- Orwell’s thesis states that the English language has been corrupted by foolish thoughts, and foolish thoughts and foolish language has bounced off each other for centuries creating this very sloppy language. He does state though that there is a way to reverse this damage. By following the very simple rules in order to avoid over describing/over explaining and vague dry words.
- The quotation from this essay that I found very significant was when Orwell stated “ You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. 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 part is important it sort of exposes the reason why our language has become this poor or why our thoughts have been shaped this way forming foolish thoughts and transferring it to writing.
- One of Orwell’s examples of writing that disturb him was “
While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”
And this is on the basis of dishonesty and insincerity. And the reason why this is so repulsive is because our language and writing has come to the point where it is insincere the fore we use many words in an attempt to cover it up but instead, makes it look somewhat foolish and obvious. I myself do also make the mistake of using this method and it is also something I do not like since the tone can get confusing or just sound as he said, insincere.
- Language use and politics intersect for me in today’s society when it comes to the pro life pro choice debate. I am a Catholic myself and I would consider myself pro life, but not in the same way you would think. Due to the fact that the phrase pro life has been completely misunderstood and been used to cover up a different purpose. Because the people fighting for “pro life” are not indeed pro life. They are pro birth. Because how could you expect a broken system to force women to have children, sometimes from their abusers, in a country and world that makes having children an expensive burden and where so many children end up in abusive families or the broken foster care system and then do NOTHING about it?That is called, pro birth. Not pro life. I consider myself pro life because I believe I should fight for your life despite your race gender or way of thinking. That you deserve a quality LIFE despite your actions because you are a human. And that we should form a government to support women MORE, make them completely equal as they should be, create and fund more programs to help financially and educate minorities and the poor, all of this and more in order to reduce the need for abortions. But in a broken system like this? I can not force somebody to follow my religion while being oppressed by a system designed to keep the rich, rich, and making everything, including raising a child(financially, socially, etc)extremely difficult. So as a pro lifer, I must be aware of the quality of everyone’s life, not just mine and my beliefs.
You have chosen a great example from Orwell. If you go back to the example he gives that’s meant to illustrate what’s wrong with so much political speech, what do you find when you try to understand the quotation? What are “certain features which the humanitarian might deplore”? What is language doing in this example? What is it hiding? As for the example you cite of being pro-life, that’s another area where the terms we use have come to mean something very different from what the words would seem on the surface of things to mean. Does that make sense?