In a variety of venues, my co-blogger Wild Bill and I have been pointing out the degree to which George Orwell’s famous essay, “Politics and the English Language,” has some problems and is often remembered (we argue) for the wrong reasons—namely, some points about such things as using foreign words and using the passive voice. We think it deserves to be remembered more for its major point, or premise, which is that political language, broadly defined, and other kinds of official language can harm people’s thinking, people’s capacity to analyze, and that this harm, in turn, can further make language more slippery.
We don’t imagine our critique of the weak parts of the essay will or could damage its stature, nor is that our aim. We do imagine that it is possible to line up the stature with what we think is really good and often missed about the essay.
That said, my purpose in this post is to summarize Orwell’s major points and put the minor ones in proper proportion, and I realize “major,” “minor,” and “proper proportion” are arguable.
Anyway, here goes:
Orwell’s main points, with some interpretation:
1. English is “in a bad way” because it’s been abused—sorry about the passive voice, George—by writers and speakers engaged in or affected by politics, which is by nature deceptive. (Orwell concentrates on writers, not speakers.)
2. I think what Orwell means by “the English language” is really public discourse in the form of political speeches, comments by punditry, political ads, and so on. That is, I’m not sure politics or anything but extinction can put “the English language” in its totality in a bad way. English exists and evolves, a protean phenomenon. People use it well or badly or just all right. It’s language in the public arena that’s in trouble—according to Orwell.
3. The misuses of English affect how people analyze writing and speech, how they interpret information, and how they make decision. That is, bad use of the language can lead to bad concrete effects such as terrible decisions and severely misinformed, badly duped citizens. The situation may become a spiral.
About those who use the language badly, often on purpose but sometimes just through bad habits, not malevolence:
1. Insincere people use it to deceive other people, to make bad things sound okay, and to delay doing the right thing. Orwell pins responsibility on insincerity. His version of “make bad things sound okay” is to make murder seem respectable (my paraphrase). A more current example is the description of torture as “enhanced techniques of interrogation.”
2. One main deception is to hide responsibility, according to Orwell. “Mistakes were made” is a classic example, one in which the passive voice does indeed hide “the agent,” the one who made the mistake.
3. Sometimes the misuse springs more from laziness and carelessness than it does from insincerity. You know the degree to which we all, including journalists, pundits, those who work in governmental and corporate communication, politicians, academics, and “public intellectuals” (like academics who go on TV) get careless or lazy.
What does Orwell mean by this alleged misuse/abuse of English?
Specifically, he mentions things like clichés, dead metaphors (metaphors we’ve heard and seen a million times, such as “you can’t teach a dog new tricks), ready-made phrases (like the tired, hyperbolic phrase I just used, “a million times”).
As noted, he doesn’t like the passive voice, although he uses it quite a bit in the essay.
He doesn’t like foreign words/phrases because he thinks people use them to sound important or smart, to puff themselves up by puffing up their rhetoric.
He doesn’t like euphemisms (“enhanced techniques of interrogation”).
He doesn’t like specialized words—jargon.
This last part—specific alleged abuses that Orwell doesn’t like—is where Wild Bill and I think Orwell’s case is weak. For example, writers and speakers can use the passive voice and still be clear and have sincere motives, and they can use it and still pinpoint responsibility. Also, sometimes specialized words are fine, as are foreign words. Sometimes you need a specialized word or term, such as voi dire, to be precise. Same goes for foreign words/terms, like schadenfreude. We get his larger point about puffing up rhetoric, but we think he makes too much of some examples. Sometimes even metaphors that have been around a long time work fine, such as trying to teach an old dog new tricks.
We have two more objections that are related to the point above and that we think amount to a more significant critique. Let’s put the first in the form of a rhetorical question. George, is it really the passive voice and foreign words that have made the language of politics, political advertising, political journalism, and political punditry & partisanship so awful?
A second objection: is lack of clarity or directness always the main problem? For instance, when a candidate says, “I want to create jobs,” he or she is being clear and pithy. The problem is that the statement is empty. Another problem is that when, for instance, Newt Gingrich, echoing Romney’s economic “plan,” says (I paraphrase), “Yeah, some teachers and fire-fighters are going to lose their jobs—tough break”– and roughly 50% of the citizenry metaphorically nods in agreement. Too many teaching and fire-fighting jobs—that really the big economic problem? Cuts there are really the solution?
But let’s not get hung up on the policy-stuff or on GOPers v. Dems.
The point is that Romney, Gingrich, Obama, and politicians from across the spectrum often speak/write directly and clearly and still deceive. Now, it may be that fuzzy, slippery language helped to soften up some of the citizens so that they’re less likely to say, “Hey, wait a minute—that doesn’t make sense.” We grant that Orwell may be right about that. But in the specific instance, an absence of clarity isn’t the problem.
