This essay examines George Orwell's 1984 through the lens of language and political control, focusing on the role of Newspeak as a tool of social domination. Drawing on Orwell's appendix on Newspeak and key passages from the novel, the paper argues that those who control language control the people — but that language's inherent fluidity ultimately limits total control. The essay connects Orwell's fictional dystopia to post-9/11 America, analyzing real-world examples such as the replacement of "civilian casualties" with "collateral damage" and the framing of the abortion debate to show Newspeak operating in contemporary political discourse. The paper concludes that 1984 functions as a warning rather than a prophecy.
The paper demonstrates the technique of reading a literary text as a political allegory with contemporary relevance. By grounding abstract claims about language in both fictional evidence and real political examples, the writer shows how literary analysis can function as social criticism — a method directly modeled on the Orwell scholarship it cites (Dickstein, Sisk).
The essay opens with a thesis about language and power, then builds a theoretical foundation through the "slipperiness" of language and the role of perception. It escalates through Orwell's specific mechanisms — the removal of concepts, the cyclical suppression of thought, and the stunting of linguistic growth — before pivoting to real-world American examples. The conclusion frames the entire reading as a call to vigilance rather than a retrospective literary exercise.
Post-9/11 America is an uncomfortably appropriate time to revisit literature like George Orwell's 1984. Given the political climate of the United States at the time, Orwell's dark, repressive world hits close to home. As Winston Smith goes about his regular routines, being constantly reminded that "Big Brother is Watching You," the reader cannot help but think about President Bush's implementation of the Patriot Act (Orwell 5). By making a bastardized version of English — "Newspeak" — such a prominent element in the text of 1984, Orwell sends a clear message about the power of language. Not only does this power exist within the pages of Orwell's fictitious dystopia, but there is increasing evidence that the American government has attempted to control and manipulate the masses by hijacking common language.
1984 shows us that he who controls the language controls the people. However, it is the people who offer that control by using the language given to them in the first place. Though this is a sound theory — and can, unfortunately, be seen in practice all over the world — the weakness in language that allows this to occur is ironically the same quality that will keep it from taking over completely and pushing society over the edge into the kind of system presented in 1984.
When the year 1984 came and went without the gloomy socialist world of the novel coming to fruition, the Western world probably breathed a sigh of relief. However, as Orwell points out in his appendix entry on Newspeak, the full implementation of Newspeak is not actually scheduled to occur until around the year 2050. This gives the Western world decades more to worry about the predictive nature of Orwell's work. Though in the fictional 1984 Newspeak was already in wide usage, it has taken until the 21st century to really begin to see this concept implemented in the real world.
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible" (Orwell 303). Through this statement we can see that language is the key to control. Words are simply abstract sounds until someone applies meaning to them, and something as important as our primary form of communication could not possibly be trusted to anyone other than those in positions of leadership. Leadership itself does not necessarily equate to control, but it inspires the general population to willingly hand over the tools that enable a leader to take control. In the case of 1984, Ingsoc is in charge, and therefore Ingsoc is able to manipulate the language — but who gave Ingsoc permission to achieve this?
The trait — or in this case the failing — of language that allows this control to take place is the "slipperiness" of language. Words themselves mean nothing until we allow them to mean something, but even when meaning is ascribed to a word, that meaning is filtered through the perceptions and experiences of both the person speaking and the person hearing. Take, for example, the word "cat." While most people would agree that this word labels a small, four-legged mammal that meows and has whiskers, the word does not tell us exactly what to picture when we hear it. If Jane says to John, "Did you see that cat?" John could understand this in many ways while Jane may be thinking of something entirely different. Jane could be picturing a cute, fuzzy ginger tabby, while John could be imagining a solid grey cat, or even a jungle cat. He might even think Jane means a man, if he were prone to using beatnik vocabulary. Somehow, despite this dynamic nature of language, we manage to communicate.
What Newspeak proposes to do is not only to control the sounds that come out of our mouths and enter our ears, but to manipulate and control the images that form in our minds. Being able to dictate what we perceive, as well as what we speak and hear, generates a situation where those who dictate have achieved "social control through forcibly narrowed language" (Sisk 2). Complete language control is, essentially, the ultimate goal for Ingsoc — but many steps must be taken to achieve it.
Language has a dynamic relationship with perception, and experience flavors our perception. Consider again the example of Jane and John and their cat. If John had never encountered a cat — in real life, a picture book, a drawing, or in any form whatsoever — the communication between them would fall short. Jane could then explain to John what a cat is, but John would have not a primary perception of "cat," but a secondary one delivered through Jane. Jane now has a degree of control over John, at least as far as cats are concerned. She could describe what a cat looks like, dictating its size and color, but she could also go further and tell John that cats are friendly, pleasant animals. This would likely encourage John to welcome a cat if one crossed his path.
Now imagine if Jane were to tell John that a cat is an evil, vile creature that lashes out unpredictably at anyone and anything. She explains that cats multiply at an astounding rate, and that when their population grows large enough in a given area, they form roving packs that prowl the streets at night, seeking out innocent, defenseless human children as midnight snacks — and that their long, nimble claws can pick any lock or scratch through a pane of glass with astonishing speed. John, who has a six-month-old daughter at home, is then inspired to kill any cat he sees roaming near his house, especially if they appear in numbers. Jane has orchestrated a dangerous act of beasticide simply by telling John what to think about something he had no prior experience with. Granted, it is an extreme example — but Orwell did not shrink from extreme examples in 1984 when bringing this overlooked stronghold of hegemony to light.
"By drawing attention to the most extreme, even transient features of the totalitarian system — the wholesale rewriting of the past; the constantly shifting political line; the outright doctoring of texts and pictures; the deification, relentless demonization, or total elimination of historical figures; even the outright denial of simple fact (two plus two is four) — Orwell anticipates the postmodern debate about truth and language, yet falls short of contributing to it" (Dickstein 107).
If Ingsoc were able to remove the possibility of personal experience of certain things — literature, sex, political freedom — then it could remove the desire to partake in or even think about those things, thereby eradicating the possibility of rebellion or any attempt to overthrow its authority.
To give a single example: the word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in statements such as "This dog is free from lice" or "This field is free from weeds." It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free," since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless (Orwell 305).
The bastardization and manipulation of language by Ingsoc in Orwell's fiction seems to be one of the main focal points of what Orwell was trying to express in 1984. Since science fiction has had a notorious reputation for predicting the future — and in all fairness, this has been the case on occasion — when the year 1984 passed without the ominous degradation of society that Orwell imagined, the messages in the work seemed less like possibility and more like pure fiction. It seems as if society let its guard down somewhat after 1984, and the results have not been pretty. With the ongoing war in the Middle East and the actions of the American government uncomfortably resembling the policies of Oceania, now is the time to revisit 1984 and take a hard look at the world around us. As Orwell himself understood, the greatest threat to freedom may not arrive through open violence, but through the quiet, incremental erosion of the words we use to think.
You’re 58% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.