mckenzie malanaphy

Recent statistics published in the Atlantic underscore the powerful role language plays in shaping personal opinions and politics. The findings also bring to mind similar observations brought to light nearly 80 years ago by the wonderful author and democratic socialist George Orwell.

Language has the power to shape how we perceive ideas, people, culture and the world. Politicians and leaders understand this, wielding words carefully to influence and direct their audiences. Unfortunately, language today is incredibly convoluted, which leaves many of us mislead, misdirected or misinformed.

“Leading Questions” from the Atlantic, September 2013:

It’s amazing that a small shift in language can increase support for the same issue by as much as a 19%.

Have you ever noticed how the type of language most commonly used by politicians, officials, executives and the like contains the flimsiest content? Like a bag of chips that appears large until it’s opened to reveal the airiness of its fillings, a politician or corporate spokesperson seems to speak for so long, yet says so little. The goal is very obviously to avoid relaying information.  A knack for obfuscating the truth is ideal for the role of president, lobbyist, senator, executive director, etc.

In his essay, Politics and the English Language, published in 1946, George Orwell refers to what he coins “the decline of language”. The change is characterized chiefly by a departure from clarity of meaning. The elimination of simple verbs, pretentious diction, the use of abstract and meaningless words, defaulting to tired metaphors and ready-made phrases. Examples of this lazy style of communication are easily found in traditional media, from the ramblings of academics to political statements.

In Orwell’s words:

“The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed…”

Orwell observes that many of the words used in politics are difficult to pin down with any universal denotation. But, although these words are nearly devoid of meaning, they’re effective at drumming up feelings.

“The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice [and today’s liberty, capitalism/ist, democrat, liberal, liberate, republican, conservative, terrorism, etc.] have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it…”

Especially in the case of political talk, these words are used in a deliberately dishonest way in order to make direct statements as minimal as possible.

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”

Just as misleading language was adopted in the past to sugarcoat upsetting subjects like colonial rule, it’s used today to discuss subjects such as Syria, Palestine, the death of African Americans, the failures of healthcare, etc. In this climate, all we can do is strive to notice how language is used to direct our support or opposition and aspire to speak clearly in our daily lives.