As with most of the other utopias and dystopias we have read in class, 1984 follows a similar pattern. Human nature is basically altered by the brainwashing of all citizens. The citizens are forced in believing completely in Big Brother and his high ranking followers of the Party. The English language itself is even altered to remove any sign of history before Big Brother. The history is altered such that the citizens believe that all things are derived in some form from Big Brother himself. The citizens are also under the constant watch of a party member or Big Brother by way of televisions or cameras.
The scary part about 1984 is that a society similar to it can exist within the world and function regularly. The prime examples are the former Soviet Union and China. Both of those states had Big Brother like leaders and communist party members that censored anything that was not favorable to the state. The citizens of those countries were even brainwashed to a certain extent to believe that the rest of the world was just like them and that their state was superior to the rest of the world.
Clearly the issue is not whether or not a state similar to Oceania can exist because the answer is yes it can. The issue is can people be brainwashed to the point that thoughts are no longer present within brain activity? Can a state force all its citizens to stop normal brain function and give into the state? I do not believe that a state can alter its language in 60 some years, removing all emotions and thoughts, and completely shut down the brain activity of all of its citizens. The society could not even last 60 years if it tried to stop brain functioning because a crisis would topple the entire system.
cdzook said,
October 14, 2007 at 4:22 pm
While I do agree with you that it is impossible to completely stop human thought, I would have to say that it is possible and plausible to control human thought. In the examples of Orwell’s novel, the construed dialect of Newspeak removes words that represent concepts that could be detrimental to the reign of Big Brother and his Party. The alteration of the English language is paramount to the success of the Party. Words such as “free” “could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’” (qtd in UR 399). Rather, the word “free” would relate to an object or entity that is without something else. The examples given say “This dog is free from lice” (qtd in UR 399). While this is just one example of an altered word, it is feasible to believe that other words similar to “free” would soon take on a more literal and physical means, leaving behind its abstract nature.
By tweaking the English language to fit the will of the Party and Big Brother, those in charge completely eliminate the words, and therefore, concepts, that could be used to rally against them. Their changes do not necessarily eliminate their subjects’ thoughts, but the alterations do certainly control thoughts. If someone is not able to think of “free” in the sense of being politically free, then he or she could not think of a scenario where she could be politically free. This means that the government is able to be as oppressive as it wishes, because once the new generations only know the language of Newspeak, rebellion will be impossible in Oceania. Those who have always been oppressed will not know any other way of living and, more importantly, will not be able to think of any other way of living.
Because no nation has ever taken the extreme steps Oceania takes in Orwell’s novel, there has never been a society like Oceania on Earth. But it is still possible for some country at some point in time to do as Big Brother does and control the masses through language dialects. While it would be difficult, it is certainly possible. However, hopefully no one will live to see the day that a nation such as Oceania takes form.
Anonymous said,
October 14, 2007 at 4:33 pm
While it is a scary notion, I do agree what a society similar to Oceania can exist. I have never encountered a society or even fictional work where people try to change an entire language so that certain words are omitted not only from everyday speech but also from everyday thought; however, Orwell’s Animal Farm similarly parallels a complete change in the mentality of his characters to the Russian Revolution. Here I have hope because while such society can exist, I do not believe it can “stop normal brain function.”
Censoring certain words, phrases, or ideas cannot prevent everyone from thinking them; it is human nature. So unless the society attempts to genetically engineer the brain in some other way, it cannot stop these inherent thoughts from occurring. In addition, there will be those who, in the very beginning, realize the severity of the situation and pass their knowledge on to their children, encouraging them to think and spread the word.
Were leaders such as Stalin, Hitler and Mau not overthrown? Yes, their horrific societies did exist, but there eventually ceased due to revolution from the people who they believed they had brainwashed.
courtneymurray said,
October 14, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Courtney
jrc5213 said,
October 14, 2007 at 7:12 pm
As with Courtney, I have never read or even heard of a society where the language is fundamentally changed as a way to control people. However, I believe that a language change, like that in Nineteen Eighty-Four, would be a very effective way to regulate both the thoughts and actions of people. In 1984, the citizens of Oceania have a very limited vocabulary. They are only able to speak about ideas that are allowed by the state because only words pertaining to approved concepts exist. Therefore, people would be unable to discuss revolutionary concepts that might pose a threat to the state. However, I do not believe that just by altering a language, a government can completely stop the brain function of its citizens because not only is that impossible but not a good idea. Some people, even in dictatorships, are needed to as inventors and scientists. Essentially, people are needed to solve problems. By turning all its citizens into “robots,” a government would not have the minds it needs to handle any problems that might arise.
