Politics and the English Language

Hear that low hum? George Orwell is spinning in his grave. Orwell's warnings in his 1946 essay, "Politics and the English Language" went unheeded; jargon is everywhere. People celebrate their peers who "think outside the box" and "color outside the lines," but what are they celebrating? What does political speak do that can't be accomplished with plain language? This election year, keep an eye on the maverick who turns their nose up at dark money – they're totally astroturfing that battleground state.

George Orwell and "Politics and the English Language"

George Orwell was passionate about the subject of politics. He traveled to Spain when the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936 to fight fascism. When found medically unfit to serve during World War II, he contributed to the cause by writing guides used to train troops, and wrote broadcasts for the BBC to undermine Nazi propaganda.

Most of his famous writing is political or includes social criticism. In his 1946 essay "Why I Write" Orwell states, "Every line of serious work I have written since 1936 has been written . . . against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism."¹

Orwell published "Politics and the English Language" in 1946. World War II had ended the year before, and Europe was in tatters. One of Orwell's arguments in "Politics and the English Language" is that language and thought reflect each other. In other words, language is how people share their thoughts, but to some extent, those thoughts depend on what words are available to them.

In "Politics and the English Language" Orwell sets out to help rebuild European society by alerting them to "bad habits" in writing they should avoid so they "can think more clearly . . . [which is a] necessary first step toward political regeneration" (1946).

"Politics and the English Language" Summary

Orwell begins "Politics and the English Language" by arguing that the English language is suffering due to a poor economic and political climate. He denies advocating due to "good old days" nostalgia and asserts that the problem can be fixed if people put forth the effort. Orwell shares writing excerpts that embody the characteristics he finds most disturbing: "staleness of imagery" and "lack of precision" (1946).

Orwell uses "Politics and the English Language" to list writing trends that people should stop doing:

1. Using cliché metaphors.
2. Using fluff words that increase word count without adding clarity.
3. Using large words to sound more authoritative.
4. Using abstract words that look like they're saying something profound but have no meaning. Orwell places political language in this slot, saying, "the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different" (1946).

Orwell charges that modern English is moving away from using specific language and imagery in writing and toward vague sentences that sound pleasing to the ear rhythmically but don't actually mean anything. To combat this, he says writers should ask themselves:

1. How should I say what I'm trying to say?
2. Is there an image I can use to help what I'm saying make sense?
3. Is the image crisp enough to make the reader think about what I'm saying?
4. Can I use fewer words to get my meaning across or say it in a better way?

Orwell follows these questions by honing in on political writing specifically. In "Politics and the English Language" Orwell says overly familiar phrases filter meaning and leave even the speaker unsure of what they're saying, which is where "the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear" (1946).

Couching morally questionable decisions in euphemisms allows the people who make such decisions to separate themselves from their choices. Politicians and their representatives use catchphrases to encourage the public to go along with what they're saying.

Fig. 1 - George Orwell discusses how language affects the way people make decisions.

Before Orwell offers a set of rules that he feels would offer a shift toward fixing the English language, he clarifies that he is not saying there should be a set form of English and grammar. "Politics and the English Language" argues the most important thing is for "meaning [to] choose the word, and not the other way about" (1946).

He states that words choose meaning when the writer thinks in abstracts rather than having a clear picture of what they're trying to say. Orwell believes using the following rules will create a clear and concise writing style:

1. Don't use the same figures of speech everyone else does.
2. Choose simple language.
3. Eliminate extra words in sentences.
4. Use an active voice whenever possible.
5. Choose words most people understand when technical language isn't necessary.
6. These rules are made to be broken if they would cause the writer to sound like an idiot.

"Politics and the English Language" Analysis

Orwell's arguments in "Politics and the English Language" are mostly logical appeals. He offers examples of what he considers lousy writing and dissects what is wrong with them using agreed-upon rules of language. Orwell makes a valid point that writers who mix their metaphors or switch the original term in a metaphor for a word that sounds similar haven't "stopped to think" (1946). It's hard to believe anyone who would write "never lick a gift horse in the mouth" knows what they're saying, even if it is probably still good advice.

Orwell's discussion concerning political writing remains relevant. Euphemisms take the hard edge off unpleasant conversations, and politics tend to be full of unpleasant discussions. However, that is precisely why it's dangerous to allow decisions to be made by politicians who speak in language that enables them to reframe their actions into phrases that disconnect them from the reality of their choices.

For example, President George W. Bush's speech about "weapons of mass destruction" owned by Saddam Hussein led many people to support a war against Iraq that was based on lies. Bush's soundbite-worthy description of the weapons Hussein and his allies supposedly owned inspired fear.

Consequently, American soldiers and Iraqi citizens suffered and died. Emotional appeal creeps into Orwell's writing when he describes the machine-like statesman whose glasses reflect the stage lights and "turn [their eyes] into blank discs" (1946).

Orwell's essay is written mainly in the style he advocates for, lending it credibility. The work has a balanced mix of sentence lengths that flow together to engage the reader's attention. Complex thoughts are expressed using straightforward language and striking images. Orwell states that overused phrases block a writer's meaning "like tea-leaves blocking a sink" and compares their convenience to "a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow" (1946).

"Politics and the English Language" Tone

"Politics and the English Language" is written in an authoritative and often sarcastic tone. It succeeds at relating to the Everyman, especially when it pokes fun at the circular writing occasionally encountered in art or literary criticism. As an example of this, Orwell offers two contradicting art critics' opinions on the subject of an artist's work as having a "living quality" and a "peculiar deadness," arguing that if they used concrete words like "black and white . . . [the reader] would see at once that language was being used in an improper way" (1946).

Writing classes often include Orwell's essay because it offers a strong foundation for building writing skills and teaches students to think critically about political language. In 'Politics and the English Language' Orwell explains that it's essential to ask oneself questions such as why the United States named the program it uses to spy on its citizens "The Patriot Act," because "[all] issues are political issues" and "language can . . . corrupt thought" (1946). Most people want to be seen as patriots, so using that word in the program's name has a subliminal effect of making people want to comply.

Fig. 2 - Orwell saw "The Patriot Act" as a gross invasion of privacy disguised as something patriotic.

Orwell discusses how language and thought rely on each other. He believed that if people were interested in changing the way they wrote, it could change the path of language and, by extension, politics.

Orwell sensed that an overreliance on vague statements spoken with authority would lead to the loss of meaning. When a person is unsure of the meaning of the words they're using, they cannot fully comprehend their reality.