The politics of lexicology

THE researchers at the Collins Dictionary language division have this week released a list of words it says are no longer used in the English language.

The words have become obsolete and will only be featured in large dictionaries from now on. These words are not just unfashionable, in many cases, they describe devices which are not used anymore such as the ‘ciclogyro’; a type of aircraft propelled by rotating blades. It is difficult to say whether you are more or less likely to find a ‘wittol’ these days than you were in the past (it’s a man who knows of and tolerates his wife’s infidelity) but whether or not you will, the word has dropped out of popular usage. These words, while echoing the past, keep it alive. They embody concepts from times and places many of us will never know and, as such, are valuable in themselves. Similarly, the new language being born every day is vital and necessary to reflect the changing landscape into which it emerges.
Phrases, like words, are coined all the time to describe events and movements. The most recent of these has been the Arab Spring which, at the time of writing, seems to have spread fully to Libya where the despot Muammar Gaddafi has ruled for the last 42 years. If Libya does experience regime change, then the phrase ‘Arab Spring’ may soon enter the popular lexicon and stand beside ‘Watergate’ in terms of political significance.
When considering language, the change between boom and bust in Ireland has been very significant. Where ‘buy-to-let’ once held sway in the property pages of newspapers now ‘foreclosure’ is more commonly found.
‘Moore’s Law’ is used in electronics as a yardstick for the development of capacity. It states that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
Our phones, thanks in the main to the achievements in line with ‘Moore’s Law’, have gone from existing to containing cameras, to being essentially mini computers in the space of little over a decade and yet many people do not bat an eyelid. What was new this morning will be old news by tomorrow was to be the way of the newspaper. This too has ceased to be a timescale of any significance in the era of 24-hour news channels and perpetual internet access. The lifespan between cutting edge and obsolescence seems to be getting shorter all the time.   
What seem strangely absent from this new culture of obsolescence are some clearly failed forms of politics. The neo-liberal capitalist agenda has plunged the world into a chaotic funk of instability and disorder and yet no language has come into being to describe this failure.
We have recycled phrases like crash and recession from the last time it happened in the 1930s but no new descriptions have been adopted that might indicate any change. This is particularly interesting when compared with the language that emerged in the 1990s following the ‘fall of Communism’. In the years that followed, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the language used left us in no doubt that the political ideology had ‘failed’, something that would be studied by historians and future generations only in the context of its failure. Instead, what we have been subjected to in the aftermath of capitalism’s failure is a language laced with references to ‘cuts’. This amounts to nothing more than euphemism for tax payers, workers and ordinary people carrying the financial can for bankers, investors and cowboys, while the status quo is re-established. In fact, it will be a new high water mark for the ideology given that government supports for citizens have been so dramatically slashed in the aftermath of the destruction that the nest of private sector comfort will be feathered through the sale of services to those disenfranchised by the cuts.      
It can be argued that what brings about obsolescence in something is its replacement or being superseded by something else. This is generally taken to mean that there is improvement in the process. In the case of technology, this is a reasonable assumption in that the devices become quicker, smaller and more powerful as they move through the phases. In the wider context, however, even technology must be considered with a more focused lens and a colder eye. Certainly, smaller faster devices are more desirable to consumers but what do they offer the wider societal good? What effect does their production have on the planet and the people who make them? Examined in this context, we can quickly see that, other than in the consumer sense, this so-called progress can in fact be a negative thing. Just as evolution in nature is quite often confused with ‘better’ as opposed to what it actually means, more suitably adapted to maximise chances of survival and thriving, the evolution of technology has become inextricably linked with becoming better.
This said, before dismissing the thought of replacing something with a better thing, its potential should be assessed. If we apply it to new thinking about politics then it holds very powerful potential within it. This has been tried historically from time to time but the language already exists to prevent people from thinking in this new way. New ideas are dismissed as utopian and the people proposing them are referred to as dreamers. The power of language has been effectively wielded and now the concept of new politics is itself dismissed. As the Arab Spring has shown, political change through the will of the people is possible but only, so far, with the support of the international political establishment. Herein lies an impediment but not a total block. One major benefit of technological development is the ability of ordinary people to communicate with each other in a language unhindered by the filter of mainstream media. This is a fertile ground for new ideas and ideologies to emerge.
In a new dialogue will hopefully emerge a new language and actual benefits for the millions of people who, at the moment, seem to exist outside of the political and technological sphere of influence. There is hope for change only when change is accepted as a valid possibility and not a concept for which a language does not exist. These things are possible but only if we make them happen.