6 ms·

Politics and the English Language (1946)

121 points by cocacola1 4y ago

Animats 4y ago
That's so Orwell. Orwell's job during WWII was translating news into Basic English, the 1000 word vocabulary, for radio transmission to the colonies. (India, Hong Kong, etc.) He had to take out ambiguity, euphemisms, and verbosity to hammer news into that limited vocabulary. He discovered that this is a political act. Removing ambiguity from political writing changes the meaning. It cannot be done neutrally, because reducing the ambiguous to the concrete requires making a decision. Hence this essay, and, later, Newspeak. (Source: "Orwell, the Lost Writings".)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  This is also at core the problem with the current movements against "making moderation political." Moderation is inherently ideological for the same reasons; there is no neutral position from which to do it because it involves making decisions about what may be included. A specific moderation policy may be terrible but "it's political" can't be the reason, because it applies to all of them. Same thing with "correct" dialects of english, norms around hospitality, civility, showing respect etc. You can establish what is most common and demand people adhere to it, but that doesn't make it neutral.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    That's one way to frame the issue, but the other side of it would be that they want moderation to be more inclusive so as not to further other somewhat less than half the population and worsen the political divide. It isn't neutral in either direction, of course, and is part of a growing push-back against the sort of ideology that rejects all names for and criticism of itself.
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    You're intentionally muddying the waters by conflating common-sense rules like "you can't say the-n-word", with the kind of political moderation that's problematic ("you can't share articles about lab leak theory"). If speech is political enough that you're not sure if it's political, it's political.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      I mean first off you don't have any particularly privileged insight into my intentions so let's just stick to what I am saying here today alright? But that said, "muddying the waters" is a particular view of it but yes I am pointing out that they are qualitatively the same. What is or isn't common sense is a value judgement you make based off of experiences and your estimation of who shares them and to what degree. It's not inherently neutral. The two examples you mention are excellent demonstrations! 80 years ago that sort of language would have been expected, 50 it would have been tolerated, now it isn't. Because of changing political reality, which moderation polices are a part of.
    - bapqpa 4y ago
      > You're intentionally muddying the waters by conflating common-sense rules like "you can't say the-n-word", Now try implementing that policy on a rap forum. One person's "common sense" is another person's nonsense.
  - woooooo 4y ago
    Yeah, we all have biases, and fish don't know they're in water.. but is an attempt to be unbiased so much to ask?
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      attempts are laudable, but ... towards which "neutral"? (this is where a closed forum, like a mailing list, has an easier time: one can aim for "what is generally acceptable among the known readership". To Kill A Mockingbird has a wonderful illustration of code switching, but was recently unacceptable to quote on a forum dealing with under- and over-class biases, both explicit and implicit, exactly because it literally used the n-word, and not only did it use it, but needed to do so, demonstrating the lines between in- and out-group usage. When it came to forum policy, the distinction between use and mention was lost.) cf https://www.tatler.com/article/nancy-mitford-u-and-non-u-language https://www.tatler.com/article/nancy-mitford-u-and-non-u-lan...
- svat 4y ago
  Even the books and essays he wrote before WWII have the same lucid style and clarity of thought: so it may be fair to say Orwell was always interested in clear (seeing and thinking and) communication, even before noticing how much of the opposite there was everywhere.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  This has a lot of implications for translations and translators that attempt to "disambiguate" the original because it contains difficult to translate meanings. It makes me rethink all the translated political speeches I've ever read.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Some of the most salient phrases of political speech are the Rorschach meanings: deliberately ambiguous in hopes each supporting audience will ascribe their own preferred interpretation to the speaker's intent. cf Yes, Minister
    - largepeepee 4y ago
      Ah, yes minister. Probably the most intelligent political comedy of all time, used to be a must-watch, and still highly regarded for the intelligentsia in multiple countries.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Even UN transcripts and documents with all their expert translators don't have translators notes with that kind of detail.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
hughw 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't do this here.
AnEro 4y ago
So he basically predicted the current news cycle issues with American/western media political education. For example if it's not laissez-faire capitalism then it's socialism and heavens forbid the government is the one doing the work then it's communism. However, if you explain to the average person what bill/policy/plan does, alot more will agree and not care and think it's great until the buzzwords they remember to dislike come out. Basically use buzzwords strategically, people will agree on more than one expects if you get to the core of what's happening. When you use buzzwords the connotations already is set and taints everything you use around them
- altruios 4y ago
  Buzzwords, key phrases... I.E. 'hooks'. Thoughts don't only compete along the vector of truthfulness, they also compete along the vector of stickiness. I predict an acceleration in this tactic (and others) in most media going forward.
- DenisM 4y ago
  > When you use buzzwords the connotations already is set and taints everything you use around them The technical term for this is "framing", fwiw.
  - LesZedCB 4y ago
    for those who want to explore this more, here's a very short PDF by Lakoff describing Simple Framing[1], and the longer version [2] [1] http://www.clarityphase.com/Framing/Simple%20Framing%20George%20Lakoff.pdf http://www.clarityphase.com/Framing/Simple%20Framing%20Georg... [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34459.Metaphors_We_Live_By https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34459.Metaphors_We_Live_...
