Orwell’s Politics

The fundamental point behind George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” is a scathing criticism of the banality, the triviality, and outright inaccuracy of contemporary English. In a culture that is so entrenched in mass media, this is particularly exacerbated by political reportage though certainly, the shaping of culture by language comes in many shapes and forms, especially when this shaping is perverted by false reporting and vagueness. Too often, something is said but is not genuinely meant or is misappropriated for some strange variety of think-tank intellectualism that serves only to establish an echo chamber that discourages meaningful discourse and the sharing of ideas. This labyrinthine approach to dialogue and discussion is a chink in the truthfulness of knowledge and the sharing of ideas.  

To Orwell, insincerity is the harbinger of the English language’s decline. Politicians are a timeless example of this. As Orwell criticized politicians of his time for obscuring their intentions in a fog of convolution and flowery language, so too can people of modern America find fault in their own politicians and even their polarized news networks. In this example, the less informed are prone to a pandemic thoughtlessness in the shape of team-jersey politics: news networks such as Fox News are infamous for having a presentation that bald-facedly caters to more conservative viewers. The punditry is transparent and hardly makes an effort towards encouraging a dialogue-friendly environment between individuals of any and all political ideologies. Fox News’ potential for conversation is sacrificed for polarization and inspiriting the viewer with misinformation. Moreover, they hide behind the guise of being ‘fair and balanced’ news and encourage a culture of weakness that will simply accept anything they hear because it sounds good. Essentially, Orwell complains that English has become all style and no substance.

In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell outlines six rules for writing that he thought would be a cure for mediocre writing. In general, these rules enforce clarity, concision, and most importantly original thought. Mass media whole-heartedly incorporates deception as part of its bread and butter to the point where its audience unknowingly craves an element of obfuscation in its media. Political speeches, again, are geared towards what the audience wants to hear whether or not the content of the words themselves are honest or mean anything at all. Much like Orwell despises the invocation of old, meaningless imagery, so too does he find fault with manipulating words to fit a certain meaning when this process should be reversed. Where Orwell sees ugliness and inaccuracy in English, he refers to its meaninglessness and its constant search for fancifulness in an effort to appear more presentable. However, he considers this decline to be reversible.

The most immediate problem that is still prevalent is the reworking of a sentence in order to appear more eloquent and more intelligently written. In other words, sometimes we attempt to ascribe more meaning to the words when there is no meaning to them. What an idea should aspire to is to contain original thought and not rely on the plethora of crutches that have spawned over time. In the national news and politics, this void is reinforced by creating a dichotomy by using language in such a way that it makes no genuine attempt to engage its viewer in a thoughtful experiment. For media, it is very simply a game of deception and an uncomfortable hope that the listener or reader will accept everything he or she hears or reads at face value and seek no elaboration or further knowledge.