After reading the passage from Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four, it is easy to see how drastically society has changed as a result of the new, oppressive government. Every aspect of society must been changed down to its very foundation. This passage focuses on the language of “Newspeak” that is being implemented so that people cannot even think about bad things or revolution. The government is, in essence, brainwashing its citizens. Future generations will grow up and have no recollection of words like “free” that used to represent individualistic and democratic ideals.
As with other dystopias we have looked at, Nineteen-Eighty-Four has a tyrannical government that focuses toward more communistic principles. Everyone does their share of the work, and everyone will be happy. This government closely watches everyone’s actions, so no one can act out. They even destroy all past literature works that are not written in “Newspeak.” This simplifying of the language will give them even more power over their citizens in the future.
Countless instances in history have shown that the powerful seek more power, but do you think it is necessary for this government to further suppress its people? Just thinking about revolution and anti-Big Brother thoughts is a crime, so why is there a need for this brainwashing? Even if the new language is established, would the idea even be feasible or is it in man’s nature to rebel?
-Nick
megwaldron said,
October 13, 2007 at 1:20 am
I think it would be necessary for the government to go to such extreme measures as devising a new language in order to maintain and further control the people under its power. The novel shows us that the system was not perfect – there were rebels against the system and forms of punishment had to be incorporated. With the command of diction causing people to lose sight of any heretical beliefs, the society would be more organized and these practices would be less necessary over time.
What I find most interesting is that Orwell chooses to focus on language as so important a factor in the evolution of a community. Skinner used experimental methods from birth to re-socialize the individuals – changing specific environmental factors in their growth and learning. Orwell, instead, put a heavy emphasis on the importance of language. The process is remarkable to think about; the vocabulary would be implemented and the speech itself would remain vague and impersonal because of the sound of the words while the words themselves would eventually replace the vocabulary previously accepted, Oldspeak. And since those words would be accepted in what we say and what we hear, it would be hard to contain any understanding of former meanings or concepts as time went on and Newspeak was all around us.
In both Skinner’s and Orwell’s communities, there is talk of being socialized over time because of specific changes. Skinner, the scientist, encompassed a great many social and behavioral factors in his studies on human beings. Orwell was preoccupied with this style of language. His explanation is rich and persuasive. I think I found his argument more powerful than Skinner’s because he didn’t try to pretend he wasn’t running a totalitarian state – he was. Skinner’s Frazier was so harshly in denial of that concept that it made something seem amiss about the society – if it’s not totalitarian, what is it?
It’s really interesting that Orwell made a strong case for the possibility of this new society with his use of language. There were other aspects to his society, but this was the element that separated it the most from our own.
dodge2 said,
October 13, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I also thought Orwell’s focus on the language that a society uses was interesting. In all of the utopias that we have read, Nineteen Eighty Four is the one that focuses on the role of language the most. In Brave New World, some aspects of the language have changed such as the meaning of certain words. For example, mother and father are curse words.
However, Orwell just doesn’t change the meaning of the language, but he also changes the language itself. The meanings of words did change and became more rigid, allowing no creativity or imagination. The words themselves changed with the different prefixes and suffixes of ful, wise, un, and plus. Neologisms were created such as bellyfeel to imply a blind, enthusiastic acceptance. Euphemisms were heavily used such as joycamp for a forced-labor camp. In the construction of the language, euphony outweighed every consideration other than exactitude of meaning or grammatical structure.
However, while the construction of Newspeak is fascinating, the purpose of Newspeak is even more important to the success of Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Once Newspeak became the dominant language, the knowledge of the past written in Oldspeak would not be able to be understood. The works of Shakespeare and other prominent authors could be translated, but once these works were translated into Newspeak, their original meaning would be lost and would be rendered useless.
dodge2 said,
October 13, 2007 at 5:52 pm
The post above was written by Steven Dodge.
mwq5004 said,
October 14, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I was especially intrigued by Orwell’s idea that we could change human thought by altering the language used. I believed that language was a vehicle of sorts which allowed people to express their thoughts and that language was created out of necessity to share those feelings.
With implementation of Newspeak, Orwell says that unconventional thought would be repressed because the ideas and terms needed to create that thought would not exist anymore. My first thought would be that eventually, after Oldspeak was completely forgotten, it would not be long before somebody would hit upon the old ideals of freedom and liberty and create new words to fulfill the gaps in the language. However, basis of language in Orwell’s new society is really not without ground. For example, there are other societies that have languages without words that we find essential to the English language. The Moken people, a primitive nomadic group that lives around the seas of southeast Asia lack the words for “when,” “goodbye,” “hello,” “want,” or “worry.” The lack of these words are a reflection of their non materialistic society, after all, nomads keep only what they can bring with them. It also reflects the carefree nature of their society. Although, to say that somebody banned those words resulting in the character of the society today is a bit far fetched. I believe that Orwell’s idea was planned oppositely of how change should work; society changes language and not the other way around.
Rosie Qin
mwq5004 said,
October 14, 2007 at 2:52 pm
(Sorry about the paragraphs getting seperated!)
swjackson said,
October 14, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I too agree that I think a controlling government needs to implement drastic policies too effectively control its citizens. In general, the members of society can only bring about some sort of resistance if they are given the knowledge and ability to do so, and in Orwell’s case, that power is abolished.
The passage that struck me most of the excerpt we’ve read was when the narrator is recounting the overall effects of Newspeak. He notes, “When Oldspeak had been once and for all suspended, the last link with the past would have been severed” (406). I find this interesting for I believe history is an important concept to have knowledge of. When citizens of Oceania no longer have an understanding of history, they cannot distinguish the past from their current state of control. As a result, citizens are unable to realize that shortcomings and detriments of the society in which they live.
