Propaganda Techniques: An Introduction to Orwell’s Insights in Politics

Hindu College Gazette Web Team
1 day ago
7 min read

Image Credits- Antisemitic Myths — *Image Credits-* *Antisemitic Myths*

George Orwell, a prominent English writer, and essayist, is known for his insightful views on the role of language in politics. Born in 1903, Orwell's experiences as a colonial police officer, soldier, and his participation in the Spanish Civil War influenced his views on political power and the use of language. Orwell presents a compelling argument for clear, accurate, and honest communication. He criticizes political leaders' intentional use of unclear, overstated, or euphemistic language, seeing it as a tactic for concealing the truth and keeping power.

George Orwell stated, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” In the arena of Politics, language is not just a neutral means of communication but is a proactive and carefully crafted instrument employed by political entities to manipulate, persuade and shape public opinion, it works as a powerful weapon to influence large masses. Examining the use of language reveals how propaganda techniques in politics profoundly shape public opinion, which in turn brings significant changes in the functioning of government. In Politics and the English Language, Orwell's plea for simplified and honest language in politics highlights the prevalent misuse of language for propaganda to shape public opinion to their advantage.

Propaganda Techniques: Its Strategic Outspread

The utilisation of language reveals the strategically employed patterns of propaganda by political entities. According to Orwell, abuse of language can lead to incurable acts of violence, which leads to further corruption of language. Political propaganda, a pervasive influence, manifests through diverse channels such as films, cartoons, posters, speeches, and more. The echoes of the tragic events of 1939 in Nazi Germany, where the coordinated atrocities claimed around 6 million lives, persist over 75 years later. Hitler’s administration employed a chilling linguistic strategy during the Holocaust, using euphemism as a tool of atrocity. “Special Treatment” delivered mass executions within the concentration camps, veiling the brutality behind bureaucratic language. Coined during the “Wannsee Conference”, the “Final Solution” was a call for systematic genocide. "Selection" at concentration and extermination camps painted a clinical picture, diverting attention away from the bleak reality of selecting people for forced labour or quick execution. The term "evacuation" concealed the forced relocation and systematic murder of those transferred to concentration or extermination camps. These euphemisms were purposeful language tools designed to desensitise and normalise the Holocaust's atrocities. The Nazis critically used posters to spread propaganda, which included short headings blaming the Jews for the problems faced by Nazi Germany without any proper explanation. During World War II, propaganda was used by Allied and Axis powers to control news spread- to perform air raids when there were none, to minimise losses when they were a lot, and to report the good in the worst of situations.

Image Credits- Università di Padova — *Image Credits-* *Università di Padova*

Between 1975-1977, during the Emergency in India, the term “internal disturbance” was used by the government on behalf of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as a double-speak to soften the severity of the situation and mislead the masses. It provided a more neutral and less alarming description, implying that the government was merely dealing with the internal issues or disruption rather than acknowledging the political dissent and brutality caused by the rule of the country. It allowed the government to present its actions as necessary to address internal issues rather than any authoritarian clampdown.

Modern Propaganda in politics has seamlessly integrated with Information Warfare and the Internet, reshaping the landscape of how knowledge is transferred from one person to another. Political actors leverage critical strategies, including disinformation campaigns, social media influence, artificial intelligence, and many more to lay their ideas towards the masses. In the 21^st century, the Russia-Ukraine war is a typical example of information warfare, where Russia had implied euphemistic language to justify its actions in the “conflict”. The 2014 Crimea’s illegal annexation was framed as “reunification” to influence the ideology of Russians towards the invasion. The war of 2022-2024 is signified as a “special military operation” which hinders the real definition of violence. Today, such distortions are amplified by digital tools, ranging from algorithm-driven misinformation to Artificial Intelligence. The use of technologies like deepfake, with its ability to create hyper-realistic yet entirely fabricated content, reflects a modern manifestation of manipulation. In 2023, a video surfaced featuring the Ukrainian president urging his soldiers to relinquish their weapons and reunite with their families. This video was a crude instance of a deepfake, a term referring to a deceptive technique that utilises artificial intelligence to fabricate misleading content with the use of language, often in the form of counterfeit videos portraying individuals saying or doing things they never actually did. Another example can be the act of genocide happening in the State of Palestine by the State of Israel while calling it an act of ‘self- defence’.

