Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008, Page 63
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive voice where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an
everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Now I feel better because I can make this review simply to the point. Of course, I am being
facetious, or should I say coy? These are not simple rules to follow without professional
discipline. I will try. Orwell‘s rules might be decent guidelines for editing, but they are also a
death knell for totalitarian propaganda. As Robert J. Lifton stated, ―Totalist language then, is
repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical,
relentlessly judging, and to anyone but its most devoted advocate, deadly dull: in Lionel
Trilling's phrase, ‗the language of nonthought‘‖ (see Lifton, 1961, Thought Reform and the
Psychology of Totalism, chapter 22: Loading the Language). Several of the essayists refer to
Lifton.
Orwell‘s rules indicate the power of language to inform and enlighten, and to confuse and
deceive. With that in mind, allow me to comment on the essays.
The introduction is by Orville Schell, a journalist who authored twelve books. He currently is
director of the Asia Society‘s Center on China-U.S. relations. Schell argues that manipulative
language has evolved since the 19th century with the advent of a deeper understanding of
the human psyche and the effects of communication technology. He believes that several
evolutionary breakthroughs led to a level of ―efficaciousness‖ in propaganda today that
would astound Orwell. The first step came about when Chinese Communists imbued
Stalinist propaganda with Chinese characteristics, thus creating ―Mao Zedong Thought.‖ The
second step married old-style politics with Freudian insights about what triggers human
response. Not surprisingly, Sigmund Freud‘s nephew, Edward Bernays, developed new
psychological mechanisms to induce people to buy more consumer goods by tapping desires
and overriding needs.
Bernays is ―the father of public relations‖ who developed mass persuasion ideas for
advertising. The last evolutionary step came on the new wave of electronic technology and
the Internet. Schell finishes his discussion with brainwashing in China that combines
Confucian tradition of self-cultivation and obligation to community with a Maoist worldview.
He cites Robert Lifton and writer Milan Kundera as particularly observant of how this all
works. In the end, Schell states, ―…propaganda‘s evolution has hardly run its course.‖
Part One, Language and Politics, begins with ―Orwell Then and Now‖ by David Rieff, who is a
contributing writer to The New York Times and author of eight books. Rieff discusses the
fates of successful writers, most of whom fade into obscurity shortly after they die, if not
before. Orwell struck a chord that still rings loud in our political arenas. Nearly everyone
with an education understands what Orwellian indicates. Rieff compares and contrasts
Orwell with Simone Weil: ―Both Weil and Orwell were ‗judgers‘… Their standards were high
and their opinions severe.‖ Rieff sees a writer‘s influence ‗evolving‘ over time. Orwell, clearly
a man of the left, is today claimed by both sides of the political debate. Opponents of the
George Bush regime describe it as a propaganda machine that uses ―Newspeak,‖ whereas
proponents see Bush with Orwell, fighting totalitarianism. Neither side has a right to claim
Orwell, Rieff says. To attempt it is a ―vulgar quest … We haven‘t a clue what Orwell would
have thought or what side he would have taken.‖
Nicholas Lemann is dean of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a staff
writer for The New Yorker.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive voice where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an
everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Now I feel better because I can make this review simply to the point. Of course, I am being
facetious, or should I say coy? These are not simple rules to follow without professional
discipline. I will try. Orwell‘s rules might be decent guidelines for editing, but they are also a
death knell for totalitarian propaganda. As Robert J. Lifton stated, ―Totalist language then, is
repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical,
relentlessly judging, and to anyone but its most devoted advocate, deadly dull: in Lionel
Trilling's phrase, ‗the language of nonthought‘‖ (see Lifton, 1961, Thought Reform and the
Psychology of Totalism, chapter 22: Loading the Language). Several of the essayists refer to
Lifton.
Orwell‘s rules indicate the power of language to inform and enlighten, and to confuse and
deceive. With that in mind, allow me to comment on the essays.
The introduction is by Orville Schell, a journalist who authored twelve books. He currently is
director of the Asia Society‘s Center on China-U.S. relations. Schell argues that manipulative
language has evolved since the 19th century with the advent of a deeper understanding of
the human psyche and the effects of communication technology. He believes that several
evolutionary breakthroughs led to a level of ―efficaciousness‖ in propaganda today that
would astound Orwell. The first step came about when Chinese Communists imbued
Stalinist propaganda with Chinese characteristics, thus creating ―Mao Zedong Thought.‖ The
second step married old-style politics with Freudian insights about what triggers human
response. Not surprisingly, Sigmund Freud‘s nephew, Edward Bernays, developed new
psychological mechanisms to induce people to buy more consumer goods by tapping desires
and overriding needs.
Bernays is ―the father of public relations‖ who developed mass persuasion ideas for
advertising. The last evolutionary step came on the new wave of electronic technology and
the Internet. Schell finishes his discussion with brainwashing in China that combines
Confucian tradition of self-cultivation and obligation to community with a Maoist worldview.
He cites Robert Lifton and writer Milan Kundera as particularly observant of how this all
works. In the end, Schell states, ―…propaganda‘s evolution has hardly run its course.‖
Part One, Language and Politics, begins with ―Orwell Then and Now‖ by David Rieff, who is a
contributing writer to The New York Times and author of eight books. Rieff discusses the
fates of successful writers, most of whom fade into obscurity shortly after they die, if not
before. Orwell struck a chord that still rings loud in our political arenas. Nearly everyone
with an education understands what Orwellian indicates. Rieff compares and contrasts
Orwell with Simone Weil: ―Both Weil and Orwell were ‗judgers‘… Their standards were high
and their opinions severe.‖ Rieff sees a writer‘s influence ‗evolving‘ over time. Orwell, clearly
a man of the left, is today claimed by both sides of the political debate. Opponents of the
George Bush regime describe it as a propaganda machine that uses ―Newspeak,‖ whereas
proponents see Bush with Orwell, fighting totalitarianism. Neither side has a right to claim
Orwell, Rieff says. To attempt it is a ―vulgar quest … We haven‘t a clue what Orwell would
have thought or what side he would have taken.‖
Nicholas Lemann is dean of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a staff
writer for The New Yorker.
