Terms and the definitions of terms as a device for influencing and
controlling behavior:  that's the subject I want to know about.  I am
interested in the insidious effects of contriving special definitions
of familiar terms for use within a context such as a cult or other
closed society, the effect being that people can't question or resist
them without seeming to advocate something counter to their own
interests and/or those of the group.

The general idea as I understand it is that you use terms anyone would
have to agree to, and then you control the meanings ascribed to those
terms, and you thereby trap people into a mindset that they are often
simply powerless to fight.

It's the power of the word that is the true focus of my question:  not
any kind of magical or religious power, but certainly psychological
power.

I am interested in this question both from the point of view of
dispassionate analysis and from the point of view of those who
practice or have been victimized by the practice of ownership of
definitions as a means of controlling others.

Exploration of this question will almost inevitably lead into some
literature about Scientology.  So let me say yes, I am interested in
this issue as it comes up in relation to Scientology, but only as part
of a larger picture.  I have no special interest in that system in
itself, nor any special interest in avoiding the subject.

The answer to this question will consist of references and links to
sources of information that will help me understand exactly what that
process of owning definitions is all about, how it works, why it is so
powerful, how to recognize it when it's being done, and how to counter
it.  If information does fall into two classes--scientific/analytic
and practitioner/victim--I would like to see resources categorized
that way.

This is a real question, not just for fun, so I'm not pricing it as a toy question.

Thank you,
Archae0pteryx

---

Clarification of Question by archae0pteryx-ga on 15 Sep 2004 20:58 PDT

Looks like I need to clarify.

Thanks, all, for your interest in my topic.

I am not looking for thoughts on the redefining of words in a
wide-open context, such as American society or the English-speaking
world--for example, "issue" taking over for "problem," so "issue" can
no longer be used meaningfully in its former sense (or "organic," or
"ecology," or "gay," or a whole lot of other words that have been
coopted to some cause or point of view).  Societal impact of
definitions is an interesting subject, and I might have to go there,
but that's not what I set out to find.  And I am surely not looking
for fiction; I read Orwell decades ago and took in his ideas when I
was at a very impressionable age, and they are perhaps appropriate to
my question, but what I want here is _information_.

Here is an example of what I'm interested in, from _Social Control in
Scientology_, by Bob Penny
(http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/scs-10.html):

===========
Fluent use of preemptively defined words in their group-specific
sense, and avoidance of other meanings as though such did not exist,
are criteria and evidence of legitimacy within the group.

Another example of preemptive definition is the word help which, in
the group context, is identified with whatever the Church does -- so
that any disagreement with the group is made to seem the same as
opposition to helping people at all. Obvious not-helped situations in
Scientology are rationalized away with technical explanations and
removed as nearly as possible from general view. One is not allowed to
discuss case problems or disappointments out of session.

Other betterment activities are invalidated as ineffectual, misguided,
or "suppressive." They dare you to say green. Nearly all the concepts
required to understand actual Scientology practices are found in its
own literature, but redefined in a misdirective way to prevent such
use and understanding. Wrong source, something done other than what
was said, something asserted, and invalidation are examples of
concepts captured, and the person given opportunity to rationalize for
himself how they actually do not describe his Scientology experience.
===========

I've found this kind of information easy to locate in relation to
Scientology (note that this association was mentioned in my question),
but I would like to learn what others have written about it in the two
respects I described and not just with regard to this one context.

Is there enough information here now for a researcher to go on?  As
I've remarked before, if a topic is easy to research, I usually do it
myself.  When I pay, it's either for entertainment or because I
believe that having good skills and resources will accomplish quickly
what would take me a long while without them.  The latter describes
the present case.

Archae0pteryx

Greetings, Tryx!

My own mind is too discombobulated to take on this project, but I
would like to put in a good word for the great wordsmith Dmitri
Borgmann's coinage "logocide," defined (as I recall) as the deliberate
destruction of a word's meaning (as in '1984' style mind control: War
Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength).

~Pink

Perhaps a bit outside the scope of your question, but the present state of
affairs has it that one is "unpatriotic" if they question the decisions of
the government.

Of course, it is the true patriot that questions the government every turn
of the way.

Here's an example which does not really go in the direction you are
talking about.  Take the word "organic" as used by organic farmers. 
Organic is one word with lots of definitions...and new technologies
are free to give it even more definitions (like organic electronics). 
What's a fella to do?  Pretty soon the organic farmers are going to
have to come up with a new word because agribusiness is trying to
"water down" the word "organic" and ultimately re-define it.  How do
the organic farmers communicate to people if someone has taken their
word and re-defined it?  When you are discussing a specific concept
regarding an issue that is important to many people it requires a
defined word...perhaps a new word is needed to suit the purpose.  I
think a problem arises in having to use words that are not specific
enough.  I hope you get your question sorted out.

Have you looked into General Semantics?  It is a related branch of
epistemology that deals with the societal impact of definitions.  See
http://www.generalsemantics.org/.  On that home page is a link to a
story called "War Words and Tired Symbols" that's worth a read.  See
also http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvalley/biology/lewis/gs.htm, and
my personal favorite on the notion of societal shaping of defintions
and thus constructs and thus behaviors is "What is Salt?", found here:
http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvalley/biology/lewis/salt.htm

You will likely want to refer to what George Orwel called double speak
in his book 1984.

Could "loading the language" or "totalist language" be a part of what you're after?

"'Loading the language' is a manipulative technique for persuasion,
public relations, marketing, and political advocacy. At its core is
nonstandard vocabulary: new words or phrases, or use of words and
phrases in ways that are outside their traditional meaning."

http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?LoadTheLanguage
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b07.html
http://www.barnabasministry.com/lifton3.htm
http://www.educationnews.org/e-files%20no.6.htm
http://forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088_print.html

Not so much a discussion of the words themselves but an overview of
the principles and techniques that are going on behind the words.

http://changingminds.org
http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversion/conversion.htm

Regards