Your browser does not support the element
gGeorge Orwell An article entitled “Politics and the English Language,” published in 1946, targeted bureaucrats, academics and hacks who obscured their misdeeds with vague, jargon-laden writing. Abstractions, euphemisms, and clichés were a “defense of the indefensible.” Orwell lamented that “millions of peasants have been robbed of their farms and sent on foot along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called Population transfer or Boundary correction. People are imprisoned for years without trial, shot in the back of the neck, or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic timber camps: this is called Eliminate unreliable elements“.
If Orwell were writing today, he would find plenty of euphemisms to complain about. On October 7, an open letter from a group of student groups at Harvard University vaguely described the “unfolding violence” in Israel without blaming Hamas. The naked brutality that “unfolds” shocks less than a more graphic description of Hamas’ slaughter of 1,200 Israelis, almost all of them civilians, including many children.
As a one-time contributor to BBCIt is easy to imagine Orwell challenging the broadcaster’s refusal to use the word “terrorism.” Orwell had no difficulty distributing the medicine to both sides; He would also use harsh words for those describing the “collateral damage” buried in the rubble of Gaza, another abstraction intended to prevent readers from picturing dead children. About 13,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 7.
Orwell’s famous essay took a long time: he received his salary in December, and it appeared in print the following April. But today, billions of people can publish their ideas instantly. The desire to attract attention seems to motivate stylistic sin. The use of social media writing has shifted the tone from a crime of euphemism to a crime of double exaggeration.
Given what they undoubtedly believe to be an Orwellian starting point – the danger of being too soft in their language – keyboard warriors can’t resist the temptation to reach for the most exciting words available. What was once called chauvinism, then sexism, is now “misogyny,” a word once used to refer to actual hatred of women. Those who do not hold left-wing views on race are accused not of bias, prejudice, or even racism, but of “white supremacy,” a phrase that only a decade ago was reserved for neo-Nazis.
We call it the “dyskinesia vicious cycle.” In its opposite, “euphemism” (a term coined by Harvard professor Steven Pinker), people run from one polite platitude to another. They referred to people as “stupid” until it became a pejorative; Then they chose the word “retarded” which became unsayable; Then they invented the word “private,” which is now also a taunt. The dysphoria loop works in reverse: the word “prejudiced” sounds too mild, so it is replaced by the word “racist,” which then suffers the same fate and must be replaced by the word “white supremacist.”
As is the case with many modern trends, the most extreme words have emanated from America, where “communist” and “fascist” have nothing to do with machetes or swastikas, but are sometimes applied to anyone you disagree with. Social media, the “Great Awakening” on the left and right MagaThe depiction of the truth contributed to the verbal escalation.
West and Central African countries have witnessed seven classic presidential palace-storming “coups” in less than four years. However, the same word has recently been used to describe a questionable deal to stay in power that Spain’s President Pedro Sanchez struck with Catalan separatists, in exchange for a few votes in a freely elected parliament. Spain is not witnessing a coup so much as a political zoo.
The worst crime imaginable – “genocide” – is increasingly being talked about. The word is used correctly when describing Arab militias in Sudan who round up black African tribes, such as the Masalit, kill men and boys, rape women and say “the child will be Arab.” But those who use the term “genocide” to describe Israeli attacks on civilians in Gaza do not adhere strictly to the definition of the word, which means the deliberate destruction of people simply because of their ethnicity.
So here’s a suggestion for the book. You can’t outdo the crowds. Distinguish yourselves by choosing precise, living words between the evasions of euphemism and the temptations of exaggeration. Crimes against language, in the long run, make it difficult to describe crimes against humanity.■
Read more from Johnson, our language columnist:
Young Americans Lose Southern Accent (October 11)
The importance of handwriting is becoming better understood (September 14)
Artificial Intelligence May Reduce the Necessity of Learning Foreign Languages (August 17)
For more about the latest books and movies television Demos, Albums & Controversies Subscribe to Plot Twist, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter
Euphemism and exaggeration are commonly used techniques in language to soften harsh realities or to make mundane events seem more dramatic. While these tools may be effective in communication, they also pose a danger to language by distorting the truth and blurring the lines between reality and fiction. When euphemisms are used to sugarcoat unpleasant experiences or exaggerations are employed to overstate the significance of events, the integrity of language is compromised and the clarity of communication is diminished. In this essay, we will explore the potential dangers of euphemism and exaggeration in language and consider the impact they may have on our understanding of the world around us.