George Orwell: Politics and the English Language

[Swamp Rat]

Politics and the English Language
1946

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to this presently, and I hope that by that time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer. Meanwhile, here are five specimens of the English language as it is now habitually written.

These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad -- I could have quoted far worse if I had chosen -- but because they illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now suffer. They are a little below the average, but are fairly representative examples. I number them so that I can refer back to them when necessary:

1. I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.

(snip)

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_and_the_English_Language/0.html

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/definitions/orwell.cfm
___________________________________________________________

If you are watching TV, turn it off and read this Orwell essay. There is very little news being reported – the machines of corporate propaganda are in high gear, peddling fear and disinformation.

i.e.

"Is it a plane?"

"I think it was a helicopter!"

"was it a terrorist attack?"

"Fighter jets are being scrambled!"

[whistle]

1. How many times is this going to be posted??? This is the 3rd or 4th

[Swamp Rat]

2. un-dupe:

1. I have never cross-posted in more than two forums at DU before today.

2. You had no time to read this essay before you complained, unless you are the fastest reader in the history of the universe.

3. There are a couple of dozen dupes in GD right now concerning the disaster in Manhattan.

4. @#^%&!

5. :D

[Swamp Rat]

3. How many times is what going to be posted?

Do you have a problem with this post?

[Karenina]

21. Anyone who has a problem

hasn't yet GROKKED the point. ;-)

[Swamp Rat]

22. GROK

baby :D

[calimary]

8. Hey, I'm glad this was reposted. I didn't see the others.

Besides, it bears repeating. MANY times. Until it starts sinking through - outside these circles here.

[pnorman]

10. I have DU tabbed on my Firefox, and check it at LEAST 8-10 times a day.

But I find (after the fact) that I STILL miss postings of importance. I'm well familiar with Orwell's writings, including that one, but this is the first time I've seen it here. With all due respect to my fellow DUer: IMO, this scolding is unwarranted.

pnorman
On edit: Okay, here's another Orwell reference that I KNOW has been posted on DU several times before: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/25/1353213&mode=thread&tid=25 Better too often than too infrequent.

[crikkett]

4. Very apt comment, Swamp Rat

and great artwork to boot!

[northamericancitizen]

5. Propaganda in high gear... well said Swamp Rat.

Turn off your TVs dear neighbors.

[Selatius]

6. That example is atrociously bad writing:

"1. I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate."

That's difficult to understand due to the multiple negations.

Give me plain English any day of the week. (Was that statement too hard to understand?)

[Swamp Rat]

9. It reminded me of Rumsferatu

[Marnieworld]

7. Wow! I so love that graphic Swampy!

That's a keeper in my book. Excellent. I can't even find words to describe it because i think it touches something so hidden in the darkness of our minds. I'm babbling in awe. :yourock:

on edit:cool post too!

[Swamp Rat]

11. Thanks

The background comes from a photo taken by a DUer in Florida a couple of years ago, then PMed to me. The front figure is, of course, from Edvard Munch's work "The Scream."

[Jcrowley]

12. Classic

Essential reading. This should be posted every month or so.

;-)

Thanks for this reminder.

[Swamp Rat]

14. That's what I thought,

and I had never seen this particular essay posted at DU before.

:kick:

[Annces]

13. great art work

[Swamp Rat]

17. thanks

:hi:

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

15. Always good to read Orwell - thanks for posting

Surprisingly, Fox's early coverage of this story was more factual and less inflammatory than CNN's, which I turned off after someone said something to the effect of Yes, there are clouds today but weather was not likely a factor - to which the CNN anchor replied "Mmm, sounds ominous - thanks (whateveryournameis)." WTF? Click.

Thanks again!

[Supersedeas]

16. who was the source of the "it is a helicopter" line -- pathetic M$M

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. If you like this article by Orwell, try this blog: 'Unspeak'

http://unspeak.net/

For instance, dissecting the term 'serious' when applied to pain.

Do you still wonder what “serious” means? There is more clarification:

(iii) The term ’serious mental pain or suffering’ has the meaning given the term ’severe mental pain or suffering’ in section 2340(2) of title 18, except that—
(I) the term ’serious’ shall replace the term ’severe’ where it appears; and
(II) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the term ’serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)’ shall replace the term ‘prolonged mental harm’ where it appears.

Ah. So according to (I), “serious” means what “severe” means, when you replace “severe” with “serious”. Understood. The replacement of words in (II) is more interesting. Title 18’s demand that mental suffering be “prolonged” is a form of language that, as I argued in Chapter Seven of Unspeak, means it is potentially always too early to tell whether something really counts as torture. Since the MCA is currently defining the slightly less grave offence of “cruel or inhuman treatment”, it generously allows that the mental harm need not be prolonged. On the other hand, though, notice that it must be non-transitory. The question of how something has to last before it can be called “prolonged” is simply replaced with the question of how long something has to last before it is no longer considered “transitory”. One second? Thirty seconds? Five minutes? A week? You may adjust your stopwatch to fit.

The government, which has been ordered to abide by Common Article 3 in its treatment of prisoners, argues in this legislation that Common Article 3 outlaws only “mental harm” that is “non-transitory”, or a “bodily injury” of a “serious” nature. Anything else is fair game. Congress and the Senate have agreed. Can they be serious? I fear so.

[Swamp Rat]

19. The dominant power has redefined reality.

The voices in the propaganda matrix (i.e. FOX, Clear Channel, et al) will call it 'natural' or 'common sense' - thus hegemony is achieved not simply by coercion but by "winning and shaping consent so that the power of the dominant classes appears both legitimate and natural" (Stuart Hall, 1977).

[Jcrowley]

20. Corporate propaganda

In the US, corporate propaganda has played upon the high level of religious beliefs in the community, beliefs which leave its citizens predisposed to see the world in "Manichean terms''. This outlook leads towards a preference for action over reflection, a "pragmatic orientation'' that is perfectly suited to the corporate aim of identifying positive symbols with business, while assigning negative values to those that oppose them, such as labour unions and welfare provisions.

The organised dissemination of these symbols had its initial impetus in groups such as the National Americanization Committee, which succeeded in manipulating nationalist and patriotic symbols during World War I to associate corporate values with the "American way of life''. The psychological power of this association cannot be discounted: it has proved to be an enduring feature of the political climate in the US today.

Since then the corporate agenda has embraced all areas of society - media, schools, academia and the workplace - with focuses on different levels from "grassroots'' to "tree-tops''. It has succeeded via the mass media in identifying capitalism with democracy and in portraying any challenge to corporate elites as either "subversive'' or "extremist''.