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  It didn't predict it, so much as it shows a continuous historic link.
iambateman 4y ago
The first time I read this essay was in 2011, and it changed the way I write. Highly recommend!
avhception 4y ago
When the cashiers in the big supermarket chain store in my neighborhood started to use a standard, corporate mandated phrase that included the company name and ended with something like "did you get everything you need?" I was irritated at first and started to get angry after a while. I'm usually a cheerful person that gives the cashiers a smile and a nod and wishes them a nice weekend or something. But that phrase felt totally alien, it deprived the whole little exchange of any humanity. I think the cashiers hated it, too. Luckily, it didn't catch on. Maybe it was German stubbornness or something. I'm really glad it's gone.
- mhink 4y ago
  Oh, I detest this as well. At Chik-Fil-A in the US, employees are basically required to say "my pleasure" in response to "thank you", and it comes off so artificial- maybe even culty. It's even worse when the employee in question is clearly in a bad mood or something. Either way, it kinda makes me avoid saying "thank you" at all; most of the time I'll try to come up with some other polite valediction to avoid making them say it.
dang 4y ago
Related: Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27067007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27067007 - May 2021 (20 comments) Politics and the English Language (George Orwell, 1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24828499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24828499 - Oct 2020 (1 comment) George Orwell on Writing and the 4 Questions Great Writers Must Ask Themselves - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21712057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21712057 - Dec 2019 (1 comment) George Orwell – Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13538496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13538496 - Feb 2017 (21 comments) George Orwell: Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12327324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12327324 - Aug 2016 (1 comment) George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12271030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12271030 - Aug 2016 (150 comments) George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10452900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10452900 - Oct 2015 (2 comments) George Orwell: Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643231 - Oct 2013 (62 comments) “Politics and the English Language,” By George Orwell - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6277405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6277405 - Aug 2013 (2 comments) Politics and the English Language [1945] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3752825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3752825 - March 2012 (13 comments) George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" 1946 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2079477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2079477 - Jan 2011 (1 comment) George Orwell - Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=997940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=997940 - Dec 2009 (14 comments) Orwell: Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=636287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=636287 - June 2009 (14 comments) Orwell Essay: Politics And The English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=272211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=272211 - Aug 2008 (11 comments) Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=115519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=115519 - Feb 2008 (5 comments) (Reposts are ok on HN after a year or so: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)
LesZedCB 4y ago
i think it's really funny how many of his examples of dead metaphors are still used > Ring the changes on, take up the cudgels for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles’ heel, swan song, hotbed. the whole essay is hilariously savage. also this observation back in 1946: > The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. and finally > You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you – even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent – and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. reminds me of the capabilities of a certain chatbot as well. i ultimately disagree because i'm too taken by descontructionists. orwell's assertion of finding pure, simple meaning in clear language, well i don't believe in that. > When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualising, you probably hunt about till you find the exact words that seem to fit it. [citation needed]
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  "Fascist" is one of those curious words when - used outside serious history - it says more about the person using it than it does about what the person is describing.
  - asplake 4y ago
    And let’s not forget that Orwell was an active participant in that serious history. Makes his comment especially noteworthy, surprising even
    - LAC-Tech 4y ago
      IIRC the official stance of the USSR at that time was that Trotsky of all people was a fascist - a very modern usage of the word. I imagine Orwell - as a non-Stalinist socialist - was aware of it.
raincom 4y ago
Academics, esp in humanities and social sciences, are masters of bullshitting; they learn this art from their mentors (Ph.D advisors, teachers), who have mastered that. Just look at the followers of Foucault, Derrida, etc.
082349872349872 4y ago
shorter Orwell: write so that your readers may be confident you are not an LLM?
ggm 4y ago
A polemic arguing for plain English. What it lacks is a comparison to other tongues (much communist rhetoric is a translation from either German or Russian or Chinese or Vietnamese or Italian or Spanish so demands questions about choice of metaphorical equivalency which probably is fed by dictionaries, and would tend to archaisms as a consequence) Not really confined to politics either, unless you regard all argumentative writing (as in writing presenting a side of an argument of reasoning) as politics.
shaftoe444 4y ago
The modern translation from Ecclesiastes is just so funny. > I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. Becomes > Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
- john-radio 4y ago
  It's a wonderfully funny essay. The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song!
  - shaftoe444 4y ago
    the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot

