very interesting. reminds me of George Orwell's 1946 essay "Politics and the
English Language" in which he argues for the politics of clear writing.
"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. Defenseless villages are
bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the
cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is
called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent
trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called
transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned
for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of
scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable
elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without
calling up mental pictures of them."
The phrases and countries have changed since 1946, yet official brutality is
still masked in euphemism. I put a copy of Orwell's essay up at
http://vispo.com/guests/GeorgeOrwell/PoliticsAndTheEnglishLanguage-GeorgeOrw
ell.html some time ago. It is still all too relevant.
ja
> Jargon-busters pick top offenders after 25 years of rewriting history John
> Ezard, arts correspondent Monday July 26 2004 The Guardian
RE: netbehaviour: Jargon-busters pick top offenders after 25 years of rewriting history
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Jim - thanks for putting up the essay - have not read it before.
mark
Jim Andrews wrote:
> very interesting. reminds me of George Orwell's 1946 essay "Politics
> and the
> English Language" in which he argues for the politics of clear
> writing.
>
> "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. Defenseless villages are
> bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the
> countryside, the
> cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets:
> this is
> called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms
> and sent
> trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is
> called
> transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are
> imprisoned
> for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to
> die of
> scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of
> unreliable
> elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things
> without
> calling up mental pictures of them."
>
> The phrases and countries have changed since 1946, yet official
> brutality is
> still masked in euphemism. I put a copy of Orwell's essay up at
> http://vispo.com/guests/GeorgeOrwell/PoliticsAndTheEnglishLanguage-GeorgeOrw
> ell.html some time ago. It is still all too relevant.
>
> ja
>
>
> > Jargon-busters pick top offenders after 25 years of rewriting
> history John
> > Ezard, arts correspondent Monday July 26 2004 The Guardian
>
>
> Jim - thanks for putting up the essay - have not read it before.
>
> mark
glad you enjoyed
http://vispo.com/guests/GeorgeOrwell/PoliticsAndTheEnglishLanguage-GeorgeOrw
ell.html , mark. reading this essay was part of a second-year composition
course in english i took in university in canada way back when. it was
considered a classic then, and presumably still is. not sure how widely
taught it is anymore. by now, many of the phrases and references are
historically dated. but the general principles are still valid. and of
course it is would be a useful exercise for students to come up with their
own contemporary examples of dying metaphors, verbal false limbs,
pretentious diction, meaningless words, etc used in contemporary political
and art writing.
the general principle that there is something at stake in clear writing that
concerns the political welfare of society is still important. We have
undergone several decades of 'theoretical' pretentious bafflegab in writing
on art and matters of 'cultural criticism'. But it is beginning to appear,
in retrospect, as fashion, as trend that is expiring. Which is hopeful.
ja
those are all useful words. they can be and have been written about without
hiding behind excessive jargon, without 'squirting ink like a cuttlefish,'
as orwell puts it. nor would i "completely discount cultural criticism". the
point, once again, is that there is something at stake concerning the
political welfare of society in writing so that people can understand what
the fuck you're saying so they can make up their own minds about whether
you're full of shit or not.
of course jargon is sometimes useful. mathematics and programming, for
instance, are full of it. any field has its jargon and, at best, it is
useful abbreviation of explicable concepts.
ja
http://vispo.com/writings
> well, i wouldn't completely discount cultural
> criticism; by supporting clear writing as a poltical
> act, you are in effect participating in it–(even
> though you did not use the words "colonialism,"
> "postmodernism," "structuralism," or the even more
> dreaded "post-humanism")–
>
> (i even feel bashful about using the word "dialectic")
>
>
> however—-my god, yes: less -ism, more CONTENT…no
> more jargon as substitute for thought….