The Modern Impacts of George Orwell's 1984

The Modern Impacts of George Orwell's 1984

by Benjamin Secino

The Modern Impacts of George Orwell's 1984

George Orwell
Credit:	BBC [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Abstract

This milestone analyzes the place given to George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four in the world today, focusing on how it appears in political discourse, and how Orwell's thoughts have entered into and been changed by modern culture.

This milestone follows up on unanswered questions presented in milestone two, which looked into the historical events that inspired George Orwell to write his most famous novel.

Introduction

This milestone looks at the ways in which George Orwell and his most famous novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, have been interpreted and used in modern times. Specifically, this milestone details the appearance of Orwell and his thoughts in modern-day political discourse, and how a more exact example of Orwell's philosophy, Newspeak, is portrayed and alluded to. This subject is especially relevant today, when sales of Nineteen Eighty-Four have spiked back to the top of Amazon's bestsellers list and talk is circulating of increased political manipulation and the rise of totalitarian tactics in the U.S. and abroad.

This project is an extension of the previous milestone, which explored the ways in which historical events from George Orwell's life inspired him to write his seminal novel.

Section 1: Background

When researching George Orwell, it is almost impossible to avoid the phrase "afterlife." Since his death in 1950, Orwell has been invoked countless times as a "prophet," given authority over everything from politics to the English language. Daphne Patai, author of The Orwell Mystique: A Study in Male Ideology, is quoted as follows:

I think the question of Orwell's relevance is strictly an empirical one. Is he relevant? Yes, because he is constantly cited.... There is enormous attention being paid to who he is and what he wrote. So I don't think that's a matter of opinion. He simply is relevant.

In exploring this relevance and the justifications behind it, this project will outline the ways in which Orwell and his work, specifically Nineteen Eighty-Four, have appeared in modern politics, and the influence that Orwell's thoughts have had on political rhetoric and language.

Nineteen Eighty-Four As A Political Weapon

I think Orwell is actually more [politically] relevant than ever before. He wasn't talking merely about communism. He wasn't talking merely about fascism. He wasn't talking merely about Stalinism. He was talking about totalitarianism and the totalitarian mindset. And I think there's lots of evidence that the totalitarian mindset to varying degrees is still around. Saddam Hussein. North Korea. Even here [in America] it's very difficult to read the pronouncements of John Ashcroft and Homeland Security without having twinges of worry about what people would accept here in terms of social control. You see people being locked up. There's something Orwellian... about seeing people being dropped off in places that aren't officially part of the United States because they're officially part of Cuba, not allowed to see lawyers, not knowing what they're charged with, what their status is.

Ian Williams, United Nations correspondent for the Nation and author of George Bush at the War Front, in a 2003 interview

The above quotation dates to 2003, when a great deal of political debate existed over the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. But Bush was neither the first nor the last politician to be attacked by opponents citing George Orwell. Nineteen Eighty-Four has been used for decades to argue against large government programs. The Obama administration was criticized over the NSA's surveillance methods in 2013 after Edward Snowden's revelations, forcing Obama to deny claims that the program was "Big Brother... run amok." Soon after the Snowden revelations, sales of Nineteen Eighty-Four rose in the United States by 5,771%. Even Michael Shelden, author of Orwell: The Authorized Biography, is quoted as saying that "throwing out such a broad net of surveillance is exactly the kind of threat Orwell feared." Most recently, Nineteen Eighty-Four shot up to become the number-one selling book in the United States after the first week and a half of Donald Trump's presidency. Following Kellyanne Conway's use of the term "alternative facts," sales on Amazon of Nineteen Eighty-Four rocketed by nearly 10,000%.