Even though controlling people by limiting their speech may be very effective, it posses the question concerning how this change came about. At least to me it seems rather strange that people would willingly give up their own language and accept a new, limited language. What motivation would the average person have to submit to this new language? Since history shows that people will often rebel if force is used to impose new ideas, I do not think force is a very practical method to promote a language. A new language must have some advantages over the old in order for it to be accepted. In this case, that advantage may be simplicity. Possibly, after the new language was used by the general population, it was slowly modified, unrealized by the people, to the form seen in the book. I have not read 1984, so this problem of accepting the language may have been addressed in the book.
-Jon Chekan-
nateemmons said,
October 14, 2007 at 8:55 pm
The idea that you can control people through the use of language is a very powerful one that I’d never considered before. It makes me curious as to what extent our thoughts are influenced by the language of the media and popular culture.
The quote “.. Its vocabulary grew smaller and smaller every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought.” (495) Is an even scarier notion.
If a government was able to pull this off, I don’t see how the citizens would ever rise up. Anyone in the original generation that rebels will be discovered and killed, and the younger generations will be raised ignorant and indoctrinated into the system. This is a disturbing testament to the power of language.
jfryguy said,
October 14, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Disclaimer: I’ve read 1984
In regards to the comments of Courtney and Jon C on the non-feasibility of a society with a newspeak-like language, 1984 is no exception. The government is in the process of trying to eliminate all radical thought through the implementation and use of Newspeak. They have not completely succeeded, because the main character, Winston Smith, slowly begins by having wandering thoughts that eventually become “radical” (to summarize). Another interesting note, the leaders of Ingsoc (the Inner Party) are the most fervent believers in Ingsoc policies. Unlike selfish dictators, they are almost a breed of self-perpetuating robots. It is the lower levels of society that retain a semblance of brain activity.
In regards to newspeak, it points to a question that stands in psychology, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It basically states that the physical language has affects on how we can think, perceive and communicate ideas. The idea of newspeak in 1984 is to control through by limiting concepts. Consider for a moment, hearing a word you have never heard before (If you have an incredible vocabulary, consider some Theodor Geisel, for example “Thnead”). You have no idea what it means, and it is merely an empty shell. That shell is eventually filled with meaning. The purpose of newspeak is to make words into empty shells so that they eventually have no meaning behind them. Now, consider that, growing up, you never learned the rich nuanced meanings of words. Consider then, even fewer words then are currently present. Almost all totalitarian dictators have engaged in moderate forms of this, often coining euphemisms. How could you even form such “radical” ideas without a basis or starting concept. Then imagine trying to vocalize your thoughts. It would be like you were speaking a completely different language
As for the argument on giving up voluntarily on language, it is not that simple. Think of Singapore for a moment. Almost no one currently living in Singapore is an English speaker by birth. Most speak some form of Asian dialect. However, all official government business is done in English. All school classes are taught in English. The language of business is English. English has become a necessity; it is not necessarily a choice by the individual. Thus it is the same for many members of Orwell’s Oceania, newspeak is necessary to use, not a free choice.
- Jonathan Fry
Eric Levi said,
October 15, 2007 at 12:48 am
It is possible, to a certain extent, to control the extent of a societies vocabulary. This does help governments such as that depicted in 1984, but it does not completely fulfill the desire of this corrupt government in controlling the rebellious thoughts of it’s members. Imagine you did not know the meaning of the word love. Simply because you don’t know the word to express the emotions affiliated with love, does that mean you cannot feel love? Absolutely not. You will still feel the emotions standard with love, you simply will not know how to directly express them on a verbal level. This helps figures such as Big Brother, in that citizens are unable to express the feelings of rebellion that arise. It is human nature to find a way to express yourself, but in the case of 1984, there is a back up for this problem. Those who do find a way to rebel, or even have thoughts of rebellion, are severely punished through systematic torture. Through newspeak, Big Brother is able to minimize the number of citizens that find a way to express their disgust with the structure of their own society. For those who do find a way, there is a strict and painful punishment to “reeducate.” Through this, pain becomes the most influential aspect in keeping the citizens in check, and to disencourage rebellion and rebellious thoughts.
