This essay evaluates George Orwell's argument in "Politics and the English Language" that the English language is inherently politically manipulative. The paper explores Orwell's critique of "dying metaphors," "pretentious diction," and "meaningless words" as tools of class dominance, then situates his position alongside Foucault's and Wittgenstein's social constructionism. The central argument challenges Orwell's political framing, proposing instead that inflated, convoluted language is more a product of historical linguistic tradition — rooted in Aristotle's monological, rhetorical model of communication — than of deliberate political exploitation. The essay concludes by tracing the modern shift toward dialogic communication as evidence that language corruption was historically conditioned rather than inherently political.
In George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" (1946), he argues that the English language is intrinsically politically manipulative. "The English language," says Orwell, "is in a bad way," and he goes on to demonstrate how this is so through an analysis of specific words and phrases.
According to Orwell — and this is a point on which linguists broadly agree — language is a natural outgrowth of one's culture. It echoes the way we think and reflects our socialization and transmitted values. Language is a semantic instrument fashioned by a specific culture, and the values and principles of that culture are woven into the fabric of the words that make up that language. In other words, "language is a natural outgrowth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes" (Orwell, 270). Language is as much a social construct as race or class.
Orwell points to "dying metaphors," "pretentious diction," and "meaningless words" as tools used to assert a certain implied superiority over people seen as illiterate, uncouth, and uneducated. Leveraging oneself above that class through seemingly sophisticated and unintelligible language is a way of asserting one's authority. In other words, a certain class of academics and influential people assert their dominance via inflated semantics. As Orwell sees it, "there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims. One turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink" (282).
Writing is a delicate craft. One must know precisely what to say and ensure that the reader is engaged rather than lost in a long-winded, ambiguous network of meaningless semantics. To that end, Orwell recommends that the writer focus on simplicity, constantly asking whether the same idea might be expressed in a more direct manner.
Orwell compares the craft of writing to that of painting: both require precision, clarity, effort, and care. "Thought corrupts language and language corrupts thought" (282). To produce clear and effective writing, one must first achieve clear and effective thought. Users of the English language must be aware of its potentially corrupting influences and evaluate them carefully, assessing what they want to say in order to present their ideas as accurately and effectively as possible.
"Comparing Orwell's critique to social constructionist theory"
As linguists and historians of language have observed, the Western model of communication has historically followed a monological approach. This approach has roots reaching back to Aristotle, who understood communication as a matter of rhetoric — that is, persuasion — in which language was a strategy for influencing people and helping them see reason or truth. In this framework, the "other" was treated as an object; communication was one-directional, and the goal was to seduce the listener into one's own way of thinking. According to some linguists, such as Alfred Taylor, this reduction culminated in depersonalizing words and converting them into abstract ideas, rather than acknowledging the complexity of the speaker behind them. It also led to glossing over the manifold complexity of the words themselves.
In more recent times, however, linguists have tried to demonstrate that communication is also about our unique perspective and interpretation of the world — not just about delivery and content — and that language in all its multiplicity and complexity serves as a medium for conveying our slanted and biased perspectives. The goal of language has become that of constructing a shared meaning. This dialogic approach is the epitome of what Orwell insists upon: presenting writing from the perspective of the other, drawing the reader in and assessing how to present words in a way that the other can genuinely understand.
The dialogic approach sees meaning in speech as a continual process rather than a static one — as personal and subjective, since it focuses on the speaker and the context of the speaker rather than solely on the message. People therefore become free agents, standing outside the one-sided communication that the monological perspective defines as normal.
"Modern linguistics moves toward shared, dialogic meaning"
Orwell criticized the English language for politicizing itself and, through the use of conflated words, exploiting those who were less educated and literate. He saw the bloatedness of elevated English vocabulary as a tool for controlling people of "lower" spheres. Orwell's observation, though accurate in describing certain semantic tendencies, may have been more applicable to historical context than to political determinants.
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.