February 08, 2002

Orwell Again and Again Orwell's

Orwell Again and Again

Orwell's famous essay on Politics and the English Language has been the springboard for countless opinion columns ever since it was written (how many, I wonder?) Here's the latest one, by Jonah Goldberg, and it's a hoot. He's got some great lines, as always, and any excuse to quote the winners of Dennis Dutton's bad writing contest is all right by me.

You don't have to look very far to find examples of unclear language reflecting (and causing) unclear thinking: they are everywhere, particularly in academic writing, perhaps because contemporary academic jargon was patterned after the ideological propaganda of Orwell's time. Goldberg makes a good point about the difference between what the jargon concealed then, as opposed to what it tends to conceal now:

In Orwell's day, the fog of jargon was a smoke screen to conceal real horrors; today the jargon is just so much smoke, to hide the fact that there's no fire. Read pretty much anything by Cornel West and you'll find all sorts of euphemisms brimming with racial or anti-capitalist sound and fury, signifying nothing...

Today's intellectual elite — the stars of Harvard and Berkeley — speak in such gibberish precisely because if they spoke plainly, clearing the smoke from their ideas, we'd learn that their views cover the spectrum from boringly unoriginal to sand-poundingly stupid. So-called "new theories" and "path-breaking approaches" are most often little more than novel, but increasingly ugly, arrangements of the same old deck chairs on the Lido deck of the Titanic.


This is quite right. But the real challenge of Orwell's recommendations on political language is that they cut both ways. Golberg, turning to contemporary political discourse, points to college campus euphemisms like "socially aware," "activists for social change," "sustainable growth," "tolerance," "minority," "economic justice," as "new clothes for old ideas the young and enlightened are scared to admit they still enjoy." True enough. But what about "pro-Life," "compassionate conservatism," "family values," "freedom to work," "coalition partners," "death tax," "marriage penalty," "liberal," "terrorist state," "affirmative access," "tax relief," or "stimulus package?" Eliminating euphemisms would leave a massive, gaping hole in American political discourse from end to end. If he were alive today, Orwell probably would, as Goldberg says of the bad writing winners, "beat these people into submission with a London phonebook" (in effect, anyway.) But he would probably also give the "War on Terror" a tough time, too.

This well-known sentence, from Orwell's essay, remains one of the most provocative and unsettling statements ever written on politics:

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.

This is a challenge to everyone, not just the decadent academics among us, ceaselessly to scrutinize our language and ideas, to let nothing stand unexamined. It's a tough challenge to meet, on trivial as well as important matters, for anyone who takes it seriously.

Posted by Dr. Frank at February 8, 2002 11:48 AM | TrackBack