Political Language

Once again, I am reminded of George Orwell. . . .Our discussion of pro-abortion language made me think of his essay “Politics and the English Language.”

It was published in 1946, so he had in mind the political language of Communism, Fascism, and post-war Big Governments, but the points he makes are classic, applying to every age.

Everyone should read the complete essay, both to inoculate yourself against propaganda and to ensure that you don’t slip into the same kind of language and thinking yourself.

As you read this, think of the pro-abortion rhetoric.  What other applications do you see?

From George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language (my bolds):

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.  . . .

What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualising you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one’s meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose — not simply accept — the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one’s words are likely to make on another person.

 

 

Photo:  George Orwell broadcasting by BBC [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

"What? People can't be both LBGTQ and pedophiles? They certainly can be heterosexual and pedophiles.And ..."

Grand Jury Accuses 301 Priests of ..."
"Why is it so important to you, to place all blame for all pedophilia on ..."

Grand Jury Accuses 301 Priests of ..."
"Since those Confederate statues were put up after the Civil War and during the era ..."

Purging Laura Ingalls Wilder from the ..."
"That works for GIRLS but BOYS are raped by PEDOPHILE heterosexuals Men dating or marrying ..."

Grand Jury Accuses 301 Priests of ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment