George Orwell’s “politics and the English Language” Within Newspeak
Page 1 of 4
- George Orwell’s “Politics and the english language”, published in 1946, can be shown to have a clear influence in how Orwell constructed the linguistics of the dystopian society in 1984. The essay took a serious form in which the perversion of the english language in political literature was critiqued and analyzed, but the book used satire and exaggeration to warn of the shift of how language could be used to “make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind”. A fundamental theory brought up in the essay is how if thought can corrupt language, then language in turn can corrupt thought. This idea is the basis through which newspeak is built in 1984. The process of replacing oldspeak is with the objective of not simplifying the language so that a person of average intellect can understand it, but to narrow the range of thoughts that could even exist. Similarly, this is what Orwell thinks will happen if writers continue to use “ready-made” phrases, “dying” metaphors, and meaningless words. In the book, this is done in the name of preventing possible future “thoughtcrime”, and in reality is it done to hide the truth as Orwell puts it. Another idea raised in the essay was not only how the decline originates from political causes, but the realization that all issues are political issues these days, and how politics itself is a “mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia”. In 1984, these terms are at the heart of the political atmosphere, and the language, just like today, must suffer because of it. The two works support each other to both mechanically define the concept of the decline, and to create a metaphorical visual of a dystopian society in which the corruption has become norm.
- Foucault begins with a description of a detailed outline that is to be followed when a town is met with a plague. These measures, justified through the fear of the plague, include intimate supervision, constant inspection, and regular registration. The plague is met with order, discipline, and the enforcement of control. With the aid of technology, this system is taking one step further, to create the panopticon. This concept is extremely similar to the telescreen we see in 1984. The defining shared characteristic of these two systems is the principle that power should be visible but unverifiable. The people in the cell can see the outline of the tower, but never know if he is being watched during any moment. This is the same system we see Winston experience in 1984, even when he cannot prove he is being watching in any given moment, he must assume so at all times. This fulfils the purpose which both the party and the tower guard wants, it creates in the people a state of conscious surveillance and transparency. Another aspect shared by both systems is the binary branding. In the panopticon society, you are either mad/sane, normal/abnormal, or harmless/dangerous. In 1984, the options are further narrowed, you are either with the party, or a radical traitor. Bentham also notes the exponential rise in efficiently of this system compared to the old. Physical restraints like bars, chains or locks are no longer needed, only clear enforcement of the separations, and the constant state of surveillance. The telescreen uses the same guise, one does not see anyone in physical restraints from afar, but as one get closer, he can see how Winston's own apartment is like that of a prison cell.
- Ever since Donald trump became a serious contender for the office, we have seen a rise in popularity over 1984. For the most part, I feel as if the people who think trump is putting us on the path towards a “1984” society are being overdramatic. For one, trump has shown little to no interest in the issue of domestic surveillance, which is one of the pillars in oceanic society. If anything, Obama's administration was the one that found itself having to deal with the NSA’s illegal surveillance. The party also acted as a single establishment entity, while trump is seen more of an outsider. The party also is against capitalism in all aspects, while trump presents himself to be a big advocate of it. The biggest differentiator although would be the difference in intellect and knowledge. Those In the inner party, such as O'Brien, are fully aware of everything they are doing, the purposes they are doing it for. We know this from the interrogation of Winston, during which he realized that O'Brien had thought of everything he had, and that he co-authored the very book that critiques and denounces the party. Trump however, speaks from Ignorance, and truly believes that the things he speaks for will benefit the country. Despite all this, since the election, some of trump’s aspects have been similar to what we see in 1984. For example, the use of the term “alternative facts” can be seen as a gateway towards the style in which the party views evidence and facts. The rise of “fake news” can also be compared to how the ministry of truth creates fake events or facts out of thin air to push their agenda. However, I still believe it would take a lot more than one election to put the world on such a dark path.