Orwell s Fiduciary Capacity: Rhetoric in Politics and the English Language

Transcription

1 Atkinson 1 Steven Atkinson Sister Holt English October 2010 Orwell s Fiduciary Capacity: Rhetoric in Politics and the English Language In the winter of , George Orwell was living in shell-shocked post World War II London, surrounded by the ruins left by the German Luftwaffe (Kreis). However, the debris of the city concerned him less than the linguistic debris of post-war political rhetoric. Reading articles from various newspapers, magazines, and journals, he discovered faults in the way writers, especially intellectual and political writers, were using English. This and similar experiences inspired the kairotic moment for a group of essays by Orwell on political language. In Politics and the English Language, Orwell argues for more responsible English composition and rhetoric. In this proposal, Orwell uses his rhetorical skills to place himself in a fiduciary capacity, as a trustee of the English language for the English people. Politics on the English Language is essentially a proposal argument where Orwell urges the audience to make a decision and then to act on it (Ramage 248). The overall purpose is Orwell s propositio: Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration, (par. 1). His claim and reason are that people must avoid bad habits in written English because clear, creative language engenders clear thinking and motivates political regeneration. Therefore, his warrant would encourage clear, creative thought and political regeneration as desirable. The rest of the argument uses claim-types strategy to provide the grounds and presence for the proposal argument.

2 Atkinson 2 Orwell carefully uses his rhetorical skills to strengthen his logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos is present in the use of evidence and backing, the claim-types strategies, and even the one-sided structure of the argument itself. Pathos is weaker than the logos in the argument, yet it is still evident in the way that Orwell uses examples in the ground and values in the backing to shock readers into concern about the state of the English language. For example, the verse from Ecclesiastes transliterated into Modern English (par. 9) undoubtedly struck a chord with his predominantly Christian audience. However, the most enigmatic of the three is the ethos Orwell uses. Genre obviously plays a key role here. Orwell had some renown as an essayist publishing in magazines and newspapers; his name was further recognizable because of his time working for the BBC. His name alone bore credibility with the audience. Orwell automatically assumes the role of a fiduciary or a trustee, someone entrusted with the care of an important object or document. Like doctors, lawyers, bankers, and insurers all have a fiduciary capacity with regard to their clients, Orwell assumes a fiduciary capacity over language for the British people. In essence, he gives the British people advice for an item in which they all have a vested interest, the English language. In order to understand how Orwell manages to establish his ethos without explicitly stating his credibility, using many qualifiers, and formulating a multi-sided or dialogic argument, it is crucial to understand the audience he addresses. He writes, The fight against bad English is not frivolous and it is not the exclusive concern of professional writers (par. 1), his audience is not only writers but a larger group. Likewise, his comments hardly ever target one specific demographic apart from the English speakers. The audience is too general to analyze effectively and must mainly be an invoked audience in which the writer uses the semantic and syntactic resources of language to provide cues for the reader (Ede and Lunsford 160). Any writer s style as an augment to her or his ethos is a fundamental and an ancient principle in rhetoric. When discoursing on the many definitions of rhetoric, Quintilian wrote, With this

3 Atkinson 3 character of it, the definition that oratory is the science of speaking well agrees excellently, for it embraces all the virtues of oratory at once and includes also the character of the true orator, as he cannot speak well unless he be a good man (Institutes of Oratory ). In effect, Quintilian suggests that oratory in its truest form is speaking well and can only be achieved through being a good man. Employing this same principle to composition, speaking well is equivalent to writing well, and in the act of simply writing well a writer increases his ethos and credibility with his audience. But, what does speaking or writing well mean in this context? Halloran illuminates saying, the rhetorical tradition portrayed the orator as a person who embodies all that is best in a culture and brings it to bear on public problems through eloquent discourse (184). Furthermore, he states, From Cicero and Quintilian, students would learn to understand rhetoric as an art of moving an audience through eloquent speech, (186). Therefore, any rhetorician, desiring to write well, writes according to the conscience of his audience. Rhetoricians by achieving this in their writing gain a fiduciary capacity. Orwell s rhetoric spoke to the societal and ideological conscience of his audience, lending him ethos and a fiduciary capacity. He achieved this primarily because his rhetoric is honest and clear containing no euphemisms or inflated style, in fact, he speaks against them (par. 13). His rhetoric appeals to his culture s sensibilities, which is for the most part comparable to our society. One way he achieves this is through his humorous, satirical style. He maintains sensible modesty as well when he says, look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against (par. 15). Finally, he also proves that he is sensibly moderate and not given to extremism, citing the example of linguistic extremists like Stuart Chase (par. 18). Time and again, Orwell uses his style and subject matter to emphasize his ethos, allowing him to assume the role of the English people s linguistic fiduciary or the conscience of English political and intellectual discourse.

4 Atkinson 4 In conclusion, Orwell s underlying ethos makes his argument persuasive. By presenting himself as a trustee through rhetorical style he establishes his views as a guide for concerned people in his society. Overall, the argument is a classic example of Orwellian prose and humor, showcasing one of the most important features of his rhetoric and managing to be persuasive, moving the audient through eloquent and applicable language.

5 Atkinson 5 Works Cited Ede, Lisa and Andrea Lunsford. "Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy." College Composition and Communication 35.2 (1984): Web. Halloran, S. Michael. "Rhetoric in the American College Curriculum: The Decline of Public Discourse." Composition in Four Keys: Inquiring into the Field. Eds. Mark Wiley, Barbara Gleason, and Louise Wetherbee Phelps. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, Web. Kreis, Steven. "Orwell Chronology." The History Guide Web. 15 Oct Orwell, George. "Politics and the English Language." The Complete Works of George Orwell Web. 15 Oct Quintilian, Marcus Fabius. From Institutes of Oratory. Trans. John Selby Watson. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin s, , Web. Ramage, John D. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. Fifth Edition. New York, NY: Pearson, Print.