politics and the english language summary

Yet for all his penury and despair, his faith in the power of clear, strong language can only be read as optimistic. was less interested in what motivates people to act without integrity than in the words they use to camouflage and perpetuate their dishonesty: for Orwell, bad language and bad politics were one and the same. Yet if we strip the language down to what there is a “real need” for, whither poetry? Allow only the words that Orwell thinks necessary, and the resulting stunted lexicon is itself a kind of functionalist, impoverished Newspeak.įrom “Why We Need to Call a Pig a Pig (With or Without Lipstick)” If you ever feel tempted to say “status quo” or “cul de sac,” for instance, Orwell will sneer at you for “pretentious diction.” Why pretentious? Because these phrases are of “foreign” origin. His more general attacks in “Politics” on what he perceives to be bad style are often outright ridiculous, parading a comically arbitrary collection of intolerances. Orwell’s assault on political euphemism, then, is righteous but limited. We can try to mislead or to impress, in either mode. We can affect plainness and directness just as much as we can affect sophistication and complexity. We can, linguistically, dress ourselves up any way we like.

The way we speak and the way we write are both forms of dress. In fact, giving the impression of clarity and straightforwardness is often a strategic game. Using plain and clear language is not a moral virtue, as Orwell hoped. But Orwell’s advice, ironically, has not elevated the substance of debate it has merely helped the political class to avoid the subject more skilfully. We live in a self-consciously plain-spoken political era.

Politics and the english language summary