Propaganda Techniques: Shaping Sentiments of the Society

The unjust communication by political players significantly shapes public opinion for their advantage. The power of political propaganda lies not only in its deployment but also in its impact on public sentiments. In George Orwell’s novel “1984” and in “One Dimensional Man” by Herbert Marcus, they talked about the principle of “Loaded Language”. “It is a powerful tool, which can be used for the welfare of society, as well as for completely different goals. It can influence the public for selfish purposes, for economic, social, or political benefits by involving words with “strong emotional connect”.

In the 2016 United States Presidential Elections, the term “Crooked Hillary” became a loaded phrase used by then-candidate Donald Trump to emotionally manipulate public opinion about his opponent, Hillary Clinton, which later led to his success in the elections. This centred the conversation around the character of Clinton while simultaneously diverting attention away from serious policy issues, impacting voters' impressions of the candidates.

A similar example can be Rahul Gandhi’s characterisation of the name “Modi” as “Chor” during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, which showcases how language can be wielded as a political tool. The use of such terminologies and hasty generalisation has a strong and direct accusation of corruption, intended to create a negative perception for the opposition, shaping public opinion and contributing to the polarisation of political discourse.

Another Common tactic includes the use of statistics and information to present a biased narrative. Politicians usually “cherry-pick” data by tweaking the language in such a manner that supports their agenda while omitting the inconvenient facts, creating a sense of false hope towards the population. For instance, the Indian government announced the demonetisation of ₹500 and ₹1000 currency notes. Despite proving largely unsuccessful in 2018, the move was politically beneficial as it highlighted a perceived reduction in corruption and an uptick in digital transactions. However, this narrative conveniently downplayed the adverse effects on small businesses, employment, and the overall economic slowdown precipitated by the policy. Such government policies impact a voter's cognitive process, causing them to deem something right when it is not.

Orwell's notion of "Newspeak" exemplifies how language manipulation may be used to control narratives and limit the scope of public conversation, resulting in the shaping of public perceptions to fit an agenda. This type of manipulation not only hinders democratic interchange of ideas, but it also poses a serious threat to the integrity of the people's viewpoint, mirroring Orwell's remarks on a shift in public perception with language. Consider North Korea, where the government heavily influences education, media, and public communication to ensure that the information aligns with the official ideology and supports the regime's political narrative. This helps us to understand the dystopian concept of Newspeak explored by Orwell in his novel "1984."

Critics may question whether the interpretation of language is subjective and depends on the perspective of individuals. What one person views as manipulative language, another may see it as effective communication. Consider the Indian government's handling of the Citizenship Amendment Act; some proponents may say that authorities effectively articulated the necessity for CAA by highlighting its humanitarian features. Critics and opponents may allege that emotionally charged rhetoric and a focus on minority protection were used to divert attention away from worries about potential religious discrimination.

The mutual link between language, propaganda methods, and political power has a tremendous impact on public views. George Orwell's ageless appeal for straightforward communication, reiterated in "Politics and the English Language," is relevant in today's political context. The deliberate employing of propaganda methods, as seen in historical events like the Holocaust and political occurrences like India's Emergency, highlights the power of language manipulation. Euphemisms, loaded language, double speak, and other distortions are effective weapons for political actors to dominate narratives and shape public attitude. Language has a greater impact in the twenty-first century because of its integration with information warfare and the internet.

With the use of sophisticated technologies and disinformation tactics, political actors may now influence public opinion with unprecedented precision. Unjust communication affects the democratic process as well as public sentiment. Recent domestic and international political campaign examples demonstrate how language can be used as a weapon for political gain. Orwell's warnings against manipulating language still hold true in the political setting today when purposeful distortions for propaganda endanger democratic ideals and public conversation. It becomes essential to develop media literacy and an understanding of propaganda strategies to support a strong democratic society. In navigating the complexities of political communication, Orwell’s critique of political language remains relevant in the 21st century, where euphemisms, loaded terms, and disinformation tactics continue to influence governance and public opinion.

Historical instances such as the Holocaust, India’s Emergency, and recent examples from the Russia-Ukraine conflict demonstrate the enduring role of language manipulation in shaping narratives. The integration of propaganda with modern information warfare has amplified this impact, making clarity in political communication more critical than ever. Orwell’s six principles; avoiding stale metaphors, limiting wordiness, preferring short words, using the active voice, rejecting jargon and foreign phrases, and breaking rules to prevent barbarous expression; offers a practical framework for reducing linguistic distortion. Applying these guidelines can help ensure that political discourse remains transparent, enabling citizens to assess policies and statements based on fact rather than rhetoric.

By Parth Chhapolia

Parth Chhapolia is a Third-Year undergraduate student pursuing a B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) degree at Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Haryana, India. His areas of interest include constitutional law, human rights, family law, and environmental justice.

References