by Shel Zhou
In 1984, a dystopian novel by George Orwell, Orwell delivers a warning about how the
manipulation of language can affect one’s thinking and control a society. This message, conveyed through Orwellian concepts like doublethink, Newspeak, and the Party’s [in 1984] totalitarian regime, speaks to the dangers of governments censoring language and reality to maintain power. However, this warning seems to go unheeded in modern America as echoes of his fictitious story become reality in both political rhetoric and media manipulation. This is evident in two present-day examples: Donald Trump’s Jan. 6th speech and research published by Stanford University that demonstrates how language reinforces stereotypes. Despite Orwell’s clear warnings, modern society, particularly in the United States, seems to follow a path eerily similar to the dystopian future Orwell imagined, where language is weaponized by certain people to gain power and suppress dissent. Orwell’s 1984 depicts a society in which the government, led by the omnipotent ‘Big Brother,’ controls not only the actions of its citizens but also their thoughts. One of the Party’s most powerful tools is the manipulation of language - exemplified by Newspeak, a language fashioned to turn the citizens of Oceania into mindless drones. As Syme, a specialist in Newspeak, tells Winston, “the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought. In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it” (Orwell 52). This deliberate constriction of language makes rebellion impossible because when the people do not have the words to articulate discontent, it does not exist. This notion is an upsetting parallel to the very real censorship of language today, as language distortion continues to shape our political narratives. For instance, the phrase “fake news” has been weaponized to discredit legitimate journalism and reporting, similar to how Newspeak simplifies and distorts language to prevent independent thought. As Orwell demonstrated, controlling language is the first step to controlling thought, and this is a lesson contemporary political leaders seem to have learned all too well.
The United States, despite its tumultuous and often ugly history, is founded on Enlightenment principles of democracy and liberty. In contrast to Orwell's 1984, where language is manipulated to suppress freedom of thought, the United States Constitution includes the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, press, and assembly—cornerstones of a stable democratic-republic. However, as Orwell explained in 1984, even systems built on liberty can manipulate language for control, which can be seen in the U.S. today. Political discourse often distorts the meaning of words like "patriotism," "liberty," or even "democracy" to advance specific agendas. This distortion is comparable to Orwell's notion of Newspeak, where words lose their meaning and are repurposed to serve those in power. There is also a historical irony to consider: for all its vehement rejection of socialism and communism, the United States was, in many ways, born in the throes of a rebellion—an idea central to socialist and Marxist principles. Marx theorized that workers should rise up against corrupt governments to secure true freedom, arguing that rebellion against oppression was necessary to dismantle unjust systems. Likewise, the American Revolution itself was a rebellion against British tyranny, with the colonists advocating for freedom from what they perceived as a corrupt monarchy. The rejection of British rule was a violent uprising in the name of liberty, making the early United States' resistance to centralized authority somewhat akin to Marx's belief in overthrowing corrupt systems, despite the nation’s later demonization of anything resembling socialism. This ideological contradiction, therefore, reflects another manipulation of language: the word "socialism" in the U.S. political lexicon has been heavily demonized and misrepresented (Democracy Journal), as is Orwell’s concept of “thoughtcrime.” It is no longer associated with its original ideas of economic fairness but is instead used as a term to stifle discussion and fuel fear in the name of national security.
