George Orwell's 1984: dystopian themes and political control

ORWELL

George Orwell 1984

Eerie parallels with today's online economy of words and knowledge

George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 functions as a satire of many of the excesses of 20th century communism, such as everyday citizens' communal, monotonous lives, its nonsensical wars to keep the people complacent, and the creation of 'Big Lies' that are accepted, simply because the government so totally dominates the media. A symptom of this totalitarian thinking is manifested in the way in which language is used throughout the novel, through the use of slogans like "war is peace," "freedom is slavery" and "ignorance is strength." Even the ministry which plans the war is known as the Ministry of Peace; the ministry which engineers the propaganda disseminated throughout the society is the Ministry of Truth. So long as you call something the 'right' name it doesn't matter what the ministry actually does.

Orwell suggests that by controlling and manipulating language, our leaders can control and manipulate how we think. This is not a new idea, nor is it exclusive to the Stalinism Orwell was reacting against. In our own political discourse, politicians often re-label initiatives to suit their own devices. Healthcare reform was branded 'Obamacare' to make it seem noxious to the American public, despite the fact that the majority of the public supported many of the specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) individually, such as barring insurers from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions and allowing young adults to remain longer on their parent's health insurance.

This reframing of political dialogue through language is notable in the abortion debate. Opponents of abortion call themselves 'pro-life' rather than 'anti-abortion.' Supporters of a woman's right to have an abortion call themselves 'pro-choice,' rejecting the appellation of 'anti-abortion,' because they do not wish to force anyone to have an abortion, merely keep the option open to women. The way in which abortion is framed in the media as pro-choice vs. pro-life can sway how opinion polls tabulate the public's expressed support for abortion. The average person likely sees him or herself as both 'pro-life' (who is against life, after all) and also 'pro-choice,' given the importance of choice as a quintessential American value. This shows how language has become infected by ideology, something Orwell decried in his essay "Politics and the English language: "It [language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. 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 the necessary trouble."

Language can thus change how we think for the better or for the worse. This is particularly evident in 1984, of course, which depicts a society without privacy and where the state can interfere with every movement of its citizens. The Thought Police literally police citizen's thoughts and the Ministry of Truth warps the way ordinary citizens use language. Citizens are even monitored through televisions which can 'watch' them to ensure they participate in the daily required calisthenics. The state demands a fit, toned body because a body which is unable to fight is of no use to the state. Of course, some naysayers might see current efforts to cut the waistline of the American public as a similar form of government intrusion, with policies spanning from cutting the size of sugary sodas, taxes on cigarettes, and improvements to the school lunch program.

However, one fundamental difference between contemporary American society and the society of 1984 is the degree to which 'Big Brother' in capitalist society often wears the face of a corporation. Corporate advertisement in the food industry is so overwhelming, it is difficult to ignore foods for unhealthy products. Children are especially affected by food advertising, and fast food companies' marketing to children and encouragement of the 'nag factor' to get children to persuade their parents to buy unhealthy foods (or unneeded toys) is eerily parallel with the children in 1984 who gleefully inform on their parents. Winston Smith, the protagonist of 1984, notes that all children are horrible in the new era, given the extent to which they believe the ideology of the state in an uncritical fashion, and obey its dictates. This suggests a frighteningly pliable nature of the human mind, when it is brought up from cradle to grave to believe certain ideas. Corporations are even accorded the legal status of 'people' in current American society and can support political candidates. 1984 suggests that bureaucratic institutions are so overwhelming they can change language and create new false 'truths' -- and corporations are not necessarily different than the government in their ability to do so.

Within our own society, thanks to the expansion of social media, we are also seeing a shift in the way in which privacy is redefined which is fundamentally not orchestrated by the government. Although arguably since the passage of the Homeland Security Act after the attacks of 9/11, the federal government has been more aggressive in monitoring the actions of every citizen, what is even more surprising is the extent to which people are willing to share their lives voluntarily on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. In doing so, they enable companies to more accurately monitor their buying behaviors in a Big Brother fashion. This can be seen every time you go online shopping -- compare the prices of a few pairs of shoes, and ads for the shoes will 'follow' you around the web, clearly showing a kind of 'intelligence' in how one's behavior is being monitored.

In contrast to the citizens of 1984, consumers are willing to make all aspects of their private lives public, presumably to gain a sense of social connection with others. In 1984, true sociability, such as what exists between Winston and Julia, is shown to exist in private, but today unless something is proclaimed on Facebook, there is a question as to whether it is truly relevant. (There is a jokey meme which reads: 'that workout was pointless because I forgot to include it in my status update'). Despite the fact that it could be potentially dangerous to 'check in' with Foursquare that you were dining at a Starbucks on 5th Avenue, if someone was stalking you or wondering if your apartment was unoccupied, or the fact that potential employers can check your Facebook profile picture to see who your friends are and what you like to do in your spare time, people continue to expose themselves, with no specific outside prompting. In 1984, Winston Smith is fighting for a private life, but today people seem to be fighting to give theirs up. Through the use of language, images, and automatic monitoring of our behaviors through voluntarily chosen technology like an iPhone, there is no need for corporations to try very hard to monitor us.