Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
In this case, the language, perpetrated by a few, is becoming pervasive in society, and so, it is taking over many aspects of society. However, for the most part, society seems to be resisting much of this doublespeak type of language. It is not prominent in the media, (perhaps in the government), and is seems that language, in general, is about the same as it always has been, full of slang and "fad" words, but in everyday use, doublespeak is not as common as some might thought it might be. This might make society stronger than a prevailing use of the language, but it may also mean that people like Lutz, in their zeal to remove doublespeak from the language, have actually made a difference and created more public awareness about something that needs to be changed. In this case, perhaps one person is not able to stand up against a societal ill, but many voices have more impact than one, and many voices can often accomplish what a single voice has no chance of accomplishing.
In conclusion, these two works indicate two different ways of standing up to society...
One person may not be able to stand up to society alone. Even Gandhi and King had groups that followed and supported them, and they were able to create lasting and meaningful social changes. A group may have the ability to stand up to society and be stronger than the mass of society. and, as "Doublespeak" shows, a person may still take a stand against something in society that needs to be changed, and perhaps, ultimately create that change. However, it is clear that society is stronger than many individuals, and that they may never have the courage to stand up for what they believe in, even if it is dangerous or different. For those people, society, and the mores of society, are stronger than they ever will be, and they will suffer for it, just as the narrator realizes he has given up his freedom when he shoots the elephant and does not stand up to the people who might laugh at him.
References
Lutz, William. "Doublespeak." 256-261.
Orwell, George. "Shooting an Elephant."
The scene of the elephant collapsing after being shot is so poignant it can move any reader to tears. The look of extreme shock and betrayal on the face of the animal expressed through his dying body caused intense anguish to the narrator as he decided to leave without finishing his job completely. "I felt that I had got to put an end to that dreadful noise. It seemed
George Orwells short story "Shooting Elephant" Henry Louis Gates' "What's in a name" versus George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" Henry Louis Gates' essay "What's in a name" and George Orwell's short story "Shooting an Elephant" both present central characters who are part of a minority group present in a society that is inclined to discriminate them. Orwell is the narrator in his short story and he discusses in regard to an
Thomas Paine in his essay The Rights of Man suggests that the morality of an issue is based on the equality of an issue. For the existence of all men should be seen as equal. The Monarchy and imperial ways detracts from the equality of mankind and creates a suggestive loophole which gives the rights of man to a select few and thus creates an imbalance. The imbalance can be
He hates what he has become and what he does. He confesses that he secretly roots for the Burmese and roots against "their oppressors (335). He admits he is "stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible" (335). He is like those in oppression in that he is not free to do what
However, when his assistance is needed by the townspeople, the two very different populations show similar responses to the bloody scene of shooting an elephant, "It was a bit of fun to them, as it would be to an English crowd; besides they wanted the meat," (Orwell, 649). Orwell furthers this blend of modern and primitive as seen through the use of his language. The narrator describes the scene of
So, the reader of this essay was set up by Orwell perfectly: blast away at the stinking rotting, drunken social scene in Paris, frequented in large part by Americans pretending to have talent, and mention that Miller thought this was cool to write about. Then bring in the terrible, frightening and bloody realities happening elsewhere in Europe, and you have shown what a rascal Miller was. But wait, Orwell admits