What to do, as a writer, not to get on Orwell’s enemies-list:
Make yourself write clearly, but of course keep the rhetorical situation in mind: the purposes and audience of what you’re writing. For instance, Wild Bill may write something in a political science article that seems unclear to me but only because I’m not part of his intended audience. People in his line of work will read what I read and in no way think it’s unclear.
Work on eliminating bad habits. Be less lazy and careless as you write and especially as you revise. When you revise, be kind of tough on yourself–but not pathologically so. It’s possible to get so compulsive you can’t get your work done.
Keep in check any lurking desires to “sound” smarter or more important than you really are. If you’re using writing or speaking to deceive and you know the deception to be wrong (sometimes deception is not wrong), check yourself. Say, “All right, I’m being a bull-shitter here, it’s not right, and I’d better go back and get rid of the bullshit”
Sure, clichés, jargon, stock phrases, and euphemisms may come up in your writing and make it less clear, precise, and honest. If so, edit them out. But other types of words and phrases may cause more problems than these, so don’t treat Orwell’s examples as gospel, or a s formula. Think for yourself.
Posted in Approaches to Political Language, audience, Bureaucratic language, decline of journalism, difficulty/obscurity, lying, Newspeak, Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", passive voice, Political spectacle, propaganda, Rhetoric, spin. 1 Comment »
INTRODUCTION. The Intro of the essay asserts the notion that the English language has been disfigured by the human race and is on the residual decline as a resultant. Mr. Orwell attributes this downfall to politics and economic causes but goes on to outline his remedy to correct what he refers to as a “reversible” process. George Orwell goes on to cite passages from several prominent essays and articles, concluding on the similarities in their staleness of imagery and lack of precision. He criticizes the passages, stating that the incompetence and vagueness of such political writings desecrates correct English prose- construction.
DYING METAPHORS. George Orwell begins by explaining the difference between newly invented and “dead” metaphors. He then goes on to explain the “huge dump” of worn out metaphors that are commonly used but have lost all power to evocate the reader’s imagination. He argues that many authors use these metaphors out of context without ever knowing and pervert their original meaning without the metaphor’s creator having knowledge of it. (ex. Tow the line and Toe the line)
OPERATORS OR VERBAL FALSE LIMBS. In this paragraph Mr. Orwell rationalizes how many writers use extraneous verbs and nouns to pad sentences and create the illusion of symmetry. Instead of effectively using simple verbs, conjunctions and prepositions, many writers will abuse the convenient word placements to create lavish sounding phases such as “deserving of serious consideration”.
PRETENTIOUS DICTION. During this section Mr. Orwell discusses the recurring tendency of bad writers to glorify shorter words with longer but not necessarily correct ones. He explains that this problem is especially prevalent among scientific, political and sociological writers whose constant use of jargon and Latin terminology makes it difficult to interpret yet alone understand their writing. This increased use of such “foreign language” results in sloppiness and vagueness.
MEANINGLESS WORDS. In this passage George Orwell makes the assertion that amongst the confusion of long literary or political critiques, the writing often becomes meaningless as a result of improper language and jargon. The use of such “meaningless” words allows them to be openly interpreted and often abused in political writing. What one might regard as Democracy, another would describe as Fascism, but neither carries a definition in this instance, but merely a positive or negative connotation. Consequently, these meaningless words often allow the reader to be deceived by the author.
Orwell’s Six Rules
1) Do not use metaphors that you are use to reading in other texts.
2) The use of an effective shorter word is better than longer inappropriate words.
3) If you can remove an extraneous word from a sentence, do so accordingly.
4) Abstain from the use of the passive tense when the active tense is available
5) Refrain from the use of scientific jargon, and foreign words if you can find the colloquial equivalent
6) Break these rules rather than saying anything completely monstrous.
The statement “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues…..” (156), is in many aspects very true and I agree with what Mr. Orwell has asserted. Politics in it broadest term can be defined as the process by which groups of people make decisions. Though this is often applied to behaviour within civil governments, it can be applied to many other situations including families, friendships, school, and businesses. The discussion, argument and voting seen in our Chamber of Commons can be applied to more domestic situations in our everyday lives. For example: the verbal submission of arguments about where the class should take their next field trip is a political discussion, used by some to convince their peers to support their idea. Or the argument to persuade your parents to change their ideology on the belief of the “reckless teenager” and allow you to take on responsibility in your life and go to parties. Though these forms of politics affect a very minuscule populace and hold very little importance to outside parties, they are none the less politics. One cannot deny the overwhelming presence of politics in our society and the effect of governmental politics in our everyday lives. It is so vast, that the discussion of any sort of morals or ideology will either be is some shape or form in agreement or disagreement with current political views. Whether it is the elegant wording of a presidential campaign speech or the trivial ramblings of a juvenile demanding more allowance, neither can escape the political realm in which we all exist.