George Orwell understood something few of us fully grasp: language isn’t just a means of communication—it’s a weapon. It can illuminate truths or bury them, liberate minds or imprison them. Nowhere is this clearer than in his chilling works, particularly 1984 and the essay Politics and the English Language.
Orwell argued that the words we use don’t merely describe the world; they shape it. Deliberately twisting, simplifying, or inflating language not only distorts reality, but also reshapes our thinking and our perception of what is possible. Today, from political rhetoric to corporate jargon to social justice discourse, Orwell’s insights remain a critical warning.
The purpose of language: communication or control?
In Politics and the English Language, Orwell made an uncomfortable observation: much of the language used in politics and public life is designed not to clarify but to obscure.
He gave examples from his time—phrases like “rectification of frontiers” (military conquest) and “liquidation of undesirable elements” (mass murder)—that reduced horrifying realities into neutral, almost clinical terms. The goal was clear: to numb the public and discourage dissent by making the unthinkable sound mundane.
Today, this tactic remains effective. Euphemisms like “collateral damage” or “strategic realignment” serve a similar purpose. Even terms like “alternative facts” use ambiguity to manipulate. The result is a public discourse where words no longer mean what they seem to, making it harder for ordinary people to challenge the powerful.
Orwell’s most striking insight was that when language becomes this distorted, it doesn’t just hide the truth—rather, it makes it impossible to think clearly about the truth. If the language available to us can’t express dissent, then dissent itself becomes unthinkable.
Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell
The chilling genius of Newspeak
Orwell brought this concept to life in 1984 with Newspeak, the official language of the Party. Designed to limit thought, Newspeak systematically eliminated words that could express rebellion or independent thought. If words like freedom or justice don’t exist, Orwell argued, then the concepts themselves become harder to imagine.
Example from Newspeak:
One of the most sinister tools of Newspeak is the creation of doublethink, the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at once. Take the slogans:
- “War is Peace.”
- “Freedom is Slavery.”
- “Ignorance is Strength.”
On the surface, these statements are absurd. But when repeated enough, they become internalised truths. The Party doesn’t just impose these contradictions—they require citizens to believe them, breaking down the barrier between reality and fiction.
The goal of Newspeak:
Newspeak doesn’t just limit what people can say; it rewires what they can think. Without a word like “revolution,” there can be no revolutionary ideas. Without “justice,” there’s no framework for understanding injustice. This is the ultimate weapon of authoritarianism: not censorship, but linguistic sabotage.
The manipulation of language extends to shaping public opinion through media. A 2024 study examined how political language serves as a tool of psychological manipulation in media discourse during international crises. It identified linguistic strategies like amplification, incitement, and emotional polarization used to elicit fear or hope among the masses, thereby influencing public sentiment.
From Newspeak to modern jargon
Even though Newspeak isn't as pervasive as it is in 1984, the manipulation of modern language nevertheless echoes Orwell's warnings. Consider the prevalence of jargon, particularly in institutions like corporations, governments, and universities.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) jargon
The goals of DEI initiatives may be noble, but the language often obscures rather than clarifies. Phrases like “intersectional frameworks” or “empowering diverse narratives” might sound virtuous, but their meaning is often vague, elastic, and open to interpretation. What exactly constitutes an “empowered narrative,” and who decides which frameworks are valid?
Take the term “anti-racist praxis”—a popular expression in DEI literature. On paper, it suggests deliberate actions to dismantle racism, but in practice, it can mean wildly different things depending on the speaker’s ideology. For one person, it might mean reforming discriminatory policies; for another, dismantling entire institutions deemed irredeemably flawed. Without precision, such terms invite misunderstanding—or worse, uncritical acceptance of vague prescriptions.
Jargon also creates a barrier to entry for those outside the “in-group.” Imagine an HR meeting where employees are urged to embrace “a justice-oriented lens for equity-driven outcomes.” For DEI insiders, this might seem perfectly reasonable. But for someone new to the topic—say, a middle manager from a non-academic background—it could feel like decoding a foreign language. The implication? If you don’t “get it,” you must be intellectually or morally deficient. This breeds resentment and alienation—the opposite of the inclusivity these initiatives ostensibly aim for.
