In 1945, George Orwell, who was born on this day in 1903, wrote a long essay called Politics and the English Language in which he warned of a growing modern tendency to use English vocabulary to specifically political ends—avoiding evocative language to disguise defenses of immoral practices, using long-winded and needlessly abstract words and phrases to lend poorly-considered ideas an air of being well-considered, and using jargon that can only be understood within the context of a particular ideology to shut down avenues of thought leading out of that ideology. “Political speech and writing,” says Orwell about the state of play in the mid-1940s, “are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”

As with much else about Orwell, despite his own left-wing convictions his fundamental point here has obvious applications to today’s political right, with its worries about politically correct language and about the spread of academic humanities jargon in non-academic settings. However, the trends that Orwell described in 1945 are by no means limited to habits of speech on the political left today. They show up in a variety of political and religious settings; indeed, certain examples are current in today’s Catholic Church. I will be focusing on an example of the first of Orwell’s list of types of political language: namely, terminology used to refer to people most of whom see it as so obviously euphemistic that they consider it insulting.

This example is the debate over whether to use words like “gay” and “lesbian” or phrases like “same-sex attracted” or “person with same-sex attraction” in referring to people whose sexual or relational preference is for members of their own sex. The argument for the “gay” terminology is that it is what most people use, it is what most of the people to whom the term refers prefer to be called, and and (although this is not usually the focus of the argument) Pope Francis has used it at least once in an informal setting, in the perennially controversial “who am I to judge?” remark from early in his pontificate. (The gay community itself took note of this usage as a positive overture at the time) The argument for the “same-sex attracted” terminology is that, by describing themselves as gay or as lesbians, people are integrating their sexual preferences into their personal identity and self-concept in an excessively reified way and are thus prioritizing these sexual preferences above their identities as children and creations of God (or even “identifying with their temptations”). I’ve had conversations in which the criticism is even extended to using the word “homosexual” adjectivally, as the Ratzinger CDF tended to.

One problem with the argument about “identifying with one’s temptations” is that adjectives like “gay” are not normally taken to refer to core ontological qualities of the nouns that they are modifying (in the phrase “blue cheese,” the cheese’s blueness is an attribute of it among others rather than a facet of its fundamental cheese-ness), nor are other nouns like “lesbian” for specific types of people (such as “lawyer,” “flirt” as a noun, or “American” as a noun) taken to limit those people’s identities to what those nouns describe. A greater problem, however, is the mere fact of the resistance to “same-sex attracted” terminology among most of the people to whom it refers. Insisting on technical wording on this issue even in informal situations leads to a state of affairs in which the people these terms refer to are made to feel that they are elevating an aspect of their experience that others tell them is inessential above their relationship with God by referring to it using everyday language. The impression given is, for many gay/same-sex attracted Catholics, one of a lack of trust and a presumption of being treated as an enemy, often by people in a position of spiritual authority. This is evangelistically counterproductive and, inasmuch as the LGBT community constitutes a “peripheral” subculture that has partial overlap with but also substantial bad blood with Catholic culture, often also culturally insensitive or chauvinistic. (I touched on the peripheries that exist under the umbrella of Western Catholicism in my first Where Peter Is essay here; newly-minted Archbishop of Washington Wilton Gregory, then Archbishop of Atlanta, specified the LGBT community as an example of such a periphery last year.)

To be clear, I don’t think that the use of the clunkier, less everyday phrase in this case is necessarily meant to “defend the indefensible.” I am sure that many of the people who insist on using the “same-sex attracted” terminology—some of whom, it must be said, are among those it refers to themselves—genuinely feel that it implies a sounder theology than the alternative. Nevertheless, the fact that this terminology has flourished to such an extent that prominent cardinals write forewords to books called things like Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay and some people find those who do call themselves gay automatically worthy of suspicion, to me indicates far too much attention being paid to this particular nicety. Too often this attention comes at the expense of actually understanding gay people’s spiritual needs (which are as many and as various as are the spiritual needs of heterosexuals). If the terminology you’re “allowed” to use to describe yourself and your experiences is set in stone by conservative prelates beforehand, then it’s easy to feel that perceived lack of trust.

By way of a less politically incendiary example, many disabled people feel the same way about being adjured by well-meaning non-disabled people to use “person-first” language like “person who is deaf” or “person with autism” when we would rather just use “deaf” or “autistic” as adjectives. The “person-first” language comes across connotatively as far more insulting than what the words actually mean because it carries a subtext of having been imposed on people’s self-perceptions from outside. This is not an issue specific to the Church, but I think that it provides a useful parallel example of a term that, while not a slur, is received as an insult by many of its referents. Much like “same-sex attracted” language, that distaste for “person-first language” among disabled people is not universal; even so, it is widespread enough that defaulting to using it is seen in disabled circles as something of a faux pas.

