Kucheany Trinie Mony Essay: Assignment #1 2/20/2014 What would Orwell think?

Once upon a time, a man named George Orwell strived for the likes of clarity and straightforwardness to be laced into speech. His famous Language and Politics essay is standardly remembered for his beliefs about the political language and how it can inevitably bring harm to societys way of thinking due to its use of a slippery and passive structure. Should Orwell be alive today, it would not be difficult to imagine how appalled he would be with Americas current use of politics and language. To simply put: in current modern society, Americas way of thinking in regards to that of politics, and to that of everything else, has been practically overridden by the likes of media play, rumors and gossip, and of the things people want to hear versus the things people do not want to hear. This makes for language to become easily deceptive, for prose to initiate passive arguments in order to gain positive feedback from a target audience in such a way that would have Orwell practically rolling in his grave. The truth for which many seek and that Orwells written about may be out there in terms of speech or written word, but in modern society there is no way of truly knowing for certain when it is buried beneath words that may not hold any meaningful significance. In Language and Politics, Orwell discusses a set of terms that one should keep in mind when he or she is trying to express ideas precisely. While the essay was written quite some time ago, some linguistic issues Orwell has mentioned still hold a sense of relevancy and importance to todays usage of language. An example would be the typical usage of metaphors in speech and written word. For Orwell, there is a definite line drawn straight across for what is to be

considered good language versus bad language. Good language in this sense is the ability to communicate thoughts clearly as opposed to its counterpart which Orwell describes as a huge dump of worn-out metaphors that can undoubtedly take over our thoughts and pollute the clarity of our stance. The Beaver, a newspaper of the London School of Economics Students Union, pointed out that in the US today, Metaphor or any other kind of figurative language for that matter can and are being used to euphemise and twist realities to the political ends of the rhetoricians. Simply put, how could you deal seriously with the opposition, at a moment of enormous importance for the United States and the rest of the world, when you were not speaking in the same terms? They use the example of former President George W. Bushs metaphor axis of evil first spoken during his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002 to illustrate how vague language has gotten thanks to the usage of silly turn of phrases. Briefly: what does axis of evil really mean? Apparently, it is to describe the alliance of Americas common enemies, but realistically it was causing America to identify Iraq as evil and irrationally labeling the country as belligerent. Perhaps if George W. Bush had simply stated what he really meant without the usage of made up metaphors, then we would not have to deal with the ignorance many have against Arabs and their identifying culture. In addition, President Obamas September 10, 2013 Address to the Nation on Syria provides another boggling metaphor regarding the United States military. He states, Let me make something clear: The United States military doesnt do pinpricks. While politicalmetaphors.com regards the metaphor as one of the metaphors in Obamas speech to be worth noting, it is questionable as to what a pinprick actually defines when used as a metaphor. This in turn causes the phrase to become one of confusion rather than one of clarity.

From these linguistic issues, it is easy to side with the fact that political language has subsequently deteriorated since Orwells 1946 essay. Fee.org has graciously described the downward spiral of straightforwardness desired by Orwell by giving the example of, In the 1930s, one could say I dont like liberal democracy; I think fascism is a more appropriate system for organizing society. To say that today would be unthinkable. While it is unthinkable to call anyone a fascist in modern society, this example best illustrates the downward turn between early 20th century political society and 21st century political society. Furthermore, Orwell continues to describe that use of such metaphors and fancy strung together sentences affect the way we think. He goes on to say that the decadence of our language is probably curable however, from a personal perspective, it does not seem that our language will be following any new kind of structure of revival any time soon. Weve all fallen in the same pattern of imitation, taking up the traditions of listening, writing, and speaking in the same form as those before us without any room for improvement or a way out. Political language is deteriorating, blurring the consciousness of society and deceiving those who are willing to listen. But if we took a step to research and really listen to what is being said, there is that hope of language reviving into a clear and concise form of expression just as Orwell has written about.

References: "Politics and the English Language." Orwell:. 21 Feb. 2014 <http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html>. "Metaphors in American Politics." Metaphors in American Politics. 21 Feb. 2014 <http://www.politicalmetaphors.com/2013/09/16/president-obamas-speech-on-syria/>. "Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Syria." The White House. The White House. 19 Feb. 2014 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/10/remarkspresident-address-nation-syria>. "The misuse of metaphor in political debate |." 21 Feb. 2014 <http://www.thebeaveronline.com/the-misuse-of-metaphor-in-political-debate/>. "Metaphors in American Politics." Metaphors in American Politics. 21 Feb. 2014 <http://www.politicalmetaphors.com/2013/09/16/president-obamas-speech-on-syria/>.