Rethinking the power of language

George Orwell, in his 1946 essay titled Politics and the English Language, tears apart the jargonistic writings found in modern English. He suggests that such work had grown popular as a technique to conceal the bias of writers by lacing it with scientific impartiality. Combined with his additional dissection of ‘vague language’– unclear and cloudy to mask reality– employed by politicians, Orwell’s arguments demand our attention once again to understand the dangers of overlooking ambiguous language.

Within the walls of an educational institution, much like ours, it is easy to confuse indirect and dense language with intellect. As we engage with theories that are embellished with jargon and often demand repeated readings to unveil the stance of the writer, we lose an appreciation for clarity and directness in writing, dismissing it as too simple to hold much value. The amount of hard work one has to put in to decipher a complicated text—and consequently prove their excellence in critical engagement—contributes to our pedestalisation of such work. Those engaging with these texts then, in turn, aim to imitate jargonistic writing to have their own writing pedestalised.

For an individual, breaking out of this cycle is simple. Purging jargon from one’s language hinges on one’s will, and can be executed if they are convinced that indirect language only clouds their arguments without necessarily adding to the idea behind it. The real danger arises when ambiguous language slips into the hands of the powerful. Although Orwell concerns himself with the use of such language by politicians, a larger conclusion can be drawn that when ambiguity creeps into the speech of power structures, a form of deception is at play. Power structures, here, are understood as those bodies which govern a group or a community through a set of norms. Such norms, when drafted in good faith, are necessary to regulate the actions of members and uphold the laws– but a lack of clarity in conveying revised and more invasive norms holds severe consequences– it sustains an imbalance of control in their favour as ambiguity conceals their bias. 

Within Ashoka, a space which champions equality and had been known earlier for a more liberal campus policy in comparison to other Indian colleges, there now exists a stark disbalance of power between the students and the administration on the issue of campus matters, which must be duly recognised by both bodies. But when the use of ambiguous language percolates into policies which mandate consent of students (and also that of their parents), a concerning precedent is set for future decisions impacting student life and welfare on campus. Empty phrasing, unclear terminology, and blurring of specifics must be addressed in order to ensure that language doesn’t function as a veneer for bias. On the other hand, clearly stating reservations, no matter how uncomfortable, will pave the way for conversations, rebuttals, and even solutions that may prove worth exploring. 

Echoing what Orwell had proposed, clarity in language, both in the personal speech and writings, and of power structures, is a stepping stone towards political regeneration. It is only when we communicate our thoughts with the same coherence and simplicity they have in our minds that we allow space for valid rebuttals and arguments. However, this political regeneration presupposes an openness to a difference in opinion and dialogue. In many cases, achieving this openness proves a behemoth task in itself.

(Edited by Madiha Tariq)