Laura Gumz!

Paper 2
In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell argues that civilization’s current
moral and cultural decline is in a cause-and-effect, cyclical relationship to the deterioration of the
English language. He claims that foolish thought instigates inaccurate language, which instigates
foolish thought and so on. . He asserts that thinking more clearly is the first step to “political
regeneration”, alluding to the primary idea of the essay.
!
Orwell lists four ways the English language suffers: dying metaphors, operators of verbal
false limbs, pretentious diction, and meaningless words. He believes many metaphors are used
without knowledge of what they are actually depicting because reusing old metaphors is easier
than creating new ones. He claims that writers and speakers tend to pick out phrases that add
symmetry and syllables to a sentence without considering the appropriate verbs and nouns to fit
the thought. He also notes an abundant use of passive voice over active. Orwell says that
modern English focuses on the use of big, foreign, or intelligent-sounding words to “dress up a
simple statement.” He also notes the common use of abstractions and undefined words such as
liberty, justice, and freedom.
!
Orwell translates a verse from the Bible to modern English to give an example of the
problems he previously discussed. He analyzes five short passages that he deemed as
representative of the modern English way of language. He claims these passages suffer mostly
from “staleness of imagery” and “lack of precision. He also believes that the authors either
cannot express their meaning or do not know their meaning at all.
!
He then comes to the main idea of the passage, the English language in relation to
politics. “… letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your
sentences for you - even think your thoughts for you…” Orwell believes political parties are
designed to create a machine-like spokesperson to deliver the message the party wishes to be
heard. The same language and rhetoric is used by every politician or representative and no brain
power is required. Political parties make use of these “ready-made phrases” by inserting them
into any speech or written-piece made by their officials. Orwell also claims that political parties
use euphemisms to water-down the gravity of political issues. He gives an example of their use
of the word “pacification” versus actually describing the horrific acts this word entails. “When
the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”
!
!
There were many aspects of this essay that caught my attention. First, were the four main
problems Orwell associated with the deterioration of the English language. Prior to reading this
essay, I found myself perplexed by the need for such pretension in writing, but I had not
previously considered the other three aspects Orwell mentions. I have been guilty of using
words with no meaning, phrases fitted to sound eloquent, and definitely metaphors or literary
devices that are now cliches or worn out. I hadn’t realized the lack of solid definition attached to
words like democracy or justice. I found it fascinating that as Orwell mentioned Fascism, I
couldn’t come up with an actual definition for the word.
!
Laura Gumz!
Paper 2
Second, I was intrigued by the idea of political figures reusing the same rhetoric over and
over again with respect to the political party they align with. I would even further this to the
general population; we all use the same rhetoric political figures feed us. These phrases are used
so many times in speeches, interviews, and debates that we as a public have picked up on and
imitated this speech. I feel like I’ve fallen victim to the trap of repeating things I’ve heard
instead of originating ideas and thoughts.
!
Lastly, I was surprised by Orwell’s implementation of rules. He had given suggestion to
all of these ideas throughout the essay. I believe that his thoughts on language are accurate and
he persuaded me to pay closer attention to the way that I write, but I found myself frustrated and
confused with this addition of sedentary rules. I feel that they distracted from what I perceived
as the main idea, the political aspect of the deterioration of our language. I also feel that if we set
up rules for the way he did, we will end up falling into the same trap of reusing ideas and
methods for writing. Though this problem would differ from the current situation, it would also
contain similarities to the ready-made phrase way of thinking.