« Political Activism, the Media & You | Main | Coulter on Interrogation »
May 2, 2009
Orwell on Language
Posted by Tina
George Orwell, "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. **
Posted by Post Scripts at May 2, 2009 5:00 PM
Comments
Good article...
Here are some practical examples...
"Tolerance" and "Discrimination"
The way these words are used today, especially by those on the left, one would assume that the more "tolerant" you are the better you are, and the more "discriminatory" you are the worse you are.
But these words possess no inherent morale or ethical value in and of themselves. Being "tolerant" may be "good" if it means that you are willing to listen to differing points of view on a particular topic. But I doubt many of us (Peter Singer may be excluded from this) would think it "good" if someone were tolerant of murder or slander.
By the same token discrimination is just a word describing a choice or preference for one thing over another. I discriminate when I decide to buy the Captain Crunch over the Raisin bran (sorry mom) using taste as my determining factor.
Those who are intellectually dishonest will attempt to use these words in an attempt to shut down debate when it becomes obvious that they are in over their heads.
Just a suggestion to some of my liberal friends...words like "bigot" and "racist" ARE terms with an inherent morale quality; since it is never "good" to be a "bigot" or a "racist" whereas it CAN be good to be intolerant or discriminatory at times.
The problem for you here of course is that you will have to demonstrate that the person you are accusing of these offenses are adequately described by them; and since falsely accusing someone of "bigotry" may prove to be evidence of your own bigotry, it may be dangerous ground.
Either way good luck...or you can just do what you have been doing for the past 90 years and rewrite the English language conversation to conversation hoping that no one will notice...
Posted by: Nick Freitas | May 2, 2009 7:39 PM
If this is how Orwell felt in 1946, one can only imagine how often his bones must turning over in the grave. Especially when one considers the butchering of the English language by the advent of online sentence structure.
I seldom venture into cyberspace with my opinion about what I read, but when I do I attempt to do so as if I am writing with a pen and paper. I have never been a great Orwell fan, but I must give the devil his due. He was definitely a man who could see the future as it might become.
Now that I have sufficiently read enough to finally get to sleep, I will leave the cyber-world to the cyber-sheep.
Posted by: Nancy D | May 2, 2009 11:31 PM
Nicely put Nancy D.
Posted by: Tina | May 3, 2009 9:27 AM
Nick I couldn't agree more.
The latest example for me is the word torture. It's being tossed around like a frisbie at a picnic which dishonors those who have truly been torturedand muddies the definition of the word. It sickens me further when I realize it's being done largely to discredit and smear the former administration. They do not deserve such treatment after the care they took to ensure what they were doing was lawful and as humane as possible under the circumstances.
Is it any wonder we are a nation "dumbed down" when trained journalists are willing to play along in this farse?
Posted by: Tina | May 3, 2009 9:37 AM