“I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don’t know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.
If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse — into the dustbin, where it belongs.”
— George Orwell
Orwell knew a thing or two, but that people do not care enough to understand what they hear is part of the trouble, that they are so distracted by the immediate sphere of life they do not look beyond their own actions too closely ensures the state of our decay. The truth, or the absense thereof, resides in the action our leaders take. It’s there to see for those who are willing to observe. In a perfect world politicians would speak succinctly, but it isn’t and they certainly do not. And it is because I agree with Orwell’s view of language that I must play devil’s advocate a little.
Consider this:
Is it the politician’s fault for using convoluted language so that the citizen cannot easily see the truth or is it the citizen’s fault that he does not pursue clarity in the midst of confusion?
It is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. If one can transcend the paradox, this mental exercise illustrates that the answer ulitmately does not matter; both are responsible for the existence of the other. And so too is true for the politician and the citizen. It is not enough to begin within as Orwell urges us, we must endeavor to understand what we do not before we can gain the momentum to triumphantly put doublespeak to rest.
Fri, Dec 9, 2011 Permanent link
Categories: language, Society, politics, truth, Doublespeak
Sent to project: The Total Library
Categories: language, Society, politics, truth, Doublespeak
Sent to project: The Total Library
![]() |
RSS for this post |