Skip to main content

What is 'Orwellian'?

Ever since the Snowden leaks – and even before them – we've been hearing the word ‘Orwellian’ to describe the state of surveillance we're living under. But what exactly does the word ‘Orwellian’ mean? What was George Orwell so afraid of and that he cautioned us against?

Reading two of his definitive books – ‘Nineteen Eighty-four’ and ‘Animal Farm’ – I cannot believe that Orwell was afraid of increasing surveillance. I believe that Orwell was afraid of something more. In the world described in ‘Nineteen Eighty-four’, constant, never-ending surveillance is only tiny part – a means to an end. The end what is scarier.

Moreover, I refuse to believe that the word ‘Orwellian’ should be used to describe just one tiny component of one novel written. No, I believe that the description should apply to a broader concept.

I believe that to understand the term ‘Orwellian’, one must look to the earlier story – ‘Animal Farm’. Indeed, I think that ‘Animal Farm’ really sets the stage for the ideas that Orwell wanted to convey – a totalitarian state where people lost their identity and individualism, and the exploitation and perpetuation of the class system.

In ‘Animal Farm’, Orwell distances the human metaphor by describing animals that overthrow their human overlords (owners), and run the farm themselves. In no time, the smarter pigs emerge as a ruling class, ruling over the other animals with lesser intelligence, actively pursuing a propaganda, changing history, and relying on the non-existent memories of the foolish animals. The allegorical tale shown as animals enacting the animal-like instincts present in humans serves to distance the reader from any human emotion, pointing out the ridiculousness of the totalitarian state – something Orwell was afraid would happen to the UK after World War II.

A number of people much smarter than me have pointed out the parallels between Orwell's books and the Soviet revolution. I'm not going to repeat the parallels. I am, however going to point out the parallels between ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘Nineteen Eighty-four’; to show that Orwell was battling a common foe in both the books, thereby that the word ‘Orwellian’ should refer to something more than a state of surveillance.

In ‘Nineteen Eighty-four’, Orwell shows the human condition set in a state of total surveillance, lack of individualism and memory, and official propaganda. By putting a human face to the nameless animals in ‘Animal Farm’, Orwell seeks to show the world in ‘Animal Farm’ from the perspective of someone stuck inside the system. Winston Smith is that face, and he is guilty of CRIMETHINK by falling in love.

In all aspects, the world described in ‘Nineteen Eighty-four’ is similar to the world in ‘Animal Farm’. Big Brother stands in for Napoleon, Goldstein for Snowball. In a similar way, Napoleon's spies become the THINKPOL; the same way history is changed in ‘Animal Farm’, it is done in MINITRUE. Finally, as the old animals of the revolution die, any remaining memories of life before the revolution are lost except in stories, which are heavily falsified to be in favour of the government. Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past. Winston cannot recollect anything about life before the revolution, except in sporadic memories. Julia, born after the revolution cannot even think of a world without the Party, instead finding satisfaction in smaller digressions from the Party narrative; not in the grand ideas of overthrowing the Party like Winston does.

In a sense, Orwell is critical of not only the totalitarian state that exists, but also of the people living in the state. He accuses them of being guilty of DOUBLETHINK, and the Party (or the pigs, remember Julia refers to them as ‘swine’) forcing them to live that way.

How does the Party ensure that the people remain subservient to its interests? By enforcing a policy of persistent surveillance, by ensuring that it can provide the illusion of not tolerating any independent thought, so that anyone with any independent thought will no longer be able to share his or her thoughts with anyone else without fear of being persecuted. Why do I say ‘illusion’? Because the Party can only do this on the Outer Party members, the proles are human, whereas the Party workers are not. However, the proles are too dumb to realise their true power, and do not pose a threat to the Party. It is clear that surveillance is a means to and end, but not the end itself.

Orwell's dystopia is closer to real life than other depictions of dystopia in fiction. It has been pointed out that his stories are thinly veiled allegories of the Soviet Union, and that the political reason for writing these stories down was a warning based on his fear that socialism would take over the United Kingdom. So, do the dangers of which he warned still exist?

The answer to such a loaded question must necessarily be complex, but I lean towards a ‘Yes’. More and more, we've become less and less. We get distracted by shiny objects. We cannot digest nuanced argument, or indeed any argument more than a few words long. Twitter, with its 140 character limit must certainly be to blame. Our politicians rely on us forgetting every one of their mistakes, twisting the truth, and relying on our DOUBLETHINK and lack of memory to serve their interests. We prop up enemies like Goldstein, and direct our hate towards them. We have a fairly rigid class hierarchy although it isn't forced upon us, but just a product of capitalism. And of course, we have never-ending surveillance, just that we have accepted it ourselves for little rewards.

What truly scares me is that our narrative is becoming increasingly Orwellian, that we want our politicians to engage in THINKPOL as long as it it against perceived enemies, that we like DUCKSPEAK in our news and our narratives, and that anything else is boring. We are more than willing to give up our freedom for tiny rewards, not directly to the government, but to our corporate overlords, who then promptly hand it over to the government. Reading ‘Nineteen Eighty-four’, I could not help but think that such a book could easily be written in contemporary time, on in any other time, and still hold as a cautionary tale. Therein I think lies its appeal.

On a lighter note, I would have loved to see Winston respond to O'Brien like Picard resisted Madred…

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On Harry Potter and why I dislike the series

There could not be a better time for this post. There could not have been a worse time for this post. Now that the penultimate movie of the series is out, and my facebook wall filled with people who loved the movie. But this is something I really wanted to say, and I shall say it anyway. Harry Potter is pathetic literature. Now, you must be wondering why I say that. There are many reasons. Firstly, the storyline itself is flawed. When a writer sits down to write anything, he/she must set up some essential rules about what is happening. These rules must remain constant irrespective of how many times he/she changes his/her mind. This is so that the readers are allowed to have some sensibility in what they are reading. In the fourth book, Rowling goes ahead and kills Cedric. Then, at the end of the book, the horseless carriages are there again. Nothing special. We all knew that they are horseless. But then comes the fifth book, and BAM, the horses are actually winged beasts that only thos...

On the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard

This is a post that I have been meaning to write from quite some time. Long hours spent typing code on my computer left my hands fatigued, and left me with a lot of pain in my wrists and fingers. That is when I decided to use the Dvorak. But I have got the same bad habit as Dr. Watson, to tell a story backwards. Of course, you must be wondering what the Dvorak is. The story of keyboards starts with the invention of the typewriter. Christopher Sholes, the inventor of the typewriter, tried with a two row piano style keyboard. But then, he got into many difficulties with the design. Then he finally settled for a four row design. This was similar to the QWERTY layout that most computers and typewriters today possess. The engineers at Remington, to whom Sholes had presented his design modified the layout a little further, and then the QWERTY was born. As typewriters became popular, people got used to the layout, and started practising touch typing, i.e. typing without looking at the keys...

The paradox of government

I'm fascinated by the concept of government, and the paradoxes it presents. On one hand, governments grant us a certain set of rights or liberties. On the other hand, they work to strip us of the very liberties they promise. Now, I don't mean that all governments strip people of liberties, but there are liberal regimes, and there are sufficiently restrictive and dictatorial ones. Both models may have results to show, it does not mean that people in a restrictive regime are unhappy (refer to Dan Dennett's TED talk , where he states that ideas or memes can be dangerous when taken from one part of the world, where they are widespread, and, using the virus analogy, where people are immune to the memes; to a part of the world where they are foreign, where people may not be immune to the memes and where people may get infected). History has shown that people were sufficiently satisfied with autocratic governments with a benevolent dictator, and that people in other parts of the ...