ORWELL UPDATED— “POLITICS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE” FOR TODAY

In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” published in 1946, George criticised “the ugly and inaccurate’ spoken and written English of his day. He examined the connection between political orthodoxies and the debasement of language. For 30 years, Kel Richards has been a writer and broadcaster discussing the use of the English language in our times and beyond. On Monday 31 July 2023, Kel Richards addressed The Sydney Institute to discuss modern language usage in the light of George Orwell’s powerful essay of 1946.

ORWELL UPDATED— “POLITICS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE” FOR TODAY

KEL RICHARDS

George Orwell’s classic essay “Politics and the English Language” was published in Cyril Connolly’s journal Horizon in April 1946. Orwell’s power for us today, 77 years later, is his astonishing level of prescience. In that essay as well as in Animal Farm and Nineteen Eight Four, he foresaw the problems that haunt us today.

Orwell (real name Eric Blair) lived from 1903 to 1950. The adjective “Orwellian” began appearing in print within months of his early death from tuberculosis. On 21 January 1950, an artery burst in Orwell’s lungs, killing him at the age of 46. Within six months American writer Mary McCarthy was using his name as an adjective to speak about “a leap into an Orwellian future”.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the “Orwellian” in these terms: “Characteristic or suggestive of the writings of George Orwell, esp. of the totalitarian state depicted in his dystopian account of the future, Nineteen Eighty-four.”

With our all governments practising command and control repression during the Covid outbreak, and the Albanese government now promoting censorship of what it vaguely calls “misinformation” and “disinformation”, it is hardly surprising that the qualifier “Orwellian” is being so widely used today.

Nineteen Eighty-Four, as you know, was a bleak prediction of a totalitarian future. Despite the title, it was not set in a specific year. Orwell wrote it in 1948 and simply reversed the last two digits on his calendar to give him 1984 (the book was published the following year, in June of 1949).

Orwell had, as I’ve said, astonishing prescience. He forecast the surveillance of our lives, moment by moment, especially (these days) our online lives. He forecast this in the form of Big Brother giving us the famous slogan “Big Brother is watching you”, accompanied by the lie that all governments tell: we are under surveillance for our own good. Isn’t that what they said during Covid? Then he invented the Thought Police, who would seek out and punish Thoughtcrime, exactly what now happens when someone is banned from social media, de-platformed or cancelled in any way.

In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, government propaganda is pumped out by the Ministry of Truth (with such slogans as “war is peace”). The Ministry of Truth was involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and education. Its purpose was to rewrite history to change the facts to fit official doctrine. This is strikingly similar to the indoctrination of children in our state school systems these days. “Gender is fluid” they tell our children, echoing the Orwell’s mock slogan “war is peace”.

Orwell also coined the term “doublethink” – the ability to believe in two contradictory ideas at the same time. For instance, to believe that all cultures are equal, but Indigenous culture is still better than Western culture. Or, as the pigs in Animal Farm might put it: “all cultures are equal, but some are more equal than others”.

To see all this coming, and write about it, in 1948 shows amazing foresight on Orwell’s part. No wonder then, we invoke his name to describe the world we now live in as “Orwellian”.’ What we have to live through today, must have been around him in embryonic form, but he alone had the eyes to see. Which brings us back to his justly famous essay “Politics and the English Language”.

It was (as I said) first published in Cyril Connolly’s Horizon journal in April 1946. It has been republished in various collections of Orwell’s essays since. While the essay, on its own, was published as a compact 32-page book by Penguin in 2013 in its Modern Classics series. Since then, it has been published as an audio book, read by English actor Peter Noble. If you’re interested, it runs for 42 minutes. (Mind you, I don’t think Noble reads it particularly well.) Orwell’s conclusion at the end of essay is: “ … one ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.”

In Orwell’s essay his “catalogue of swindles and perversions” says that English was (already in his day) being killed as a meaningful form of clear communication by the following disease. He lists four of them: (1) dying metaphors; (2) what he called “operators” (or “verbal false limbs”); (3) pretentious diction; and (4) meaningless words. (To know what he said under those headings, and the examples he gave, go back to his original essay – it is well worth re-reading.)