JeanHa said,
October 15, 2007 at 2:44 am
To agree with Jon C, I do not understand how a society could ever allow its language and vocabulary to become as limited as that in 1984. As Jon said, the people would have to have an incentive, such as simplicity. But could even simplicity excessively eliminate vocabulary? What about all of the new vocabulary created by teenagers just in the US every day? Tonight as I ate dinner I heard someone talk about how “chill” Sundays are (aka, there’s nothing much to do on Sundays, so why not relax?) Yes, this may include the whole idea of simplicity, but how long will the term “chill” be used by any group of people? Language naturally evolves.
All that we need is another Shakespeare to come up with a whole new pocket to our vocabulary. Because people think, people make up new words. People will always be expressing themselves in new ways, no matter how unconventional. Plus, with the advent of the Internet, cell phones, etc, it is practically impossible for the government to regulate the language of its people.
Bonnie Lu said,
October 15, 2007 at 2:48 am
Like Eric said, just because one doesn’t know a word doesn’t necessary imply that one is oblivious of its meaning.
In the reading, by limiting the meaning of “free,” it is hoped that people would not draw the connection between a “dog free of lice” and the freedom of intellectual thought (399). And by over-simplifying the language by using additions such as “un-,” it is hoped that people will not dwell on the meaning of words, and just take them at face value. The problem I see with this is how those words would be defined and taught. If the language is so simple to begin with, then how would one explain the meaning of a word–surely not with even more reduced words.
Another point that caught my attention was that one could not effectively argue against what is considered “orthodox” : “It would have been possible, for example, to say ‘Big Brother is ungood.’ But this statement, which to an orthodox ear merely conveyed a self-evident absurdity, could not have been sustained by reasoned argument, because the necessary words were not available” (405-6).
The idea that one would not be able to argue anything contrary to what is standard because of the limitations of definition is hard to grasp. I think it would be interesting to attempt this first-hand, such as in a simulation.
–Bonnie Lu
Bonnie Lu said,
October 15, 2007 at 2:49 am
note: the clock on this blog is 4 hours ahead of EST…
brianmcc said,
October 15, 2007 at 4:09 am
I agree that this reduction of vocabulary could happen to society without a rebellion. I don’t think that it would be able to happen in the time frame indicated; I think it would take longer. By reducing the vocabulary of the people slowly but surely, it greatly reduces the potential for rebellion, because it will be harder to create and communicate an uprising.
The leaders could very easily manipulate the population into this scheme. It would merely be as easy as calling it a part of standardizing the populations language to facilitate trade and a universal language to help foster better understanding. The first couple of editions wouldn’t even need to reduce the language, so much as subtly redefine ‘bad’ words to be trivial in meaning. I would imagine that next to go would be long synonyms and similar words. Then by the time that the state gets to eliminating ‘real’ words people will be so accustomed to the elimination of words from their language that they will think nothing of it.
As to the evolution of language, this is only because there are so many words that we use today that are mashed up into new words and phrases, with the shrinking of the phrases and a parsing of superfluous words it would be harder to come up with new words to create the ‘hip’ dialect. Also, implicit in creating new words is thinking, which has been outlawed, meaning that making new words and phrases would be illegal.
People may still think of the heretical ideas, but it will be incredibly hard to express their ideas to other people. This makes it very easy for the leaders to pick them off using listening devices because they would be forced to use words outside of the language.
~Brian McCormick
justinekendall said,
October 15, 2007 at 4:28 am
It would be interesting to see if political culture has anything to do with language development. For example, do people in Communist China invent new connotations for old words as much as Americans do? Is new Internet jargon adopted as readily into mainstream society in more politically liberal countries than conservative ones? I agree that it would be interesting to see how well Newspeak would do in real life. Would the people be able to adopt it without adapting it? I mean, look how often dictionaries now have to updated and republished. Would a society such as that described by Orwell except any kind of modifications at all, even in everyday life? If not, how could it be possible to control the inherently evolutionary nature of language through rules and laws? I don’t think that it can be done, but maybe that is just because our political culture makes a “Big Brother” type society seem so ridiculous to me in the first place.