1984 - More about linguistic tyranny than totalitarianism

To me Orwellian cases in real life are pieces of legislation or organizations that have names that obfuscate or imply the opposite of their actual goal. So if I wanted to bring back prohibition I’d start the Alcohol Freedom Institute. Are you against freedom?

Other examples would be blatant historical revisionism and the doctoring of quotes, photos, facts, whatever. Basically old school propaganda. This was a big part of the book too, just taken to 11.

But in 1984 the Party is the intellectual elite. The proles are most of the population but no one with power cared too much about them since they were just manual labor and were easily distracted with sports, pornography, and other bread and circuses. But it’s important that educated people think the right thoughts since they actually direct the ship of state.

He didn’t. Newspeak isn’t even a very large part of the book. The longest mention is a conversation Winston has with one of his colleagues at Minitru about it (because the colleague in question is involved with the Newspeak project).

Winston’s sex life, and the implications it has, are a much larger part of the story than Newspeak.

Not at all surprising in Plato’s case, but Confucius! You naughty bit-o’-rough-diggin’ ol’ sage, you!

My point was that the Oceania regime had control over people’s lives in hundreds of ways. Orwell wasn’t going to catalog all of them. He chose a representative handful, one of which was the regime’s control over language. Orwell most likely chose this example because, as a writer, he worked with language - not because he felt the language control was any worse than the other things Big Brother was doing. For similar reasons, Kafka, a lawyer, wrote The Trial and Zemyatin, an engineer, wrote We.

This, and it’s misuse, particularly obfuscatory language,

and this.

There are a lot a things to come away from 1984 with, but if you don’t get these two (language and history) you need to reread it.

CMC fnord!

The OP is half-right. Yes, Orwell was very deeply concerned about the political clarity of language as such – see “Politics and the English Language” (1946) - but Nineteen Eighty-Four is only incidentally about that. It is mainly about a more abiding theme of Orwell’s: that control of all records and communications and public discourse by a determined government, or even a fanatical organization controlling the minds of its followers, can erode the very concept of objective truth. The Newspeak language is only one tool in the kit, and less important here than Winston Smith’s daily editing of the historical record in the Ministry of Truth.

See “Inside the Whale” (1937):

“Looking Back on the Spanish War” (1942):

“The Prevention of Literature” (1946):

And in 1948 he published Nineteen-Eighty Four.

Bear in mind that (1) Orwell was part of the intellectual elite, and (2) the intellectual elite are practically the only ones in the world who object even in theory to dumbing things down.

Well, that’s part of it. But, if Ayn Rand was going to write an Objectivist novel about an alienated-genius artist, The Fountainhead, it was probably a predetermined choice that the artist would be an architect, not a painter or sculptor or musician – because the message/theme of the book is essentially sociopolitical, and architecture is the most public of all the arts, the art in which governments and authorities take the most interest, and the art whose results shape our public daily environment. She had to make him an architect to make the point that society has no claim to stifle or steer the creativity of any artist, even an architect.

Similarly, Orwell did not make his alienated-rebel-in-totalitarian society a factory worker, or a soldier, but a writer of a kind, with sufficient education and imagination to be something of an independent thinker. Orwell had a special view of the role of the writer in society and culture, and figured that writers – of prose, specifically – would always be the first artists affected by totalitarianism. See “The Prevention of Literature”.

That’s how English works. You learn a bunch of rules in school, but then learn when you can violate them.

Dat’s wizdum an’ poetry, dat iz! :slight_smile:

In Oceania, grammar rules violate YOU!

Newspeak consists of three vocabularies, technical words (potassium for instance), joiner words (and, in, etc) and everything else. It is the everything else category that I’m concerned with here.

The underlying principle of Newspeak is to constrict the “everything else” group as much as possible. What words can be scrapped would be - in 1984 the process isn’t complete yet - and what words couldn’t be scrapped would be stripped of all meaning beyond the most superficial and simplistic.

One example that Orwell uses in the book is the word free. It cannot be scrapped - at present - because the idea of “without cost” is still useful. The other senses of free (political freedom, personal freedom, unencumbered etc) would cease to exist.

Scrap what words you can and narrow the definition of those you can’t.

The end result being that the entirety of Declaration of Independence would read, “Thoughtcrime.”

