LIn "Politics and the English Language," Orwell makes the point that obscure language can have a political motive. His assertion that political motives are behind the decline of language is based on his belief that the lack of precision (obscurity) in any kind of political writing is intentional. Furthermore, his contention that bad writing is endemic to politicians may be seen as one aspect of his belief that any writing becomes bad when it obfuscates thought or perpetuates unnecessary flourishes of heightened diction. As will be seen, sometimes only a deconstruction of language will reveal the hidden agendas or social meaning beneath its surface.
If Orwell's rules for good writing in "Politics and the English Language" are compared and contrasted with those of another essayist--one who respects Orwell, in fact--it will become apparent that, instead of being iron-clad, such rules are general guidelines to clarity and good diction. Orwell's own writing, albeit a narrative essay produced before "Politics and the English Language," together with Sander's "The Singular First Person," will provide valuable insights into the circumstances under which one might get away with certain prose flourishes.
Orwell's argument that language has become a political tool is based on his assumption that political powers have a stake in preserving the status quo, in all of its orthodoxy, and, "Orthodoxy, of whatever colour [political persuasion], seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style" (271). Where the status quo is challenged, Orwell argues, such limpid prose is replaced by clarity (clear-headedness) and vitality; in fact, "to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration" (265). Rebels who do not merely reiterate the "party line" are more likely to use better prose, according to Orwell (271).
Orwell's concern for the degeneration of the language, and his distaste for politics, have drawn him to make a case fo...