Orwell's final novel has been used for decades as a weapon for both the political Left and Right. This fact itself should be surprising; most authors - especially political authors - end up being claimed by either the Left or the Right, and used to justify their opinions and discredit their opposition. In contrast, it's very rare for an author to be cited by all sides. This universal citation of Orwell comes in part from discrepancies within Orwell himself. Though a lifelong socialist who considered himself part of the Left in many ways, Orwell was considered too critical of Communism by many of his contemporaries, who would just have soon painted him as one of the Right. After Orwell's death, this debate intensified. During the Vietnam war, many on the Left claimed that Orwell's anti-Imperialist views would have led him to oppose America's involvement in the conflict. At the same time, many on the Right held that Orwell's anti-Communist stance would have led him to support America's involvement. When asked whether there was any value in "playing the parlor game of 'What would Orwell say today,'" Dennis Wrong, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at New York University and author of many books on political theory, said the following:

It is very difficult to do so, given what a contrarian figure Orwell was. In the most recent case, the war in Iraq, it seems to me that Orwell can be used on all sides of the argument, and so what then does that mean? It can't be taken as self-evident that you have a good case by citing Orwell in favor of invading or not invading Iraq, since he can easily be used for either side.

This statement was perfectly illustrated in the 1980s when President Reagan proposed a "squeal rule" that would make it mandatory for Planned Parenthood centers to notify parents when they gave contraceptives to teanagers. Speaking against the bill, a Democratic congressman said "this is Big Brother getting into the bedrooms of the people." Almost simultaneously, Reagan's' Secretary of Health and Human Services accused Democrats of putting "Big Brother government between the parent and the child."

Part of the reason behind why George Orwell and Nineteen Eighty-Four remain in such prominent use by politicians lies in the unusual staying power of Nineteen Eighty-Four as a novel. Following the end of the Cold War, it might have been expected that Nineteen Eighty-Four would have faded to become nothing more than a period piece. However, as Ian Williams so rightly said, Orwell was not simply discussing communism or fascism, but totalitarianism as a whole. Because of the breadth of this topic, almost any society can read themselves into Orwell's novel, picking up on characteristics that they see in the world around them. The familiarity of Oceana, in turn, makes Nineteen Eighty-Four seem deeply personal to its readers. And as long as this novel remains personal and relatable, it is only too easy for public individuals - politicians in particular - to manipulate the message of the book into something that inspires fear and revulsion. In short, Nineteen Eighty-Four is used so frequently because it represents an easy shot.

The way in which Orwell is so often invoked in political debate raises an interesting question: Does George Orwell still exist, or has he been reborn as "Orwell," the prophet of Big Brother? At times, George Orwell has been compared to Dr. Frankenstein, whose name has famously been taken by popular culture and given to his creation. The following quotation, from a 1982 column criticizing new restrictions imposed by states on the insanity plea, illustrates this point:

George Orwell would have been proud of our 1984-ish ways. I am horrified.

Clearly, the real George Orwell would not have been proud of anything resembling the world he painted in his novel. Even the most distant scholar of Nineteen Eighty-Four realizes that it does not show Orwell's wistful vision of what humanity might one day achieve, but his satirical cautionary tale of what humanity might devolve into if we're not careful. Unfortunately, the trend of conflating Orwell and Big Brother has continued, as shown by the following 2007 headline:

Orwell denied: Bill to stop employers from sticking RFIDs under workers' skin

In an attempt to forestall the arrival of 1984, a California state senator has introduced a bill to ban employers from inserting identification devices under the skin of employees

Because of statements like these, Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four has begun to transform from a novel with a political message of its own into a symbol of a vague-yet-terrifying future in which freedom and justice no longer exist. This symbol, invoked through words like "Orwell," "Big Brother," and "Nineteen Eighty-Four," is often filled with whatever political purpose a speaker wishes to support, and seems to grant this speaker the instant appearance of authority. However, this method of use and misuse presents an interesting irony: When both sides of the political spectrum claim Orwell as their own, it is impossible for both sides to be representing him accurately. This misrepresentation, used to twist public opinion and enliven propaganda, is, in turn, distinctly Orwellian.

Orwell and the Persistence of Newspeak

Orwell's thoughts on the uses and misuses of language play a large role in Nineteen Eighty-Four, appearing as the foundations of Oceana's state-approved language, "Newspeak." The novel Nineteen Eighty-Four contains only one appendix, which is entirely dedicated to "The Principles of Newspeak," laying out the political philosophy behind the language, the treatement of its vocabulary, and its gramatical structure. Orwell explains the essence of Newspeak as follows:

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. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.

