The Politics of Language: Dorian’s Calculated Deception in “The Back of the Turtle”
I. Introduction (500 words)
-
Hook: Connection between corporate communication and political language
-
Brief overview of Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” main arguments
-
Introduction to Dorian Asher and Domidian
-
Thesis: Despite his intelligence and education, Dorian deliberately employs political language techniques identified by Orwell to distance himself from responsibility and obscure the truth about environmental disasters
II. Dorian’s Educational Background and Capabilities (750 words)
A. Academic Excellence
- Education at University of Toronto (p. 269)
- Building Domidian into a global biotechnology leader
- Demonstration of his clear understanding of scientific concepts
B. The Disconnect Between Intelligence and Truth
- Analysis of how his education enables more sophisticated deception
- The conscious choice to obscure rather than illuminate
- The relationship between knowledge and responsibility
III. Language of Deflection and Control (1000 words)
A. The “Accident” Narrative
- Analysis of his characterization of the spill (p. 365)
- Comparison with Orwell’s concept of euphemistic language
- The strategic removal of agency through passive voice
B. Management of Public Perception
- Detailed analysis of the press interview (Chapter 77)
- The quote “If you can’t convince them, confuse them” (p. 440)
- Connection to Orwell’s idea of intentionally vague language
IV. Actions Speaking Louder Than Words (750 words)
A. The Evaporation Pond Cover-up
- Analysis of the water backfilling incident
- The gap between private actions and public statements
- How physical concealment mirrors linguistic concealment
B. Control as a Central Theme
- Dorian’s need to control narrative and reality
- Response to uncontrollable elements
- The relationship between control and truth
V. Impact on the Community (500 words)
A. The Human Cost
- Contrast between corporate language and community reality
- The “cost of cheap energy” justification
- Impact on Smoke River Reserve residents
B. The Environmental Truth
- Real consequences vs. corporate messaging
- How language distances from environmental impact
- The role of technical jargon in obscuring human cost
VI. Conclusion (500 words)
-
Synthesis of Dorian’s conscious use of political language
-
Connection to broader corporate responsibility themes
-
Final evaluation of how Orwell’s principles apply to corporate communication
-
Broader implications for modern corporate discourse
Style Notes:
-
Maintain academic tone throughout
-
Use specific textual evidence to support each point
-
Draw explicit connections between Orwell’s essay and Dorian’s language
-
Balance analysis of both spoken and unspoken communication
-
Consider the broader implications for corporate responsibility
Key Arguments to Develop:
-
Dorian’s education makes his deception more sophisticated, not less likely
-
His language actively works to distance himself from responsibility
-
The contrast between private actions and public statements reveals intent
-
Corporate language as a modern extension of political language
-
The human and environmental costs hidden behind careful word choice
The Politics of Language: Dorian’s Calculated Deception in “The Back of the Turtle”
In his seminal essay “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell argues that political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” This observation, written in 1946, finds striking resonance in Thomas King’s “The Back of the Turtle,” particularly in the character of Dorian Asher, CEO of Domidian. Through Dorian’s carefully constructed narratives and linguistic manipulations, we see a modern corporate extension of the political language Orwell warned against – one where environmental catastrophes become “accidents,” where corporate responsibility dissolves into passive voice constructions, and where the truth becomes obscured even from the speaker himself.
II. Dorian’s Educational Background and Capabilities
Dorian Asher represents the epitome of corporate success and intellectual achievement. His education at the University of Toronto (p. 269) established him as a member of Canada’s academic elite, providing him with the foundations to build Domidian into one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies. This educational pedigree is not merely biographical detail – it serves to underscore the intentionality behind his linguistic choices. When Dorian speaks of “accidents” or frames environmental disasters in passive voice constructions, it is not from a place of ignorance but rather from a carefully cultivated position of plausible deniability.
The disconnect between Dorian’s evident intelligence and his public statements becomes particularly stark when examining his handling of the Smoke River disaster. His education and position give him a complete understanding of the scientific processes involved in the catastrophe, yet he consistently chooses language that obscures rather than illuminates. This aligns precisely with Orwell’s observation that political language often serves to “defend the indefensible.”
III. Language of Deflection and Control
Perhaps nowhere is Dorian’s manipulation of language more evident than in his characterization of the devastating spill as an “accident” (p. 365). This choice of words, seemingly innocent, performs several functions that Orwell identified as hallmarks of political language. First, it removes agency – an accident is something that happens to people rather than something caused by specific decisions and actions. Second, it minimizes severity – accidents are unfortunate but unavoidable parts of life, rather than preventable catastrophes resulting from corporate negligence.
This calculated use of language reaches its apex in Dorian’s press interview (Chapter 77), where he demonstrates a masterful command of what Orwell termed “meaningless words.” His own philosophy of communication becomes crystal clear with the statement “If you can’t convince them, confuse them” (p. 440). This cynical approach to truth mirrors Orwell’s observation about political speech being largely “the defense of the indefensible.”
The episode with the evaporation ponds provides perhaps the most damning evidence of the gap between Dorian’s public statements and private actions. When faced with leaking oil ponds, Domidian’s solution was to backfill them with water – a physical act of concealment that perfectly parallels their linguistic obfuscation. This incident demonstrates how Dorian’s manipulation of language extends beyond mere words into a comprehensive strategy of concealment.
