The Convincing Power of Words

In 1946 George Orwell wrote and published a small essay giving, what he felt, was inductory help to the process of writing. Entitled Politics and the English Language in it he looks, in depth, at the way certain words and phrases can confuse and blur your understanding of what is being communicated. The essay acts as a warning against language oppression. A few years later he would publish Nineteen Eighty Four, one of the most important works of literature in the last century. In the book a governmentally initiated language called New Speak acts as just another tool in controlling the population. Expression, through a mechanical language, was suppressed. The essay in question, published a few years before this, lays the foundation for this very idea. Orwell promotes writing truthfully and keeping a strong grip on meaning. The voice of the writer must reside in the text instead of being clasped in ego or in the need to convert the reader. To simplify is to bring clarity; less is essentially more (I wonder how well I'm doing keeping out of irony at this point).

The relationship between language and politics is very close. One could argue that it was Noam Chomsky's study of linguistics that lead him into political activism, although he has denied this. In a 1969 interview in The New Left the drive, for him, was "rooted ultimately in some concept of human nature and human needs". Over the many years after the interview, his intuitive knowledge of semantics would have given him a wise outlook on the progression of politics leading up to and into the 21st Century. Remaining steadfast, he opposed the early 90's "War on Drugs" policy claiming the language choice to be misleading and has been highly critical of the position of the American Media.

Frustratingly, these warnings appear ever more relevant in our current political situation. You have only to watch Prime Ministers questions for a few minutes or catch a glimpse of Fox News to see substantial evidence for this. Our parliamentary debate is a veritable shit-slinging of buzz words and hollow sentiment, all supporting partisan interests. The word 'change', used almost to absurdity by many politicians, has mutated from its definition. If Enoch Powell rose from the grave to be seated in Parliament this would count as change. Such is the convincing power of words. When I hear it, I wince and my eye flickers in nervous aversion. As a word, it's political profanity and, used so many times, remains empty and untrustworthy. Even Barack Obama's early speeches rung with an unconvincing air of synthetic 'change'. Ultimately, it was his optimism and honesty that lead this message into belief; but it took some time. Phrases such as "War on Terror", "Coalition of the Willing", "Tough on Crime"; all serve to create a form of brand-name or catch-phrase politics, for a culture fed on TV and advertising. It's getting more and more difficult to speak with conviction or with a unique voice. Just telling someone that you love them for example produces a depressing feeling of cliche, the feeling that it has been said over and over, a billion times before.

Of course, it's not politicians who are to blame for this perversion of language. Our happy acceptance of being lied to is phenomenal. We ignore it, we let it go, and perhaps with reason. We want to believe that our government is acting on this proposed 'change' and if not, we don't want any part of it. It's hard to condemn people who see nothing but smoke and mirrors in politics. Truth is now an desperate animal, lost in a fog, moving in and out of the endless, evolving realities that we find ourselves in. Language can create barriers in society. What unites us is our sense of reality, our collective understanding of our environment and it's hard to see how constant mention of 'change' fits into this, other than to draw us further away from the will to actually achieve it for ourselves.