121 points by cocacola1 4y ago

That's so Orwell. Orwell's job during WWII was translating news into Basic English, the 1000 word vocabulary, for radio transmission to the colonies. (India, Hong Kong, etc.) He had to take out ambiguity, euphemisms, and verbosity to hammer news into that limited vocabulary. He discovered that this is a political act. Removing ambiguity from political writing changes the meaning. It cannot be done neutrally, because reducing the ambiguous to the concrete requires making a decision. Hence this essay, and, later, Newspeak. (Source: "Orwell, the Lost Writings".)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
giraffe_lady 4y ago
This is also at core the problem with the current movements against "making moderation political." Moderation is inherently ideological for the same reasons; there is no neutral position from which to do it because it involves making decisions about what may be included. A specific moderation policy may be terrible but "it's political" can't be the reason, because it applies to all of them. Same thing with "correct" dialects of english, norms around hospitality, civility, showing respect etc. You can establish what is most common and demand people adhere to it, but that doesn't make it neutral.
- Natsu 4y ago
  That's one way to frame the issue, but the other side of it would be that they want moderation to be more inclusive so as not to further other somewhat less than half the population and worsen the political divide. It isn't neutral in either direction, of course, and is part of a growing push-back against the sort of ideology that rejects all names for and criticism of itself.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  You're intentionally muddying the waters by conflating common-sense rules like "you can't say the-n-word", with the kind of political moderation that's problematic ("you can't share articles about lab leak theory"). If speech is political enough that you're not sure if it's political, it's political.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    I mean first off you don't have any particularly privileged insight into my intentions so let's just stick to what I am saying here today alright? But that said, "muddying the waters" is a particular view of it but yes I am pointing out that they are qualitatively the same. What is or isn't common sense is a value judgement you make based off of experiences and your estimation of who shares them and to what degree. It's not inherently neutral. The two examples you mention are excellent demonstrations! 80 years ago that sort of language would have been expected, 50 it would have been tolerated, now it isn't. Because of changing political reality, which moderation polices are a part of.
  - bapqpa 4y ago
    > You're intentionally muddying the waters by conflating common-sense rules like "you can't say the-n-word", Now try implementing that policy on a rap forum. One person's "common sense" is another person's nonsense.
- woooooo 4y ago
  Yeah, we all have biases, and fish don't know they're in water.. but is an attempt to be unbiased so much to ask?
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    attempts are laudable, but ... towards which "neutral"? (this is where a closed forum, like a mailing list, has an easier time: one can aim for "what is generally acceptable among the known readership". To Kill A Mockingbird has a wonderful illustration of code switching, but was recently unacceptable to quote on a forum dealing with under- and over-class biases, both explicit and implicit, exactly because it literally used the n-word, and not only did it use it, but needed to do so, demonstrating the lines between in- and out-group usage. When it came to forum policy, the distinction between use and mention was lost.) cf https://www.tatler.com/article/nancy-mitford-u-and-non-u-language https://www.tatler.com/article/nancy-mitford-u-and-non-u-lan...
svat 4y ago
Even the books and essays he wrote before WWII have the same lucid style and clarity of thought: so it may be fair to say Orwell was always interested in clear (seeing and thinking and) communication, even before noticing how much of the opposite there was everywhere.
MichaelZuo 4y ago
This has a lot of implications for translations and translators that attempt to "disambiguate" the original because it contains difficult to translate meanings. It makes me rethink all the translated political speeches I've ever read.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  Some of the most salient phrases of political speech are the Rorschach meanings: deliberately ambiguous in hopes each supporting audience will ascribe their own preferred interpretation to the speaker's intent. cf Yes, Minister
  - largepeepee 4y ago
    Ah, yes minister. Probably the most intelligent political comedy of all time, used to be a must-watch, and still highly regarded for the intelligentsia in multiple countries.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Even UN transcripts and documents with all their expert translators don't have translators notes with that kind of detail.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

hughw 4y ago

[flagged]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dang 4y ago
Please don't do this here.

AnEro 4y ago

So he basically predicted the current news cycle issues with American/western media political education. For example if it's not laissez-faire capitalism then it's socialism and heavens forbid the government is the one doing the work then it's communism. However, if you explain to the average person what bill/policy/plan does, alot more will agree and not care and think it's great until the buzzwords they remember to dislike come out. Basically use buzzwords strategically, people will agree on more than one expects if you get to the core of what's happening. When you use buzzwords the connotations already is set and taints everything you use around them

altruios 4y ago
Buzzwords, key phrases... I.E. 'hooks'. Thoughts don't only compete along the vector of truthfulness, they also compete along the vector of stickiness. I predict an acceleration in this tactic (and others) in most media going forward.
DenisM 4y ago
> When you use buzzwords the connotations already is set and taints everything you use around them The technical term for this is "framing", fwiw.
- LesZedCB 4y ago
  for those who want to explore this more, here's a very short PDF by Lakoff describing Simple Framing[1], and the longer version [2] [1] http://www.clarityphase.com/Framing/Simple%20Framing%20George%20Lakoff.pdf http://www.clarityphase.com/Framing/Simple%20Framing%20Georg... [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34459.Metaphors_We_Live_By https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34459.Metaphors_We_Live_...
LAC-Tech 4y ago
It didn't predict it, so much as it shows a continuous historic link.

