In his dystopian novel 1984, George Orwell considers how our
vocabulary shapes our thoughts. The appendix of his book gives a detailed
account of Newspeak, the new language designed by the governing ‘Party’ officials.
Newspeak is a highly condensed version of English: “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 [the ideology of the Party] but to make all
other modes of thought impossible.” Without words such as ‘freedom’, the Party
hopes it will no longer be possible to think about dissent.
At last week’s Moot Dr Iain McGilchrist
asked, ‘What happened to the Soul?’ Noting the fall in the use of the word, he
issued a call to arms to save the word ‘Soul’ from terminal decline. He argued
that its loss in our everyday vocabulary would be damaging. It is a word that
helps us to talk about the spiritual, and when we apply it to other people it
implies the depth and value of every human. But unlike Orwell, McGilchrist does
not believe that the loss of a word to describe a concept threatens the concept’s
existence, nor would it be impossible for individuals to think about that
concept. Rather, the problem is that we cannot so easily explain to another
person what we mean: the reduction of our vocabulary also reduces our ability
to communicate effectively, and it does not allow for as much nuance.
The number of people growing up within
a Christian context is decreasing significantly. Meanwhile, the Church
continues to use a vocabulary that is increasingly alien to those outside it.
We acknowledge the importance of spiritual concepts being kept alive through
discussion. But then we risk, if we continue to speak only in our own ‘church’
language without explanation, being misunderstood – or more likely ignored – by
a public who do not recognise our vocabulary.
Claire Browes
Ministerial Assistant
