Summary of Section One of George Orwell - Politics and the English Language

Summary of Section One of George Orwell - “Politics and the English Language”

Orwell opens by discussing the value of working against the decay of the English language. Language is a tool, he argues. Thus, if it is corroding, this is a human-controlled rather than simply natural process. Its corrosion is reversible. In clear terms, Orwell describes the cycle in which the poor use of language becomes reinforced by that poor use. He uses a clear analogy to describe this cycle, stating that “a man maytake to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks” (251). Accordingly, “foolish thoughts” are made possible by foolish language (251). As is the case with the cycle of alcoholism, the process of poor writing-poor thinking-poor writing is reversible. Intervention is possible. Clear, honest language will support clear, independent thinking, which in turn will support clear language, and so on.

He moves on to present different examples of language that reflect different habits of thinking. He selects examples from different academic texts, political pamphlets and a letter to the editor of the Tribune. While each of the examples is “ugly” in its own right (a feature he claims is fixable), each shares two features: “staleness of imagery… [and] …lack of precision” (252). As he explains, this is the result of the writer in each example either being unable to express their meaning or notcaring if they accurately express themselves at all. This particular combination of features (staleness and imprecision) is, according to Orwell, “the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing” (251).

Orwell follows with a more specific list of examples of habits or tactics that writers use in order to avoid developing meaning in their prose.

The list is as follows:

“Dying metaphors” are hackneyed, familiar, unoriginal metaphors, not of the writer’s own invention. While original metaphors work by presenting the reader with a new image, dying metaphors are redundant and fail to evoke a new thought. He lists a number of familiar examples, including “toe the line” which he also notes is frequently misspelled as “tow the line” implying that the writer doesn’t even know the meaning of the metaphor they’re attempting to deploy.

“Operators, or verbal false limbs” stand in for more clear and accessible meaning. Examples are “render inoperative, militate against, prove unacceptable…” and more. These are used in the place of other verbs. The reason for this, he suggests, is mostly stylistic-rhythmic,the writer attempting to create a symmetrical sentence by filling it out with an operator. Other examples of this are the use of passive voice in place of active and the replacement of simple conjunctions with complex phrases such as, “with respect to; having regard to…” (253).

"Pretentious diction." This is an important target in Orwell’s broader critique. Use of pretentious diction (of which he gives a long list of examples) has specific political functions. Certain pretentious words aim to stand in for scientific objectivity. Pretentious adjectives are used to turn ugly international political processes into something sophisticated or to glorify war. Foreign words replace familiar English words as a way of giving an air of sophistication. He argues that onereason that political writers resort to the use of foreign words is because it’s easier than finding an accurate English word. Pretentious diction, he suggest, is mostly caused by laziness and its effect ultimately muddies the writer’s meaning.

Meaningless words. He lists a number of words often used in art history writing and other disciplines that, he says, are ultimately meaningless. But his main targets in this section are political words such as fascism used as a general term to refer to something bad and therefore rendered meaningless, and democracy used as a reference for good politics and therefore deployed by everyone to favorably label the given regime that they’re defending. He shows how other examples lead to a general sloppiness and vagueness, by which writers avoid committing to the meaning of their sentences. Orwell develops a sample of this, paraphrasing a passage from Ecclesiastes by using strikingly abstract language to show the evasive effect of modern language.

He summarizes this section with a list of points that he says a “scrupulous writer in every sentence will ask himself…” (255).