POLITICS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Politics and the English Language



Politics and the English Language

Introduction

"Politics and the English Language" is a brilliant essay written by George Orwell in 1946. Orwell observes that our language is being egregiously misused, and argues that this has grave political repercussions. The sort of language that he has in his crosshairs is any overly florid and muddled prose; Orwell characterizes the style of writing in question as having both "staleness of imagery" and "lack of precision." This is a purposely broad category which catches many sorts of pleonastic drivel, from excessively jargon-filled academese to politically correct tripe. Orwell gives several examples of poor writing from contemporary sources, but the most illustrative example is a fictional one: he takes a sample of perfectly clear English from Ecclesiastes and "modernizes" it to frightening (and hilarious) effect.

Analysis

George Orwell's discourse on the political and social significance of the modern English writing is the primary theme shown in his essay, "Politics and the English Language," (1945). The paper shows that in this discourse, Orwell discusses the faults of modern English language regarding the gradual spread of vagueness and insincerity in the meaning of prose text. The paper shows Orwell's proposed solutions to this problem of vagueness in the English language, especially with regard to political writings. To convey Orwell's idea of poor English prose, this paper analyzes Abraham Lincoln's "The Gettysburg Address," delivered in 1863 as the President's reaction to the ongoing Civil War during that period (Wemyss, 1987).

Who am I to take on George Orwell? I cannot answer this except to say that I am a writer, a reader, a thinker, a lay linguist, and a philologist. I like to use the phrase bona fides (I think it rolls of the tongue well when said correctly), so the list provides what are my bona fides. The topic of this essay will be a re-evaluation of Mr. Orwell's well known “Politics and the English Language” published in 1946. Sixty-one years on, how does it hold up? Are his fears justified now; has what he predicted come to pass? The one warning (I would normally use “caveat” here but his essay decries the use of Latin words when a Saxon word will do) is that my analysis will focus mainly on American English rather than BBC English—I will make as much reference to it as my research and native knowledge allows (Taylor, 2003).

Britain in 1946 was still under war rationing despite the end of the war. The “pink bits” (British controlled colonies, protectorates, etc, so-called because they were usually printed in pink on world maps) in many instances were beginning to question the foreign authority. So, in addition to the near bankruptcy of the nation after the end of the war, Britain was facing a rising level of revolt in the colonies whose trade was essential to Britain's survival. It is no wonder, then, that Mr. Orwell would say this: “Our civilization is decadent and our language—so the argument runs—must inevitably ...