Today my list would be different. In the twenty-first century all of this Orwellian confusion, deception and repression has been cranked up. So, today’s catalogue of swindles and perversions is as follows: (1) weaponised words; (2) weasel words; (3) empty words; and (4) uncontested words. So, let’s unpack each of those four in turn…

Weaponised words

This is the idea that words with a standard, accepted, meaning recorded in dictionaries can be changed into “attack words” – into words of verbal assault.

One clear example is: “fascist”. This word was coined by Benito Mussolini. who called his political part the National Fascist Party. Since then, “fascism” has come to mean more broadly: “a right-wing political system in which people’s lives are completely controlled by the state and no political opposition is allowed.” (OED) But that’s not how the word is being used today.

It has been weaponised and is used by the political left to label anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Anyone who expresses even fairly mild support for conservative or right-of-centre politics can these days be labelled a “fascist”. This is an exceptionally stupid misuse of language – because the people so labelled are often supporters of smaller government and less centralised control. Surely the very opposite of fascist. And not only stupid, but dangerous, since it makes it impossible to use the word “fascist” seriously when talking about the real thing – really bullying, freedom-denying command and control policies. People using “fascist” in our Western democracies today are (in reality) using the word to mean “people I don’t like”.

Another weaponised word is “hard-right”. Again, the misusers of the expression come from the political left. It’s interesting to note that media outlets that are happy to label anyone they disagree with as “hard right” never use the parallel expression “hard left”.

Yet another weaponised word is “notorious”. There was a rally in Victoria called “Let Women Speak” defending the right of women and girls to have their own safe spaces, and not have transgender persons (often still with penises) come into girls’ change rooms or toilets. That rally was labelled in one news outlet as “notorious” (as in “the now notorious Let Women Speak rally…”) “Notorious” means “famous or well known for something bad”. Applying such an adjective to a defence of safety for women and girls is an evil “weaponisation of words”.

If you happen not to like, let’s say, Nigel Farage, all you have to do is call him the “notorious Nigel Farage” and your weaponised word will do the work for you. No need for any arguments, evidence or reasons – just a weaponised word

The word “apartheid” has now been weaponised by the Greens Political Party. This word was coined in South Africa in 1947 from an Afrikaans word literally meaning “apartness” or “separateness”. It was used as a slogan by the National Party of South Africa in the 1948 election which brought the party to power. It names an odious policy of constitutional racism. But now it is being weaponised.

The Australian Greens Political Party has declared that Israel is running an “apartheid” state. They do this despite the fact that Arabs comprise about 20 per cent of Israel’s population and Israel’s declaration of independence recognises the equality of all the country’s residents, Arabs included. There are Arab members of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. During the real “apartheid” in South Africa there were no Black members of the South African parliament.

Some conservatives are also abusing and weaponising this word by claiming that the Voice (if passed at the referendum) would be bring “apartheid” to Australia. This is at best hysterical, and at worst as bad as any verbal abuse and weaponising by the progressive side of politics.

Another, disturbing example of weaponisation is the expression “hate speech”.

This began in America and is first recorded in 1938 meaning “a speech or address inciting hatred or intolerance”. So, originally “hate speech” didn’t just mean expressing hatred but “inciting” (or encouraging) hatred in others. But that’s not how it’s being used now.

The people who are quickest to label a statement “hate speech” are using it to mean “disagreement”. So, if someone believes that men who choose to identify as women are real women – that’s their point of view. It’s a free country, and they can think, and say, what they wish. But if someone else disagrees and says that men who identify as women are not real women their words are called “hate speech”.

This is simply untrue. Those words are just disagreement. And disagreement is disagreement – not hate speech. If someone says something in line with classic Christian doctrine they can find themselves accused of “hate speech”  – as happened to Israel Folau. You can be a hard-core, hard-left Marxist and you will be safe, but if you are right-of-centre and conservative expect to have your words labelled as “hate speech”. That is weaponising words – and we need to be aware of the dangerous game that is being played.

Weasel words

The Oxford English Dictionary says that “weasel words” is originally an American expression meaning: “an equivocating or ambiguous word which takes away the force or meaning of the concept being expressed.” The most common practitioners of “weasel words” are (surprise, surprise) politicians. I’ll give you some examples.

