Eric Blair — not a bad name. It has a certain ring to it, yet it’s not a name we recognize. We are, however, familiar with Blair’s writing and the words and phrases he made famous such as “cold war” and “Big Brother.” We simply know him by another name: George Orwell.
Even though over sixty years have passed since Orwell’s death in 1950, we still continue to learn from him. Two weeks ago, the Gadfly Group sponsored a lecture on campus by Assistant Professor of History Sam Negus about Orwell and how politics corrupts language. The event was timely with November elections nearing and political catch-phrases, such as the so-called “war on women,” flooding the airwaves. Orwell would have immediately recognized phrases like the “war on women” as political propaganda.
Best known for his novels “1984” and “Animal Farm,” Orwell mastered the art of writing, not only as a novelist, but also as a journalist and essayist. His writings demonstrate a profound understanding of politics — an understanding he gained, no doubt, from his experience as a colonial police officer in Burma, his time living in the slums of London, and his involvement in the Spanish Civil War fighting on behalf of the Republicans against Franco’s Nationalists.
Through his incredible ability as a writer and his keen perception of politics, Orwell still influences us today. His essay “Politics and the English Language” remains one of the best guides for clear writing and, more important, a commentary on politics and the use of rhetoric. He understood the power of words to shape ideas and public opinion. In his essay, Orwell admonishes writers to use precise diction avoiding euphemisms and “sheer cloudy vagueness.”
In an election year, Orwell’s advice holds a particular relevance as he pointed out “it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing.” Fundamentally, it lacks clarity. Orwell explained that “a fresh, vivid, home-made turn of speech” is rarely found, and the vagueness of phrases such as “free peoples of the world” or “stand shoulder to shoulder” still plague our political rhetoric today. From the barrage of campaign ads over the past few months, the truth in Orwell’s assertion is not difficult to see.
We continually hear phrases that few can define. One such phrase present in the news over the past few years is the “war on women.” It’s a phrase surrounded by debate and controversy, but what does it actually mean? The three words strung together tell us very little, and if you asked someone to define the “war on women” you would receive a different answer each time. Some would say it means limiting women’s access to birth control and abortion; while others would say it means treating women unfairly in the business world. In the end, the “war on women” is merely a political slogan without a definition.
Unclear political rhetoric not only allows for generalizations, but also, as Orwell warns, it is “largely the defense of the indefensible.” Abstract phraseology makes possible the naming of a thing without conjuring a mental image. Writing in the 1940s, Orwell used the example of “pacification” which in reality was the total destruction of defenseless villages.
Today we hear political slogans with the same abstractness. It is an abstractness that serves to make an idea or policy sound more appealing. This is the case regarding abortion. Candidates who support abortion often campaign as “socially tolerant” or “pro-women,” carefully using phrases like “reproductive rights” and “the right to choose.” They rarely use the word abortion or discuss its consequences because both paint a disturbing mental image.
Just as the name Eric Blair fails to evoke the same reaction as the name George Orwell, the same holds true for euphemisms. Orwell was right. Words shape politics, which is why they must be chosen carefully.
