Politics and the English Language Essay Questions

George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" presents a detailed account of the ways that English is being corroded. Does Orwell feel that this corrosion can be fixed or reversed? Analyze his ideas about function of the English language and the ways that it may or may not be manipulated.

In the opening of his essay, Orwell states that he believes that the English language is "an instrument that we can shape for our own purposes" (251). It is not a natural product that once was pure and now is contaminated. Presumably English has always been poorly used and the struggle to reverse its corruption is continuous. In 1946, the time that Orwell is writing his essay, the poor use of English was feeding into the poor thinking of particular partisan politics. In the following essay it will be argued that poor language has a similar relationship to different manifestations of partisan politics and that the struggle to resist the poor thinking that comes from poor language is the same, if not more urgent.

In "Politics and the English Language," Orwell describes a cycle in which the poor use of language leads to foolish thinking, which in turn leads to the poor use of language. Evaluate his claim about the cyclical connection between thought and speech and discuss its implications.

In the opening of his essay, Orwell states that "English becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts" (251). From this claim he proceeds with an explanation of the ways that "ugly and inaccurate" language cause foolish thinking. The essay as a whole presents a close examination of this cycle. While the cycle he describes seems all-pervasive, and seems to threaten to smother independent thinking, it is Orwell's agenda in the essay to show the ways that the process is reversible. A part of what it takes to support free independent thinking and to regenerate language is a close examination of the power of poor language and its far-reaching influence.

One of Orwell's main targets in "Politics and the English Language" is the use of elevated, pretentious and abstract language. Why does he take issue with these forms of expression? Discuss.

While Orwell goes after ugly language and presents a close examination of stale imagery and dead metaphors, his main target seems to be elevated, pretentious and abstract language. It's when he's discussing these forms of expression that specific political targets emerge, namely: apologists for Soviet socialism and conservative imperialists. He suggests that these groups make regular use of elevated terms and abstract language when they attempt to justify unjustifiable causes. As he shows, abstractions distance language from its concrete meaning, in this way becoming dishonest forms. Abstract language is a rhetorical means of blurring our violent realities, a means of disguising and thus permitting violence. This is why Orwell goes after these forms of expressions.

In the essay, Orwell says, "In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' 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." Analyze this statement. What do you make of of the adjectives he uses to describe the nature of politics?

Fierce and divisive tensions between political groups seem to be a markers of modern democratic politics. What it is that causes political groups to dig their heels in and oppose each other so relentlessly is certainly a vast and complex question. Yet the rhetorical aspect of oppositional politics no doubt plays a significant role. As Orwell discusses, the role of language has profound implications in political partisanship. The evasions that poor language permits is the source of the ugliest and most regressive aspects of politics.

Orwell's essay was written in 1946. Do you think any of its lessons still resonate in recent times? Discuss.

Along with fascism and democracy, the concept of "free speech" is one that has emerged and re-emerged to be bent and twisted to serve the political agendas of the different people who deploy it. Coming from one group, free speech seems to mean something very different than when it comes from another. This malleability is strikingly reminiscent of Orwell's discussion of terms that are rendered meaningless when used to serve the speaker's political agenda. The concept of free speech, however, is less two-dimensional than something like fascism (meaning something "bad") and democracy ("good"). In recent discourse, free speech has the power to be deployed as the "right" to refuse to recognize the "rights" of a given group's opponents.