However, what struck me about the concept of erasing history was noting it’s presence in Walden Two as well. Did anyone else notice that the suppression of history is not only necessary in a dystopian government, but also advocated in the running of a supposed “paradise” as well? Certainly, it provides some interesting questions about the validity of Frazier and his beliefs in Walden Two as well…..
-Steve Jackson
eal5058 said,
October 14, 2007 at 8:14 pm
If a government intends to take complete control, it is absolutely necessary for them to control every aspect of their citizen’s lives, including and especially language.Many utopian authors try to show that technology is the key to controlling people. I, and Orwell, disagree. Language is the basis of all things. Nothing can exist without language. Therefore, if the government controls language, they’ll control minds.
I think it’s ingenius to create a society in which all control is based on changes in language. Orwell’s ideas about language are similar to Skinners ideas about behavioral engineering. Skinner knows that after his original generation dies off, it will be incredibly easy to control future generations through behavioral engineering. Similarly, once all those who know Oldspeak die off, there will be no problems in trying to control all citizens.
Implementing this type of brainwashing in real-life is morally wrong. However, in a fictional world this brainwashing works perfectly.In my opinion, Orwell is a genius. If people don’t know rebellious words, they can’t use them or act on any ideas that may result from thinking of them. Skinner did the same thing when he implemented his idea to get children used to deprivation and other hardships. Once people got used to hardships, they didn’t even view them as hardships anymore. This is the best way to control people because it gives them no choices. It only allows one way of thinking, and therefore one possible action/ reaction.Taking control of language means taking control of everyone and everything.
Elizabeth Lindsay
pianoman2700 said,
October 15, 2007 at 12:29 am
While I have never read Nineteen Eighty-Four in its entirety, from this passage I feel that, in order to achieve its goal, this government does indeed need to suppress its people. The goal of the government of Oceania is nothing less than the total control of its people. In order to move from “modern” times (what humans act like in our own real lives), there will certainly need to be a great deal of censorship and constraint. In current times, it is human nature for humans to be curious about their environments. If they are suppressing us, why are they suppressing us, and what are we missing? They only way for this to even take place is for Big Brother to seize control after the end of a revolution, war, or terrible occurrence, as was done in the Soviet Empire. Even in this seizure of power, at least a few people would resist; suppression and censorship would put an end to that.
To answer the other questions quickly: While thinking anti-government thoughts are crimes, Big Brother would rather not have to deal with crimes. If it is possible to “tame” society to follow your rules and not have to worry about enforcing them, why not? Also, it’s not a question of whether it’s in “human nature” to rebel or not; it’s a question of what is human nature? It is mostly established by whatever you are raised in. If someone is raised under totalitarian control with no outside influence, there is very little chance they will challenge it (though there is still one person every so often who will.)
-Brandon Koger
mollyfay said,
October 15, 2007 at 12:40 am
. At first, the idea of a new language seemed extremely far-fetched. It seemed impossible for a society to completely change their language, but as I thought about it more, it seemed feasable.
. When the people of Oceania first heard the idea of a new language, they may have been surprised, and because of this, they were probably fed the idea slowly. (I have not read 1984, so I do not know the details) Even if the people of Oceania only learned or lost a word every year, after many years, the language would be a real spoken language, and it would the language of the country. The language would grow and grow until it was the only language spoken.
. This process would move along even more quickly as the people who knew Oldspeak began to die; Oldspeak would die with them. Newspeak would become the only language. The leaders of the nation would then have taken control of the people in a new and genius way. They would have taken away their ability to even think of rebellion and freedom. Without the thought of it, there is no way they could ever accomplish or yearn for it. It was the perfect plan.
eat151 said,
October 15, 2007 at 2:49 am
Just thinking about revolution and anti-Big Brother thoughts is a crime, so why is there a need for this brainwashing? Even if the new language is established, would the idea even be feasible or is it in man’s nature to rebel?
In order for the dystopian government to have absolute power, it is necessary for them to brain wash its people. The government’s number one priority is to stay entrenched in power. People’s innate humanism still leaves a modicum of rebeliousness, so the need remains to completely subtract personal thoughts, feelings and expression.
Big Brother cannot be questioned by people who cannot physically question authority. If people are brainwashed then although it is a crime, the crime rate would be non-existent. What is easier for a government, punishing those who question Big Brother or simply mind molding society so as to eliminate the “crime” altogether?
clairexu said,
October 15, 2007 at 3:39 am
Nick posed the question, “Why is there a need for this brainwashing?” Although it is true that negative thoughts about revolution and Big Brother are punishable by death, it would be much more effective to not just punish “thoughtcrime” but eliminate it altogether. This is the ultimate goal of Newspeak- to limit the thought process and thus limit the chances of opposition to the government.
I think Orwell is a genius. As with all the other utopias and dystopias we have read, Nineteen Eighty-Four aims to create a “successful” society by altering human nature. In each of these works, the authors implement different methods to accomplish this: Skinner used behavior modification, Plato considered the possibility of eugenics, etc. However, I believe none of these would be, if actually put into practice, as successful as Orwell’s technique of “brainwashing.” With eugenics, it would be possible to “breed” more desirable human traits and characteristics; behavior modification creates a different set of emotions. Nonetheless, neither of these addresses the thought process, the fundamental cause for dissent. The citizens of Oceania may be able to feel dissatisfaction with Big Brother, but they cannot effectively communicate this sense to others because the word “dissatisfaction” no longer exists. As a result, it would very difficult to orchestrate any kind of opposition movement, assuring the safety and longevity of Big Brother.
-Claire