Political rhetoric and the English Language

After my first reading, I felt rather dreary and wondered if I had missed the point. I went back over it with a highlighter and feel a great deal better about what he was saying. His argument is unclear at times, but in its most simplest form makes a persuasive call to action. In paragraph 2, Orwell says that, "...it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer..." However, Orwell goes on to suggest that we as individuals play a crucial role in the reform of language. While he downplays the negative influence of the individual, he seems to preach a different gospel of positivity in regards to the ability of the individual to reform for good cause. Without getting caught up in some of the less explicit ideas, we can summarize his argument by saying that the English language is clearly declining as a result of intentionally deceptive political rhetoric, and that the path we are on has not been determined a priori.

The full force of his argument is expressed through the following sentences:

Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different...The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

When I was able to adequately frame the discussion within the parameters of political thought, the criticism seemed much more appropriate. He cites specific examples of political speech used to convey impartiality or an air of culture and elegance. Likewise, he shows the relevance of such a discussion to communicating ideas of international politics and discussions of war. If his criticism were confused as an attack on the literary use of language, Orwell would surely be disappointed. In his final paragraph, he states clearly that this discussion was intended not for the literary use of language, but rather in the use of language as an instrument in expressing thought.

Once I finally realized the which target was in the cross hairs, I was more than ready to stand on Orwell's side in the attack. I am a firm believer that one should always be as clear as possible when communicating powerful ideas. He sheds light on many crucial problems such as the intentional ambiguity of language used to deceive listener, and avoid responsibility as the speaker. My only response to him would be that sometimes it is necessary to use more, rather than less, words in order to convey an idea appropriately. Just because I am "unclear" in my language does not automatically deem me to be insincere. However, considering the nature of political rhetoric, I do not find much fault at all in Orwell's inclination to look for the worst.