Politics and the English language
Image: public domain (via Wikimedia Commons)
In 1946, George Orwell wrote one of the most prescient and influential essays, ‘Politics and the English Language’. In it he asserts that lazy writing prevents critical thought and ultimately leads to a corruption of political life.
His view is one that requires little modification to apply to writing in wide use today: vague expression hides meaning from the author as well as the reader; use of abstract words prevents precise thought; fuzzy language can be used to conceal an often ugly reality (from ‘negative growth’ to ‘collateral damage’).
Orwell cites a passage from the beautiful King James translation of the Book of Ecclesiastes (9:11):
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
and puts it into what he describes as ‘modern English of the worst sort’:
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
So why write like this? Sometimes it’s to seem clever and well-informed and bamboozle an audience; sometimes it’s just to obscure lies or to mask the absence of intelligent content.
Orwell offers 6 points to guard against this kind of mendacious usage.
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Words to live by …