As you know, the Labor Party used the Brittany Higgins’ rape allegations as a weapon to relentlessly attack the Morrison government. So, were they fed information about those allegations even before they were made public? Leaks of a “war gaming” tape involving Higgins and Lisa Wilkinson makes that (at least) a possibility.

Labor Senator Katy Gallagher was asked in parliament in June 2021 (by Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds) if she had been fed information about the allegations. Gallagher snapped back: “No one had any knowledge. How dare you!” In those words, was she misleading parliament? Did her words match what we now know from the leaked recording? She has now changed her story. Now she says: “I was given some information.”

That’s it! That’s a classic case of “weasel wording”. The word ‘some’ is the weasel word in the middle. That ‘weasel word’ seeks to “take away the force or meaning of the concept being expressed”. It’s always nice to find such clear case of “weasel wording”. That’s why we need these labels – so we recognise what’s going on.

The word “intention” has become the go-to weasel word for any politician who wants to appear to be making a commitment – or rejecting an option – while at the same time leaving the backdoor open to denying that apparent commitment any time it suits. “Intention” has a fairly straight forward meaning: “a plan or desire to do something” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). If something is likely to be unpopular with the voters the weasel word used to rule it out is “intention” – as in “we have no intention to make any changes to superannuation”.

But if you analyse that language all it does is to report on the politician’s current “plans or desires” and makes no commitment about the future. “Intentions” are things that can change at any time. What your “intention” is today may not be your “intention” tomorrow. Sometimes there are variations on “intention” such as “we have no plans to…” or “we are not focussing on…” or “we are not thinking about…” It is all the same verbal sleight of hand (the same weasel wording) as “intention” – it sounds like a commitment, but is really nothing of the sort.

We would be wise as voters to recognise “intention” as the weasel word it is, and every time we hear it know that the politician speaking is not being honest, but is ducking and weaving and telling us nothing.

Empty words

In many ways “empty words” are the easiest to talk about because they are the most obvious. These are the filler words that are used by politicians, commentators and other public figures, to fill the hole where there would otherwise be silence. There are thousands of them, but I’ll pick out a few.

“Moving forward” uttered by a politician (or anyone else) is clearly devoid of any meaning whatsoever – since the real issue is what direction counts as “forward”. If they just mean “forward in time” (which often seems to be what they intend) this will happen with or without their help. Every hour we will move forward by 60 minutes. And they will have contributed nothing to that forward movement. When a politician boldly offers of policy of “moving backwards” I might be impressed.

Just as bad is tagging the words “and so on” to the end of a list. It can happen in answers given in question time in parliament. It is lazy. Rather than enumerating, or even bothering to know, what else should be on the list the lazy, empty expression “and so on” is uttered.

Politicians have been known to begin answers to questions with the words “all things considered:” – an empty cliché that fills a bit of space while their brain madly scrabbles for something even remotely relevant to say. Then when it comes to explaining why, the explanation often begins with “as can be expected” – telling us that (beyond those empty words) no reason will be given.

“Begs the question” is almost always misused to when the speaker is trying to say this “raises the question” (itself a bit of flummery that gets the speaker off the hook of having to have any answers). In reality “begs the question” refers to a logical fallacy that philosophers call a petitio principii ­– a circular argument in which the truth of the conclusion is assumed in the premise. But, as used, it is totally empty of meaning.

I could go on at length and list the cliches beloved of political types: “Behind the scenes” which, if it means anything at all, means, “Yes, I know it looks like I’m doing nothing… but… but…”  And all the others: call into question, dyed in the wool, fall on deaf ears, in no uncertain manner, leaves much to be desired, part and parcel, in any shape or form, weather the storm, welcome with open arms, year in year out – Eric Partridge catalogued them all in his Dictionary of Cliches.

Clear English says things – empty words fight against this and give us political utterances that say nothing.

Uncontested words

What do I mean by “uncontested words”? There are some words that (at various times) circulate widely in the public domain that are crying out to be contested or challenged, and are not. An example is the word “unprecedented”.

During the summer of 2019-2020, the widespread bushfires were repeatedly described as “unprecedented”. This word suited the climate catastrophist narrative and was repeated by journalist after journalist and politician after politician. It looked as though no major public voice would contest or challenge the use of “unprecedented” by all the major Australian networks, by the BBC, by newspapers both here are around the world. “Unprecedented” reigned as the unchallenged, uncontested word.