In modern America, the spread of misinformation and the manipulation of facts have become increasingly common, particularly in political discourse. The 2020 U.S. presidential election and its aftermath serve as a prime example. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, many of Trump’s supporters continue to believe the election was “stolen,” a belief fueled by the former president’s rhetoric. This parallels the Party’s manipulation of reality in 1984, where lies become indistinguishable from truth. In both cases, the Orwellian concept of “doublethink” is at play, as people accept contradictory information without question. Orwell’s warning about the dangers of manipulating truth is especially relevant in today’s era of “alternative facts”, where the very concept of truth is under siege. Trump’s infamous Jan. 6th speech, delivered shortly before the Capitol riot, demonstrates how language can be used to incite action and reinforce dangerous ideologies, much like the Party’s slogans in 1984. In his speech, Trump repeatedly used words like “we” and “our,” creating a sense of unity and collective identity among his supporters. He declared, “Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that’s what this is all about” (Naylor). This rhetoric mirrors the Party’s use of slogans like “War is Peace” and “Freedom is Slavery,” which serve to simplify complex issues and foster a sense of collective purpose. By framing the issue as “us vs. them,” Trump’s speech capitalized on a binary worldview, much like the Party in 1984 does. The effectiveness of this tactic lies in its ability to manipulate emotions and create a sense of belonging among supporters, making it easier to suppress dissenting voices and manipulate reality. Furthermore, Orwell’s exploration of the power of language in 1984 is underscored by research conducted by Stanford University, which highlights how even well-meaning statements can perpetuate harmful stereotypes. The study found that phrases like “girls are as good as boys at math” inadvertently reinforce the stereotype that boys are naturally better at math than girls (Shashkevich). This demonstrates the subtle ways in which language shapes our perceptions of reality, much like Newspeak in 1984 shapes the thoughts of Oceania’s citizens. The researchers’ conclusion, that “language can play a huge role in how we perceive the world,” aligns with Orwell’s warning about the power of language to control thought (Shashkevich). Both 1984 and the Stanford study illustrate the importance of scrutinizing language and recognizing its potential to reinforce harmful ideologies or suppress dissent. In Orwell’s dystopia, the Party controls all aspects of life, from the media to personal relationships, using propaganda and censorship to maintain its grip on power. Today, we see echoes of this in the extreme polarization of American politics, where both major political parties engage in censorship and manipulation to further their agendas. The recent bans on books discussing race, gender, and LGBTQ+ issues in schools across conservative states, like Florida, evoke Orwell’s portrayal of the Party’s control over information. The censorship of ideas deemed “dangerous” or “unpatriotic” in modern America is reminiscent of the Party’s erasure of historical events.
Ultimately, Orwell’s 1984 is not just a cautionary tale about a distant dystopian future, but a reflection of the political and social dynamics at play in the modern world. The manipulation of language, the suppression of dissent, and the distortion of reality are not scary stories, confined to the pages of Orwell’s novel; they are realities we face today. The takeaway is evident: if we do not remain vigilant of how media perpetuates bias and how our everyday language influences perception, we risk falling into the same traps as the citizens of Oceania, where thought itself becomes a crime.
Works Cited
1984. (n.d.). STRAUTNIEKAS Illustration. https://strautniekas.com/1984
Andrew Atterbury. (n.d.). LGBTQ advocates sue over Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/31/lgbtq-advocates-sue-florida-00022001
File:EugeneDebs.gif - Wikimedia Commons. (1920, October 11). Wikimedia.org. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EugeneDebs.gif
Naylor, Brian. “Read Trump’s Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part Of Impeachment Trial.” NPR News, 10 February 2021. https://www.npr.org. Accessed 28 September 2021.
Orwell, George. 1984. Signet Classics, 1977.
Shashkevich, Alex. “Some Well-Meaning Statements Can Spread Stereotypes.” Stanford University Website, 10 July 2018. https://news.stanford.edu. Accessed 28 September 2021.
Stening, T. (2022, July 27). Would a second term save Donald Trump from prosecution–even jail time? Northeastern Global News; Northeastern Global News.
The Week Staff. (2017, May 30). Political cartoon U.S. College graduation free speech liberal censorship. Theweek; The Week.
https://theweek.com/cartoons/701847/political-cartoon-college-graduation-free-speech-liberal-ce nsorship
Words, Fighting. “Fighting Words.” Democracy Journal, 19 Mar. 2018, democracyjournal.org/magazine/48/fighting-words/. Accessed 11 Jan. 2025.
Follow the author on Instagram here!
Comentários