The early stages of Orwell's thoughts on the dangers and origins of Newspeak appear in his 1946 essay, "Politics and The English Language." Here, Orwell lays out clear examples of the ways in which language can be twisted "to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." In many ways, Newspeak is considered to be one of Orwell's most accurate and enduring prophecies. While the overt totalitarian control seen in Nineteen Eighty-Four has not manifested itself in the majority of modern nations, the more subtle control of thought and perception provided by the specialized twisting of language is commonplace in politics and society in general, both in the United States and around the world. The following, a hypothetical defense of Russian totalitarianism, is an example Orwell gives of such obfuscating language:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

Orwell translates this passage as: "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." This simpler phrasing is straight and to the point, but is nowhere near as defensible as the first statement. Why? Because, Orwell would argue, it actually says something, instead of filling space with euphemisms and Latin-rooted words which, combined, "fall... upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details." Using language in this way allows politicians and organizations to avoid justifying their actions to the public.

The term "Newspeak" continues to be used to describe jargon that hides or changes meaning. For instance, when the BBC described a Parliament with an equal number of seats occupied by different parties as a "balanced Parliament" in 2010 instead of the more common term "hung Parliament," some called the new term a form of manipulative Newspeak. According to opponents of the term, using the word "balanced" implied that having a hung Parliament was a desirable outcome of the upcoming election, as opposed to a negative outcome that would lead to "horse-trading on a grand scale."

Of course, in the original sense of "Newspeak" put forth by Orwell, describing a hung Parliament as "balanced" is not an example of Newspeak, but is merely a rhetorical device. Newspeak goes further than simply swapping out a negatively-connotated word for a more pleasant one; it fundamentally redirects meaning and guides thought. However, in modern politics and discourse, "Newspeak" has taken on fresh meaning. It has become a term used to deride the rhetorical devices of one's opponents, simultaneously discrediting their words and implying that they are on the side of Big Brother.

Ironically, this new definition of "Newspeak" presents a fair example of the original definition of "Newspeak:" A word has been selected from the English language, and its meaning has been systematically altered to better suit the needs and desires of political powers. Just as Big Brother changed the meaning of the word "free" to become synonymous with "without," "Newspeak" has been sheared of meaning and whittled down to something that can be readily used as a political cudgel without the bother of complex connotations. Thus, Newspeak follows in the footsteps of many other Orwell-inspired terms - "Big Brother," "Orwellian," "Thoughtcrime" - each of which has taken on a meaning greatly different than originally intended.

Section 2: Deliverable

The deliverable for this milestone consists of a creative writing piece inspired by Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. This piece was first composed for milestone two, but has been brought forward a draft for this milestone. For a full description of this creative piece, see the Deliverable section of milestone two, here.

(When finished, a link to the draft will be inserted here.)

Conclusion

Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four has entered into been accepted into modern culture in two major ways. In political discourse, Orwell is constantly being claimed as a ally by both the political Right and Left. All politicians, it seems, wish to have Orwell's support behind their actions, and his disapproval directed squarely at their opponents. However, when all sides of a debate cite the same source as justification for their position, it is not possible that they can all be portraying the source in a fair and balanced light. In this way, "Orwell" has become a political symbol meaning nothing more than "an undesirable thing of which my opponent is guilty and against which I protect."

In a similar way, Orwell's Newspeak has taken on a political edge from which it was originally free. "Newspeak" initially described a language invented to serve the purposes of Big Brother and the Party, characterized by words with severely limited meaning and a greatly reduced vocabulary, all meant to limit thought and eliminate the concepts of rebellion and freedom. Now, the term "Newspeak" is most often used to refer to political rhetoric that is disagreeable to the speaker, and almost never used to properly describe the kind of political speech for which it was intended.

Both of these instances of Orwell in modern times show one underlying trend: The most common and enduring impact of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four has been to produce a powerful weapon to politicians and pundits on both sides of the political spectrum. I think it's fair to say that Orwell would have been horrified, if not entirely surprised, by this cynical result of his masterpiece.

Going forward, more research needs to be done on the impacts that Nineteen Eighty-Four has made on modern dystopian novels, and, more generally, how Orwell has entered into popular culture.