iambateman 4y ago

The first time I read this essay was in 2011, and it changed the way I write. Highly recommend!

avhception 4y ago

When the cashiers in the big supermarket chain store in my neighborhood started to use a standard, corporate mandated phrase that included the company name and ended with something like "did you get everything you need?" I was irritated at first and started to get angry after a while. I'm usually a cheerful person that gives the cashiers a smile and a nod and wishes them a nice weekend or something. But that phrase felt totally alien, it deprived the whole little exchange of any humanity. I think the cashiers hated it, too. Luckily, it didn't catch on. Maybe it was German stubbornness or something. I'm really glad it's gone.

mhink 4y ago
Oh, I detest this as well. At Chik-Fil-A in the US, employees are basically required to say "my pleasure" in response to "thank you", and it comes off so artificial- maybe even culty. It's even worse when the employee in question is clearly in a bad mood or something. Either way, it kinda makes me avoid saying "thank you" at all; most of the time I'll try to come up with some other polite valediction to avoid making them say it.

dang 4y ago

Related: Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27067007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27067007 - May 2021 (20 comments) Politics and the English Language (George Orwell, 1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24828499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24828499 - Oct 2020 (1 comment) George Orwell on Writing and the 4 Questions Great Writers Must Ask Themselves - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21712057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21712057 - Dec 2019 (1 comment) George Orwell – Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13538496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13538496 - Feb 2017 (21 comments) George Orwell: Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12327324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12327324 - Aug 2016 (1 comment) George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12271030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12271030 - Aug 2016 (150 comments) George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10452900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10452900 - Oct 2015 (2 comments) George Orwell: Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643231 - Oct 2013 (62 comments) “Politics and the English Language,” By George Orwell - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6277405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6277405 - Aug 2013 (2 comments) Politics and the English Language [1945] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3752825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3752825 - March 2012 (13 comments) George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" 1946 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2079477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2079477 - Jan 2011 (1 comment) George Orwell - Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=997940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=997940 - Dec 2009 (14 comments) Orwell: Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=636287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=636287 - June 2009 (14 comments) Orwell Essay: Politics And The English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=272211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=272211 - Aug 2008 (11 comments) Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=115519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=115519 - Feb 2008 (5 comments) (Reposts are ok on HN after a year or so: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

LesZedCB 4y ago

i think it's really funny how many of his examples of dead metaphors are still used > Ring the changes on, take up the cudgels for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles’ heel, swan song, hotbed. the whole essay is hilariously savage. also this observation back in 1946: > The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. and finally > You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you – even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent – and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. reminds me of the capabilities of a certain chatbot as well. i ultimately disagree because i'm too taken by descontructionists. orwell's assertion of finding pure, simple meaning in clear language, well i don't believe in that. > When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualising, you probably hunt about till you find the exact words that seem to fit it. [citation needed]

LAC-Tech 4y ago
"Fascist" is one of those curious words when - used outside serious history - it says more about the person using it than it does about what the person is describing.
- asplake 4y ago
  And let’s not forget that Orwell was an active participant in that serious history. Makes his comment especially noteworthy, surprising even
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    IIRC the official stance of the USSR at that time was that Trotsky of all people was a fascist - a very modern usage of the word. I imagine Orwell - as a non-Stalinist socialist - was aware of it.

raincom 4y ago

Academics, esp in humanities and social sciences, are masters of bullshitting; they learn this art from their mentors (Ph.D advisors, teachers), who have mastered that. Just look at the followers of Foucault, Derrida, etc.

082349872349872 4y ago

shorter Orwell: write so that your readers may be confident you are not an LLM?

ggm 4y ago

A polemic arguing for plain English. What it lacks is a comparison to other tongues (much communist rhetoric is a translation from either German or Russian or Chinese or Vietnamese or Italian or Spanish so demands questions about choice of metaphorical equivalency which probably is fed by dictionaries, and would tend to archaisms as a consequence) Not really confined to politics either, unless you regard all argumentative writing (as in writing presenting a side of an argument of reasoning) as politics.

shaftoe444 4y ago

The modern translation from Ecclesiastes is just so funny. > I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. Becomes > Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

john-radio 4y ago
It's a wonderfully funny essay. The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song!
- shaftoe444 4y ago
  the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot