optimization,” was the harm really that severe?
2. Societal Apathy and Alienation
The more official language cushions harsh realities, the more numb society becomes. Frequent headlines about “market corrections,” “restructuring,” and “collateral damage” blur into a dull hum of corporate-bureaucratic noise. Outrage or collective action feels misplaced when the system’s own language normalizes crises.
3. Institutional Immunity
If no event is ever framed honestly—a war never called a war, a financial meltdown never called a failure—who’s to be held responsible? Bureaucracies excel at this: each disaster is simply “unprecedented.” Each scandal is a “compliance oversight.” Patterns of harm vanish under a barrage of new buzzwords.
4. Erosion of Moral Boundaries
Language doesn’t just report; it shapes the ethical parameters of debate. If torture is “enhanced interrogation,” the moral stakes are downplayed. Wittgenstein famously said, “The limits of my language are the limits of my world.” By limiting the words we use to describe atrocities, we also limit our moral universe, shrinking the space in which outrage and accountability can flourish.
5. Historical Amnesia
Decades from now, documents packed with jargon will be the official records. Future researchers might struggle to piece together the real stories behind terms like “collateral damage” or “management recalibration.” The cause-and-effect relationships that led to human suffering may be nearly impossible to parse when official language systematically obscures them.
Acquiescence
Why do so many people go along with this system of “eternal rebrand”? On one level, it’s exhausting to parse and challenge every corporate memo, every official statement, every media report. Society inundates us with words designed to sedate our outrage. It requires vigilance and energy to continually confront spin.
Additionally, many of us grow up taught to trust institutions or at least to believe they mean well. A stable society relies to some degree on believing that authorities act in good faith. Admitting that these same authorities may be more concerned with managing appearances than solving problems can be unsettling.
On top of this, many individuals issuing these euphemisms are themselves cogs within larger systems. PR professionals, corporate spokespeople, bureaucrats—they use established vocabulary, sometimes without fully grasping the deeper ramifications. The cyclical nature of rebranding persists, perpetuated by each new wave of communications specialists trained to neutralize controversies with appealing verbiage.
Precedent
These manipulative patterns have deep historical precedents. Ancient Rome used damnatio memoriae—the systematic erasure of someone’s name and achievements from official history—to annihilate both the person’s legacy and any potential dissent. Modern rebranding operates in a parallel fashion, deleting the uncomfortable truths that threaten to undermine current power structures.
Jonathan Swift and other satirists of the 18th century lampooned the corruptibility of political language. Hannah More, writing around the same era, highlighted how a carefully controlled lexicon could shape public morality. The phenomenon is hardly new; it’s just grown more sophisticated. Modern technology accelerates how quickly euphemisms spread—social media posts, bullet-point press releases, viral hashtags. By the time we realize a term is misleading, it’s already entrenched in everyday discourse.
Philosophers like Michel Foucault and Hannah Arendt underscored how language isn’t just a vehicle for describing reality; it shapes the boundaries of what we consider possible or permissible. The more a population relies on the language provided by those in power, the more that power can define the population’s collective worldview.
Reclamation
Is there an antidote? Resistance often begins by calling things what they are. Where an official statement says “collateral damage,” we insist on “civilians killed in a drone strike.” Where a corporate press release boasts of “unprecedented synergy,” we might translate that as “cost-cutting at workers’ expense.” Such direct, plain-speaking language can feel jarring—especially in formal contexts that expect neutrality—but that discomfort is precisely what resists the smoothing-over effect of spin.
Václav Havel wrote in The Power of the Powerless about how entire populations “live within a lie” when they internalize state-sponsored slogans. The antidote he proposed was the seemingly simple (yet radical) act of “living in truth,” refusing to repeat euphemisms. In our own climate, “living in truth” means deliberately avoiding the newest buzzwords designed to bury injustice. It’s uncomfortable and often unpopular, but it’s a critical step in preserving the link between language and reality.
Yet, the moment a plain-spoken term gains traction, official forces will try to rename it. That’s why vigilance must be ongoing. Naming atrocities, calling out corporate malpractice, and debunking spin is not a one-time effort—it’s an unending process. If definition is domination, then winning the right to define reality—and to use language that confronts it head-on—becomes the core struggle.
Commodification
Commercial and state interests have turned language itself into a commodity. Entire PR departments exist to “shape the narrative.” Foundations tout “public-private partnerships” to distract from labor abuses or environmental damage. Even existential crises like climate change get recast as “climate variability” or “environmental challenges.” This framing keeps the discussion technical, sidestepping moral accountability.
Social media further complicates matters. Hashtags boil complex crises down to bite-size slogans. Corporations, politicians, and influencers quickly latch onto trending phrases—spinning them with subtle rebrands to soothe or polarize public sentiment. By the time a deeper critique emerges, the environment has already shifted to the next viral phrase or tagline.
Therefore, we find ourselves in a marketplace of words where the highest bidder or the most strategic speaker sets the tone. The challenge is differentiating genuine communication from carefully orchestrated illusions—a task that grows harder when illusions saturate our feeds, workplaces, and public institutions.
Reckoning
This endless cycle of rebrands is neither trivial nor accidental. The architects of power—CEOs, politicians, media moguls—understand exactly how potent words can be. Their children attend institutions that teach debate, rhetoric, and public relations as a form of modern aristocratic armor. The rest of us, generally, do not receive comparable training. We’re rarely taught how to deconstruct a press release or decode political spin.
As Ludwig Wittgenstein famously warned, “The limits of my language are the limits of my world.” If euphemisms continually shrink our vocabulary for naming oppression, exploitation, or violence, then they also shrink the world in which we can conceive genuine solutions. We’re left with a dictionary of softened terms that anesthetize us to the actual stakes.
Thus, the only path to genuine awareness—and, eventually, actual change—is to insist on words that cut close to the core, that capture injustice rather than hiding it. To name cruelty as cruelty. To call deception a lie, not a “misstatement.” To label an atrocity an atrocity, and not let it slip by as “complex conflict dynamics.” If nothing else, this reasserts our shared humanity by refusing to let the pain of reality be smothered under layers of corporate and bureaucratic doublespeak.
Ultimately, the eternal rebrand is a battle over how reality itself is framed. Words are not mere tools but contested territory. The question is whether we’ll cede that territory to those who profit from polite distortions, or reclaim it through plain, forceful speech that demands moral reckoning. If definition truly is domination, then defending our language is more than semantics—it is, at root, an act of defiance that preserves the possibility of seeing the world as it is and refusing to accept the status quo.
Leave a comment