Politics and the English Language

I enjoyed reading Politics and the English Language by George Orwell and I agree with his harsh critique of language in the present day, especially when it pertains to political speeches.

The structure of the essay began by outlining his argument and viewpoint and then included several sub-headings, Dying Metaphors, Operators or Verbal False Limbs, PRetentious Diction, and Meaningless Words. Although the piece is known to use many examples, these sub-headings divide the types of “bad writing” and classify them as being part of one of the 4 types. The category that rang most true for me was “pretentious diction.” Many times, I have tried to improve my writing by inserting “flowery” words, and I agree with Orwell in that this use of diction usually just makes the writing vague. Shorter, more concise diction is more effective in pinpointing my exact thought or purpose.

  Throughout the essay, Orwell includes many examples of passages he considers to be “bad language.” The most effective example is the verse from Ecclesiastes. Orwell includes a translation of this verse into modern or “bad” language. The modern passage includes big and sophisticated words (“pretentious diction”) but it seems to have no relation to the verse it is translating due to its vagueness. Here, Orwell shows the effectiveness of clear, concise language.

A rhetorical device that Orwell mentions is metaphor. Simply put, metaphors often times serve to create more confusion. Instead of directly addressing an object or abstract idea, it is described using other words that draw the reader’s attention to something completely different, clearly contributing to the vagueness of a phrase. 

Another main aspect of this essay is Orwell’s comments about how such bad language affects politics. He states that politicians become machines as they deliver their boring, vague speeches. They lack fresh and vivid language and to the audience it is as if they are watching “some kind of dummy.” Orwell’s comments about speech givers can be paralleled quite well to church-goers who utter the prayers and responses “almost unconsciously” without thinking about the meaning. As a church goer myself, I know that this is very true and I have caught myself doing this on numerous occasions. 

It is interesting that he comments on how political speeches are a way of covering up the truth. It is very common for politicians to cover up events of war and destruction. But are they to blame when every normal citizen does this on a daily basis? As a society, we have become very concerned with others’ sensitivity; for example, we often choose to say “pass away” as a euphemism for death. A person does not pass away, a person dies, but society chooses to use the sugar-coated version.