Worse still, jargon can shield bad ideas from critique. When someone questions what “decolonising the curriculum” really entails, they risk being dismissed as unenlightened or even malicious. The fog of ambiguity discourages genuine debate, framing dissent not as a difference of opinion but as a failure to understand.
Why jargon is dangerous
Jargon works like a modern-day Newspeak—not by eliminating words but by layering them in abstraction to make ideas harder to scrutinise. Take “operationalising equity metrics”: it sounds impressive but often means little more than reallocating resources without addressing deeper systemic issues. This kind of language creates the illusion of thought, shielding flawed ideas from genuine critique.
Orwell also understood how language manipulates emotions to control thought. In 1984, the Party’s Two Minutes Hate channels citizens’ anger toward an external enemy, ensuring frustrations never land on the Party itself.
Today, emotionally charged slogans like “Silence is violence” or “Make America great again” play a similar role. They provoke visceral reactions, creating polarised us-versus-them dynamics that stifle reflection and dialogue. These slogans bypass reason, making us feel certain or outraged without unpacking the complexities beneath the rhetoric.
Orwell saw this as one of language’s most dangerous tools of control: when we feel before we think, we’re easier to lead, harder to challenge, and less likely to engage critically.
Subscribe to our brand new YouTube channel.
Reclaiming language for clarity and critical thought
As jargon and spin dominate modern discourse, Orwell’s rules offer a vital roadmap to reclaim language as a tool for truth rather than manipulation.
In Politics and the English Language, Orwell outlined a deceptively simple manifesto against the decay of language. His rules—direct and unpretentious—stand as a revolutionary call to clarity in an era awash with slogans and emotionally manipulative rhetoric.
Adapted for modern times:
-
Never use a metaphor, simile, or figure of speech that you are used to seeing in print.
Lazy clichés like “thinking outside the box” or “the wheels of progress” don’t just bore your audience—they reveal a lack of original thought. For Orwell, fresh language reflects fresh thinking.
-
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
Jargon thrives on unnecessary complexity. For instance, why say “utilise” when “use” works just as well? Orwell believed that simplicity forces precision, while complexity often hides confusion.
-
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Language bloated with filler is like a fog that obscures meaning. Phrases such as “at this point in time” could easily be replaced with “now.” Trimming the excess clarifies the message.
-
Never use the passive voice where you can use the active.
Passive constructions, like “mistakes were made,” avoid assigning responsibility. The active voice—“I made a mistake”—is clearer and more honest.
-
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or jargon if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Pretentious language excludes rather than includes. Orwell urged us to speak to be understood, not to impress.
-
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Orwell valued flexibility over dogma. The goal is clarity, not rigid adherence to rules. If following a rule compromises your message, adapt as needed for clear, effective communication.
Why Orwell's rules matter today
These rules are a bulwark against linguistic manipulation. They remind us that language should serve the truth, not obscure it. In a world saturated with buzzwords and spin, Orwell’s rules are more than stylistic tips—they are ethical imperatives.
The danger of vagueness. Orwell’s deepest concern was that vague language isn’t just lazy—it’s dangerous. Why? Because it allows speakers to avoid accountability. If you don’t clearly state what you mean, no one can hold you to your words.
Vagueness in politics. Consider phrases like “comprehensive immigration reform” or “pro-growth policies.” These sound appealing but are deliberately nonspecific, designed to unite supporters without committing to concrete actions. The ambiguity allows politicians to evade criticism because no one knows precisely what they stand for.
Vagueness in social justice. Even in well-meaning movements, vague language can dilute focus. Terms like “systemic oppression” or “privilege discourse” are often used without defining what they mean in specific contexts. This lack of clarity can alienate potential allies and make real change harder to achieve.
