Alex Touchet

Published in 1949, George Orwell’s 1984 describes the futuristic and dystopian society of Oceania where the government maintains a totalitarian grip over the populous by way of omnipresent propaganda, ubiquitous surveillance, and a restrictive chokehold on any form of individualism.  The novel was published four years after the end of World War II, and was undeniably beyond its time.  Orwell comes across as practically prescient through his chilling depiction of totalitarian states that overwhelm the citizens who live within them.  It is logical to assume Orwell was, in the least, inspired by political and economic events taking place in and around Britain during the ’40s.

Thankfully, readers of Orwell do not have to rely upon conjecture to inform them of his novel’s original purpose; in fact, a letter Orwell sent in 1944 to a certain Noel Willmett detailed his personal stance on world politics at the time.  He focused specifically on his fear totalitarianism and “Fuhrer-worship” were consistently becoming more frequent throughout the world.  He also explained how he worried this rise of “emotional nationalism” and leader-worship could inevitably lead to major historical revisions.  He elaborated that “Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history.”  This theme is exemplified through 1984’s “Ministry of Truth,” the institution that essentially rewrites history so it accommodates whatever the government wishes to tell its naïve civilian population.  Orwell drove his point further with a numeric example he later utilized in his novel: “[Hitler] can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the Fuhrer wished it.”  This serves as a more personalized precursor to 1984’s analysis of individuality oppression.

Orwell also explained how he believed society was already on a downward slope toward a more totalitarian outlook.  He detailed two major reasons for this decline in the general interest in democratic principles in British society.  The first reason he gave was based upon the growing tendency toward indifference for political individualism in the younger generation of his time.  “Do you realise, for instance, that no one in England under 26 now has a vote and that so far as one can see the great mass of people of that age don’t give a d*mn for this?”  He followed by saying a further problem with Britain’s social situation was how most of the intellectual community tended toward totalitarianism over individualistic values.  They would take Stalin, for example, over Hitler, disregarding the potential issues that would arise from such a decision.  “Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side.”  Orwell connected this general disregard for the necessity for political protection of individuality with the argument Britain and the United States have not experienced totalitarianism yet, and therefore do not understand its ramifications.  It would be much easier to ignore the potential evils of policies such as public surveillance, Gestapo-like police, and the rewriting of history when they are all proposed in the name of homeland-defense or emotional nationalism.

An article by John Bennet describes how Orwell’s involvement in both the BBC and the Spanish Civil War shaped how he viewed the media.  The fact news reports of the war tended to bear little to no resemblance of the actual events to which they referred made Orwell very skeptical of the media’s overall validity.  Bennet also says Orwell partially based his “Ministry of Truth” off of BBC’s efforts during World War II.  “Orwell noted that the BBC put out false hate propaganda during World War II, and controlled history by censoring news about the genocidal Allied policy of leveling German cities by saturation bombing.”  This experience proved to be pivotal in how Orwell believed the control of the past to be integral to the control of the present and future.

Orwell’s many predictions were not restricted only to the 20^th century; many of them are gradually becoming more obvious in modern society.  Even in the West, a fountainhead for individual political liberty, the things Orwell was so vigilant in warning the world about are becoming progressively more prevalent.  Bennet describes how even the seemingly far-reaching concept of what Orwell coined “newspeak” has already invaded western media.  “The corruption of language described in 1984 is widespread in the media today, with ‘newspeak’ terms such as democratic, socialist, fascist, war criminal, freedom fighter, racist and many other expressions being used in a deliberately deceptive, propagandistic way….”  Orwell understood the intrinsic reality of government and society so well his warnings apply in the modern day just as well as they did while Stalin was still alive.

George Orwell’s 1984 serves as a warning to all people concerned with the longevity of their individual rights and political freedom.  After over fifty years, his words still continue to impact how people view government and its potential evils.  His writings were undeniably affected by his own experiences in the fields of media and political conflict, and hold serious weight for people living in the modern world.  Certainly, George Orwell hoped people would heed his warnings and remain constantly aware of their social situation.  As Bennet said, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

Bibliography

Bennett, John. “Orwell’s 1984: Was Orwell Right?” The Journal for Historical Review 6.1 (1986). Web. 9 Dec. 2015. <www.ihr.org>.

Marshall, Colin. “George Orwell Explains in a Revealing 1944 Letter Why He’d Write 1984.” Open Culture. Ed. Dan Colman. 9 Jan. 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.