But in 2019-2020, a total of thirty-four people died. Just ten years earlier, in Victoria’s “Black Saturday” 173 people died – five times as many. Foreign journalists might not be expected to know this, but surely local journalists should have known. Had 2009 been totally forgotten in 2019? And the human fatality figure is the only certain indicator of seriousness. Working out how many hectares of unpopulated bushland has burnt is a matter of guessing and estimate – and, of course, if you are promoting climate catastrophe the figure will be inflated. As for the number of homes lost – that was about the same in both disasters. But deaths provide a definite, clear comparison – and yet “unprecedented” went uncontested.

Then there is the word “battery”. Energy Minister Chris Bowen seems to have a plan to run the whole of Australia’s energy needs from sun and wind, plus batteries. The last of these is important since the wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun sets every night. But when he talks about “battery backup” his words seem to go uncontested. So, when I read an article claiming that the largest current battery array could power the city of Adelaide for two hours I thought – if the sun sets at six, the blackout starts at eight.

I wonder about the blithe, uncontested acceptance of the word “battery” just being thrown out there. Now, I must be cautious since this is an area for engineers not wordsmiths and there may be much more to it than I have read. But I still think that just accepting the word “battery” as being adequate and sufficient – without contest and without challenge – cheapens the language.

Another often uncontested word is “sorry”. Very often this comes in the form of “I am sorry you are upset” – which shifts the blame back onto you for being such a wimp, and the implied message is “toughen up buttercup”. The problem with “sorry” is that it is an informative word, not a performative word. The words “I apologise” are a performative utterance that performs the action of apologising. The words “I am sorry” report on the speaker’s inner feelings and no more. The utterance of the word “sorry” in place of an apology should not be allowed to go uncontested, especially by political journalists.

There are many uncontested words and phrases, but I will stop with just one more: the faddish phrase “always was, always will be”. The editor of my last book used this as part of his email signature. And thousands of others are happy to endorse it. But they leave it uncontested. They never ask what it really means, and what action it would require if true. Anyone who says, “Always was always will be” and owns their own home is using un-thought-about, and uncontested words – and should be challenged. What they should do, of course, is hand the title of their house block over to the local native title council.

If a major retail chain is happy to use “Always was, always will be” as part of their promotional image – they should be challenged to hand back the title of the land on which all their retail outlets stand to the appropriate local native title councils. They, of course, can’t see this because they use those words without thinking – as a fashionable, uncontested, expression.

So, there you are – weaponised words, weasel words, empty words, and uncontested words.

So, let’s draw some threads together – as far as that’s possible – and let’s come back to George Orwell. If he were with us today, it is certain that he would be alarmed that his warnings went unheeded, and the world continued to plunge in the direction he had been alerting us to. In his 1946 essay, Orwell was writing in the hope of drawing the attention of those who used language in the public sphere to understand where their language was going wrong – in the hope that they would do better. Orwell said, “All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.” He hoped that once he had alerted his readers to his “catalogue of swindles and perversions” they would cast all of this “into the dustbin where it belongs”. Those are the words with which his essay ends. His words went unheeded – and politics continued to pervert the English language.

I do not have the confidence to encourage or urge the users of political language to do better, as Orwell did – writing “one can probably bring about some improvement  by starting at the verbal end”. My fear is that the twenty-first century linguistic swindles and perversions are not (for the most part) happening by accident or unintentionally. Most, rather, are deliberate abuses of the English language for malicious purposes.

We cannot appeal to the goodwill of the perpetrators or expect them to choose to do better. When they weaponise words, when they use weasel words, or empty words, they are doing it to deceive. When sympathetic branches of the media choose to allow their words to go uncontested it is to keep the smoke screen in place to achieve a political goal.

If they won’t do better, what can we do?

Firstly, we be sensitive to the words being used – and how they are being used – and call out linguistic frauds that are practised upon us. When we make a noise about such things, we are helping others by alerting them to the linguistic three-card-trick that is being played.

Secondly, we can take great care that we ourselves never fall into the same linguistic cesspool. Instead of accepting the words of the political class and re-using them, we need to find ways to re-express those ideas that make them both clearer and more honest.

And, thirdly, we can ensure that the swiftness of the magician’s glib words never fool us!