Why vague language is effective. Vague language works because it appeals to emotions without engaging the intellect. It creates the illusion of depth and complexity while allowing the speaker to avoid being pinned down.
Curious Alexander
Orwell’s philosophy: language as a moral choice
For Orwell, the state of language was more than a stylistic concern—it was a moral issue. He believed that clear language was an act of resistance against deception and tyranny.
In 1984, the Party’s deliberate corruption of language was a form of psychological control. But Orwell saw the same patterns in the real world. Whether through euphemisms for war crimes or bureaucratic jargon designed to obfuscate responsibility, unclear language undermines the foundations of a free society.
When we speak or write, are we aiming to illuminate—or to obscure? Orwell believed that every word choice carries a moral weight. To use language truthfully is to respect the intelligence and autonomy of others. To use it deceptively is to manipulate and control.
How to fight back: reclaiming language as a tool for truth
If language can be a tool of control, it can also be a weapon of liberation. Here’s how we can apply Orwell’s lessons today:
Insist on clarity language. Whenever you encounter jargon, slogans, or buzzwords, ask for plain language. If someone talks about “deconstructing systemic paradigms,” ask them: What does that mean in real terms? Clarity forces accountability.
Demand specific details. When politicians or activists use vague terms like “change,” “justice,” or “progress,” push for specifics. What policies? What outcomes? What metrics will determine success? Specificity reveals the strength—or weakness—of an idea.
Slow down and be precise. Modern discourse, especially online, thrives on speed. But clarity requires time. Whether you’re writing, speaking, or engaging with others, take a moment to ask: Am I being precise? Have I truly understood what’s being said?
Think beyond slogans. Slogans are emotionally powerful but intellectually shallow. Challenge yourself to go deeper. For example, instead of accepting a phrase like “Silence is violence,” ask: In what contexts might silence be thoughtful, strategic, or even courageous?
Question consensus. Groupthink thrives on linguistic conformity. If a phrase or idea is repeated without challenge, be the one to ask: Does this actually make sense? Healthy scepticism is a cornerstone of independent thought.
The ultimate lesson: language shapes reality
Orwell’s central insight was that language and thought are inseparable. When words lose their meaning, thought becomes constrained. When language is weaponised, reality itself can be rewritten.
Consider this: If we let vague, manipulative, or dishonest language dominate public discourse, we risk losing not just the ability to express dissent but the ability to conceive of it. Orwell’s genius was in recognising that the battle for freedom begins with the fight for clarity.
In his words: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” That struggle begins with how we use—and refuse to misuse—language.
The novel 1984 was almost called The Last Man in Europe. Orwell eventually chose 1984 to evoke a sense of the near future, suggesting an ever-looming dystopia.
Think critically; ask questions
Orwell’s warnings about the manipulation of language were not abstract musings; they were a call to arms. In a time dominated by slogans, jargon, and spin, the clearest thinkers are the ones who demand clarity and reject the easy comforts of ready-made ideas.
The next time you hear a buzzword or a slogan, pause. Ask: What does this really mean? What’s being hidden here? Because when the linguistic fog descends, clarity is the first casualty—and without clarity, understanding and progress are impossible.
Further reading
Politics and the English Language by George Orwell
Orwell’s iconic essay lays out his vision for clear, honest language and remains a cornerstone for understanding the intersection of language, politics, and morality.
1984 by George Orwell
This dystopian novel brings Orwell’s ideas to life, depicting a world where language is weaponised to control thought and suppress freedom.
Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman
While not directly about language, Postman examines how media shapes our understanding of truth, offering insights into the cultural consequences of vague or manipulative communication.
On Writing Well by William Zinsser
A timeless guide for anyone wanting to write with clarity and simplicity, echoing many of Orwell’s principles.
The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker
This engaging exploration of linguistics sheds light on the nature of language, thought, and how words shape our perception of the world.
Join the conversation
Language shapes how we see the world—but how often do we stop to examine the words we use? Which of Orwell’s ideas resonates most with you? Have you spotted “Newspeak” in today’s world? Share your thoughts below.
