We all know that words and language
can be used to deceive and manipulate as well as to convey and to inform. In
George Orwell’s novel 1984, the state creates a whole new vocabulary—Newspeak—to
ensure that citizens cannot think for themselves. While his chilling description
of an all-powerful state that controls citizens’ very thoughts by controlling
their language has not literally come to pass, it was nonetheless prophetic
in many ways. For example the deceptive and euphemistic language used by the
government and media to describe wars (which, not incidentally, are never called
“wars” anymore) approaches Newspeak. Civilian casualities are now
“collateral damage,” while an occupying army is now a “peacekeeping
force.”
Sinister as this sort of propaganda is, there is another trend which may prove
even more detrimental to our ability to freely use language. I am referring
to the widespread copyrighting and trademarking of words and expressions, which
amounts to the virtual ownership of words by individuals and corporations. Trademarks
and copyrights are legal means to protect original names, ideas and works of
art. There is also, however, a contemporary social disease that might be called
TM-mania, an obsessive concern with preserving the exclusive rights to commonly
used words and the most casual turns of phrase. Of course, the people who reflexively
place the letters ™ after every second or third thing they speak or write
believe that they are protecting profound and unique utterances which their
envious peers or business competitors would seize from them if given the chance.
Thus, we must increasingly endure the ubiquitous ™ following the most banal
advertising slogans.
The consequences of this phenomenon range from amusing to disturbing. In the
former category we can place words, names and phrases that almost certainly
would never be copied whether protected by copyright or not. Only the egotistical
mind of the copywriter could conceive of anyone appropriating something like
“Super Squish-O-Matic: the Ultimate Mixing Machine“ or “Neutron
Bomb Roach Spray with Extra Killing Power.” These are (to the best of my
knowledge) imaginary examples, but similar enough to ones we encounter daily.
It is never enough to simply trademark the brand name; the accompanying description
of the product must be protected as well.
Where all this starts to get disturbing is when it encroaches on our freedom
to use, not silly slogans, but commonly used words and phrases. Consider the
implications of protecting such phrases as: “Brand X Motor Oil—Simply
The Best.” Brand X has, for all time, seized the right to call itself the
best motor oil. Or, to take an actual example I recently noticed, Haagen Dazs
ice cream has trademarked the slogan “It’s Just Perfect.” What
we have here is a corporation gaining ownership of words that are not even true.
Most advertising slogans are neither true nor false, but unprovable assertions.
After all, whether we are talking about motor oil, ice cream or anything else,
“best” depends on who is judging and what standard they are using.
Ironically, ™ after a phrase, despite the aura of legalese it adds to words,
is actually a kind of guarantee that the statement is not true in any verifiable
sense. Factual statements, such as “each cookie contains 8.5 chocolate
chips” cannot be protected because there is nothing to prevent a competitor
from making the same statement if it describes their product as well. Furthermore,
facts change. Ford cannot for all time claim to build the world’s largest
sport utility vehicle, because next year Dodge might build a bigger one. This
is why nonfactual but strongly connotative words like “best” and “perfect”
so often appear in advertising slogans—and are so often protected.
There is certainly a legitimate need for copyrighting and trademarking. If Company
A starts calling its product by a name already being used by Company B, there
is a clearcut violation involved; it would also be confusing. However, the current
trend of trademarking trivial descriptions of products and services is itself
a violation—of free speech. People and corporations who do this are hoarders
of words. Fearing competition, or maybe having an inflated opinion of their
phrases, they want to forever deprive others of the right to use them.
Examples of TM-mania can be found in the issues of many writers’ magazines,
where corporations routinely place ads warning writers not to use brand names
such as Kleenex™, Xerox™ and Rollerblade™ as generic words. Note
that we are not talking here about the right of another company to call their
copy machine a Xerox. This would obviously lead to confusion and infringe on
the rights of the original Xerox. They are concerned about writers using these
words in ordinary sentences. Instead of being glad their product has been so
successful that it has become a generic term, they react with the paranoia typical
to large institutions and worry that people will forget that kleenex is not
just any tissue, but KLEENEX, a unique brand name. It’s a good thing that
this mentality was not around a hundred years ago, or the number of nouns at
our disposal would be severely limited. We are getting so accustomed to this
practice that it may not seem out of line, but imagine if the first producers
of automobiles, jeans, televisions and computers all trademarked these words.
We would have to endure the capitalization of (or a ™ after) these and
countless other everyday words.
This practice has also become ubiquitous in the realms of self-improvement,
alternative healing and popular psychology. It is no longer sufficient to call
oneself a mere practitioner of something as familiar as psychotherapy, hypnosis
or massage therapy. It seems that everyone today has to claim ownership of a
unique (and of course trademarked) system. Browse through the catalog of a center
that specializes in healing or New Age workshops and count the ™ symbols.
Once again, I am concerned not with the protection of truly original names and
phrases, but of the appropriation of familiar ones. If trademarking had been
possible in ancient times, the Greeks could have trademarked, among others,
“logic,” “psychology” and “metaphysics.” What
would life be like today if the first cave painters had started a corporation
and trademarked the word “art?” As ludicrous as this sounds, this
mentality is common today. Since writing the first draft of this article, I
came across a book in the New Age/Self-Help section of a bookstore that was
promoting a self improvement system called “Philosophy”—with
a ™ after it. Modern self-help gurus are rushing to trademark words that
have been in use for thousands of years. Socrates would have been outraged at
such hubris!
The implications of this go beyond linguistics and involve the way we are able
to think about various disciplines and systems of thought. To paraphrase Orwell,
those who control language control the way we think. When someone gains ownership
of a previously generic word or phrase, they are attempting to manipulate our
thinking (even if they only have profits in mind). We are no longer allowed
to enjoy an open-ended and cosmopolitan sense of the word—we must now forever
associate it with Brand X or System Y. These are intellectual chains.
This practice reflects a widespread puerile individualism; many people feel
the need to portray an image, not only of quality and originality, but of uniqueness.
In the vast majority of cases, this uniqueness is limited entirely to the name,
which is perhaps why so much emphasis is placed there. What matters most today
are superficial trappings like brand names and the advertising associated with
them. Content—the idea or object to which the name refers—becomes
secondary, if not irrelevant.
At a deeper level, the widespread trademarking of words points to the breakdown
of language as a means of spontaneous communication. It is part of the larger
trend of attempting to regulate and formalize every aspect of life. In the past
there was at least as much hype, exaggeration and questionable information around
as today. Passing through a bazaar, medicine show, carnival or revival meeting,
or receiving a visit from a travelling salesman all demanded a healthy dose
of skepticism. Yet alongside the persuasion and manipulation, such informal
exchanges contained an element of spontaneity and playfulness that is rapidly
fading from today’s marketplace. When you bargained with a Middle Eastern
merchant, it was understood that his initial asking price was way too high and
that he was overstating the quality of the merchandise. Today’s merchants
exaggerate just as much; the difference is, they want their prevarications protected
by official decree.
Just as in the physical world public spaces are becoming rare, so even words
are becoming privatized and cut off from the wider world. As people are increasingly
putting gates around their suburban communities to keep out strangers, corporations
are protecting “their” words with trademarks so no one else can profit
from them, or even use them without permission. Language is becoming, instead
of a tool for communication and understanding, one of control and deception.
Language, of course, has always been used for these purposes by means such as
propaganda and censorship. Excessive trademarking, however, is a more subtle
form of thought control. It allows words to become the exclusive property of
special interests. Words are the products of our minds, possibly even our souls;
as much as possible, they should be free.