As for implementation, IngSoc controls all media, all information all publications. As Newspeak develops it will be reflected in all media. As people die off and the process continues fewer and fewer people will know, to use the above example, that “free” used to mean anything other than without cost. Those few that still know of the other definitions wouldn’t matter because they couldn’t make themselves meaningfully understood.

But what you’re missing is that the whole point of Newspeak wasn’t just to render political thought impossible but rather to render political discourse impossible. The idea being that by reducing the vocabulary people’s ability to discuss anything will be likewise reduced. As the people come to know fewer and fewer words they become less able to express any dissident thoughts they may have.

Essentially it was a way of ensuring that should there be another “revolution” it would be a revolution of one because the one would be unable to meaningfully communicate any idea simply because the words don’t exist. Refer back to the entire Declaration of Independence (UN Charter on Human rights, Gettysburg Address take your pick) being reduced to the single word “Thoughtcrime”

No, never heard of either. But now that I have I’ll be wasting far too much time on them lol.

I have heard “doublethink” used to mean “reconsider” and Newspeak to describe neologisms.

Doublethink means to hold to mutually contradictory ideas at once and accept them both as true depending on circumstance.

Newspeak is a top to bottom revision of the language - actually you could almost say it is its own language but uses English words as the base.

And if you really don’t see how politicians, lawyers and journalists benefit from the dumbing down of the language then I’m not sure what to say that would be of value to you.

Poets, priests and politicians / all have words to thank for their positions" - The Police

I must disagree with you about your take on the book. He would not have spent so much time and energy devoted to the importance of language in maintaining liberty as he quite demonstrably did.

I also believe that 1984 is the non-allegorical sequel to Animal Farm. Animal Farm shows how such a government can slip into place, 1984 shows what happens after.

It seems somewhat odd to me that you would question the validity of the definition of words given them by the man who coined them.

In fact to suggest that any word can mean anything that anyone wants (the logical extension of your comment) is to fall into the very trap that Orwell was warning about and we have been discussing. The only difference is that instead of reducing the language to the point of incomprehensibility this is a dilution of it with the same result.

I have to disagree with you. The volume of pages dedicated to the discussion of Newspeak (the appendices, the discussion with his friend who is revising the dictionary and various other places in passing) argue against your assertion that Newspeak isnt important to the book.

His sex life is important in that he is having enjoyable sex as opposed to the do-your-duty kind he had been accustomed to and that is bad. Other than that the sex is completely unimportant. Much more important - if you want to include Julia - are the trappings of the relationship and what they say about both IngSoc and people themselves by implication.

I truly cant recall reading anything by him that had any real sexual component. Sex appears in his works (rarely) but it is never lingered over. Ive always had the feeling that Orwell was sexually awkward and thus somewhat of a prude.

Oh? It seems odd to me to not recognize that word meanings can change and expand over time (and through normal linguistic evolution and not some conscious effort at deception), and it had been over 60 years since that book was published. It’s odder still to me that you seem to be under the impression I was questioning the validity of Orwell’s neologisms.

That said, I can honestly say I’ve never seen anyone use “doublethink” to mean “reconsider”, for what it’s worth.

Yeah, I really don’t think that’s the way that language or people work, but I imagine it makes for a nifty storyline.

I admit it would be an ambitious idea to, by the year 2050, replace English entirely with a politically-sanitized vernacular, but a technology-dependent totalitarian superstate like Oceania is going to need neologisms to continue, just to keep innovating. Orwell doesn’t spend a lot of time discussing his “C Vocabulary” (Newspeak’s technical and engineering words), possibly because he was not himself a technician or an engineer, but it seems likely to me that sooner or later some Inner Party official will decide that since he can’t understand what electrical engineers are talking about, it must be crimethink, and if that official has enough factional support, Oceania is going to vaporise the people it needs to run and maintain the telescreen network.

And if this is not possible, the engineers and technicians will be able to use their jargon for political talk.

“Did you goodfix telescreen?”
“Doubleplusgoodfix inductorwise.” [wink] (i.e. “I ‘fixed’ it to fail randomly.”)

If Orwell expected innovation was not necessary, then simple decay will undermine Oceania long before 2050, given his description of London.