Politics and the English Language by George Orwell
"Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell explores the intricate relationship between language and political thought. Written in 1946, the essay argues that the deterioration of the English language contributes to the propagation of foolishness in thought. Orwell illustrates this by analyzing examples of poor writing that exhibit stale imagery and imprecision, along with characteristics of bad writing such as pretentious diction and vague terminology. He highlights how political language often serves to obscure the truth, allowing for justifications of morally questionable actions through euphemism and ambiguity. Orwell's critique extends to the ways language can manipulate perceptions, making lies appear truthful and violence seem respectable. By calling for a conscious effort to improve language, he believes individuals can combat the negative influences of bad writing and political rhetoric. The essay remains relevant, as evidenced by institutions that recognize and critique misleading language, reinforcing Orwell's enduring call for clarity and integrity in communication.
On this Page
Politics and the English Language by George Orwell
Excerpted from an article in Magill’s Survey of World Literature, Revised Edition
First published: 1946 (collected in Shooting an Elephant, and Other Essays, 1950)
Type of work: Essay
The Work
“Politics and the English Language,” though written in 1946, remains timely for modern students of language. In this essay, Orwell argues that the English language becomes “ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” To illustrate his point, Orwell cites writing from two professors, a Communist pamphlet, an essay on psychology in Politics, and a letter in the Tribune. All these examples, Orwell argues, have two common faults: staleness of imagery and lack of precision. In his follow-up analysis, he discusses general characteristics of bad writing, including pretentious diction and meaningless words. His purpose in the analysis is to show “the special connection between politics and the debasement of language.”
Orwell maintains that, in his time, political speech and writing are “largely the defence of the indefensible.” That is, the actions of ruthless politicians can be defended, but only by brutal arguments that “do not square with the professed aims of political parties.” He gives examples of the British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, and the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan. In order to talk about such atrocities, Orwell contends, one has to use political language that consists “largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” Orwell translates for his readers the real meanings of such terms as “pacification,” “transfer of population,” “rectification of frontiers,” and “elimination of unreliable elements.” He concludes: “Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
This premise is one that Orwell explores more fully in his novels Animal Farm, particularly in the pigs Napoleon and Squealer, and Nineteen Eighty-Four in Big Brother, Newspeak, and the Ministry of Truth. Orwell’s conclusion in “Politics and the English Language” is less bleak than are his conclusions in the two novels. In the novels, the damage to language is irreversible. In the essay, Orwell calls his readers to action. He asserts that bad habits spread by imitation “can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble.” He concludes that “one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase . . . into the dustbin where it belongs.”
Orwell’s 1946 essay is still calling readers to action. In 1974, for example, the National Council of Teachers of English began handing out its annual Doublespeak Awards for misuses of language with potential to cause harm or obscure truth. The awards, named in honor of Orwell, are meant to identify deceptive uses of language and to jeer them out of existence. Not surprisingly, perhaps, there is no shortage of nominees.
Bibliography
Bowker, Gordon. George Orwell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Connelly, Mark. The Diminished Self: Orwell and the Loss of Freedom. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Duquesne University Press, 1987.
Cushman, Thomas, and John Rodden, eds. George Orwell: Into the Twenty-first Century. Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm, 2004.
Gardner, Averil. George Orwell. Boston: Twayne, 1987.
Hitchens, Christopher. Why Orwell Matters. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Hunter, Lynette. George Orwell: The Search for a Voice. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press, 1984.
Jensen, Ejner J., ed. The Future of “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1987.
Meyers, Jeffrey. Orwell: Wintry Conscience of a Generation. New York: W. W. Norton, 2000.
Muller, Gilbert H. Major Modern Essayists. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1991.
Taylor, D. J. Orwell: The Life. New York: Henry Holt, 2003.