IV. Control as Central Theme
Dorian’s need for control manifests not just in his actions but in his very relationship with language. His education and intelligence have given him the tools to craft narratives that serve his purposes, yet paradoxically, this very control reveals his deep-seated anxieties about elements he cannot manage. The corporate language he employs becomes a shield against the messier realities of human suffering and environmental devastation.
Consider his response to the Smoke River disaster. Rather than acknowledging the human cost to the Indigenous community, Dorian frames it within the antiseptic language of corporate necessity: “this is the cost of cheap energy.” This phrase, reminiscent of Orwell’s discussion of euphemism, transforms human suffering into an acceptable business expense, much as political language can make “murder respectable.”
V. Impact on the Community
The stark contrast between corporate language and community reality becomes most apparent in examining the impact on the Smoke River Reserve residents. While Dorian speaks in terms of “incidents” and “developments,” the reality for the community is one of profound loss – of land, of tradition, and of way of life. The residents’ “unique and tight connection to their land and river” stands in direct opposition to the clinical corporate language used to describe its destruction.
The technical language Dorian employs serves as a linguistic barrier between corporate responsibility and human consequence. When discussing the disaster’s aftermath, he retreats into the safety of technical jargon and corporate speak, a strategy that Orwell specifically identified as a way to “anesthetize” the brain and prevent clear thinking about difficult subjects. This becomes particularly evident in Chapter 77 during his press interview, where each answer is carefully constructed to create distance between Domidian’s actions and their consequences.
The company’s stance that “this is the cost of cheap energy” represents perhaps the most cynical deployment of what Orwell would call “ready-made phrases.” This statement performs multiple functions simultaneously: it presents the disaster as inevitable rather than preventable, suggests that the community’s sacrifice serves a greater economic good, and most importantly, transforms an active choice into a passive necessity. The phrase itself becomes a shield, deflecting responsibility while simultaneously justifying the unjustifiable.
VI. The Mechanics of Deception
Dorian’s manipulation of language extends beyond mere word choice into a comprehensive strategy of information control. His education at the University of Toronto (269) has equipped him not just with scientific knowledge, but with the sophisticated linguistic tools to manage public perception. His handling of the evaporation pond crisis provides a perfect case study of this approach in action. When the ponds began leaking, the solution wasn’t to address the underlying problem but to conceal it through backfilling with water – a physical manifestation of his linguistic strategy of concealment.
The statement “If you can’t convince them, confuse them” (p. 440) serves as something of a mission statement for Dorian’s approach to corporate communication. This cynical philosophy aligns perfectly with Orwell’s observation that political language is often “designed to make lies sound truthful.” In Dorian’s case, when direct lies might be too risky, confusion serves as an equally effective tool of obfuscation.
VII. The Corporate Extension of Political Language
What makes Dorian’s case particularly relevant to Orwell’s arguments is how it demonstrates the evolution of political language into corporate spheres. While Orwell focused primarily on governmental and political communication, Dorian’s language shows how these same techniques have been adopted and refined by corporate entities. The stakes may have shifted from political power to shareholder value, but the fundamental strategy remains the same: the use of language to distance actions from consequences, to make the unpalatable seem routine.
This becomes particularly evident when examining Dorian’s handling of the Smoke River disaster. His insistence on referring to it as an “accident” (p. 365) rather than a catastrophe or disaster demonstrates the power of euphemistic language to reshape reality. Just as Orwell noted how political language could make “murder respectable,” Dorian’s corporate language transforms environmental devastation into an unfortunate but acceptable cost of doing business.
VIII. The Psychological Toll of Deception
Perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of Dorian’s character is how his use of deceptive language affects his own understanding of events. This directly connects to Orwell’s observation that political language can conceal the truth “even from the speaker.” Throughout the novel, we see moments where Dorian seems to struggle with the gap between reality and his carefully constructed narrative.
This internal conflict becomes particularly evident in Chapter 65, where his public persona begins to show cracks. The careful construction of his language begins to falter, revealing glimpses of the truth he works so hard to conceal. His education and intelligence, rather than leading to greater clarity, have provided him with more sophisticated tools for self-deception.
IX. Conclusion
Dorian Asher stands as a modern embodiment of Orwell’s warnings about political language. His careful manipulation of words, his strategic use of passive voice and euphemism, and his sophisticated approach to information control all demonstrate how the techniques Orwell identified have evolved and adapted to modern corporate contexts. The tragedy of the Smoke River Reserve serves as a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of such linguistic manipulation.
More disturbingly, Dorian’s case shows how education and intelligence can serve not to illuminate truth but to more effectively conceal it. His University of Toronto education and evident intelligence make his use of deceptive language more, not less, concerning. As Orwell warned, political language – or in this case, corporate language – can indeed conceal the truth even from the speaker, creating a cycle of deception that affects both the communicator and their audience.
The implications extend far beyond the pages of King’s novel. In an era where corporate communication increasingly shapes public understanding of environmental and social issues, Dorian’s sophisticated manipulation of language serves as a warning about how truth can be obscured not just through outright lies, but through careful, educated manipulation of language itself.