Orwell presents a series of flexible rules of thumb in Politics and the English Language that includes items like “never use a long word where a short one will do” and “never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent” that phrases like “person with same-sex attraction” clearly violate. Of course, nobody thinks of Orwell as a completely unchallenged authority on English usages and when it comes to human language all rules have their exceptions; even so, I think that Orwell was wise to suggest that the default of English usage should not be to circumlocutions, technical terms, and euphemisms. I would add that if somebody would prefer to use everyday language or the language of the wider culture to describe their own experiences, then even if we do not share that preference we have a duty of charity to that person to assume that they have sound reasons for feeling that way and to not suspect them of dishonesty or desire to undermine our or their own faith.

Liked this post? Take a second to support Where Peter Is on Patreon!

Nathan Turowsky went to elementary school in Vermont, high school in New Jersey, and college in Massachusetts, where he now lives. A lifelong fascination with religious ritual led him into first the Episcopal Church and then the Catholic Church. An alumnus of Boston University School of Theology and one of the relatively few Catholic alumni of that primarily Wesleyan institution, he is unmarried and works in social services.

Revisiting Orwell in the Era of Intra-Catholic Culture Wars

7 Responses

  1. carn says:

    In my view an important criteria would be, whether the two alternative wordings (mostly) mean the same thing and are (mostly) understood to mean the same thing.

  2. Benoît says:

    This is is an interesting debate, and as someone who is concerned, and find both sides equally compelling, I’m slowly growing in the understanding that using the g* word does not, necessarily, lock the debate or carry with it ideological connotations. But what then about the abbreviation lgbtq…..and so on. This word is making its way into public debate and is widely used. Is it a short and everyday used word, and therefore ok to use? Or not? And when I come to think of it, isn’t the word GAY a euphemism? A cover up for immoral behavior? I’m not trying to provoke, but it strikes me as a paradox in the text. It seems to only boil down to the widespread use of a word. But is that really satisfactory and is that really what Orwell meant?

    • Nathan Turowsky says:

      Hi Benoît,

      Thanks for commenting! I don’t have answers to all of your questions at the moment, but I appreciate the comment. I’d encourage you to read “Politics and the English Language” and come to your own conclusions about the merits of my argument here rather than taking my word for it; I certainly don’t pretend to have given the only possible interpretation of it!

    • carn says:

      “But what then about the abbreviation lgbtq…..and so on.”

      Words are in my opinion just tools to share information with other people.

      So if you and the addressed person have the same understanding of what information a word has, the word is a good tool to share that information.

      You could say “duf” instead of “gay”, if “duf” has for you and the other party the same meaning as “gay”.

      The problem with “gay” and especially LGBTQ… is that the meaning is constantly shifting (see the …; i think the most current relevant version is LGBTQ2+, though that is just my guess) AND that different groups have different understanding of the term, which is connected to their preferred approach regarding that issue.

      Which means while in one on one, one should simply use the term most likely understood by both the same, when speaking in public one not only is guaranteed to use a term which some people will understand differently (and thereby misunderstand what you intended to say),

      one is also guaranteed to at least be perceived by many as standing in favor or against some groups preferences.

      Accordingly, the choice of term should be guided by what causes overall the least problems/damage.

      And that means in my opinion that Priest, Bishops, etc. should avoid using “gay”, “LGBTQ2” and similar terms, cause it is to easy with that to cause the impression, that they want to abandon Church teaching. And that should be avoided if possible.

      • Nathan Turowsky says:

        Hi carn,

        The meaning of “gay” not being entirely stable is a problem that some gay people have communicating too, but this strikes me as an issue somewhat akin to the figurative use of the word “literally”, which doesn’t render the word unusable–all you have say is “I mean ‘literally’ literally”!

  3. Manuel Dauvin says:

    I found the article a little hard to understand though I think I got the gist of it. The key take away for me being the avoidance of using terminology in a way that reifies(thing-ifies) a quality.
    Implying the possibility of remedying the situation does the article not close it’s escape route. To use a word differently than the norm is to isolate oneself in the debate. It is a remedy by amputation:creating a subculture of like minded people with their own vocabulary. The remedy becomes an amputation. ..with all the accompanying irreversibility.
    The only seeming “antidote” to Orwell’s nightmare is to use no words but to speak through loving action. Or maybe to pose questions.
    Thank you for the article. Inspired thought. Dare I say? …you are a “person who is thought-provoking” or perhaps with a “sane -text attraction” a “say” person in the QWERT-community.

Share via
Copy link
%d bloggers like this: