"How could you have a slogan like 'freedom is slavery' when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." ~pg. 56
Within this passage, Syme discusses the dictionary of Newspeak, and the fact that when it is published, it will abolish all opposites. Not only that, but it will destroy scores of words, and "[cut] the language down to the bone."
The concept that "freedom is slavery" is a prevalent theme in the book, yet the idea that freedom will be abolished completely changes the entire "climate of thought" of the society. One must question how slavery can exist when freedom has been abolished. For instance, can one say "unslavery is slavery," or simply "slavery?"
By the quote "freedom is slavery," the government means that one does not have the burden of thought if one is a slave, and in this we truly achieve freedom. And yet, if one abolishes the concept of freedom, is one still truly free if they are not burdened with thought, or in this unconsciousness are we truly oppressed? To say that "orthodoxy is unconsciousness" is the same as saying "heresy is consciousness," but how are those who follow orthodoxy to know of heresy if they are truly slaves of thought? And are the leaders of the society truly heretic, because they must consciously oppress their followers?
Propaganda is one of the most important tools of the government. It allows them to gain control of others' thoughts by warping the meaning of different concepts. Unfortunately, by abolishing various concepts, such as freedom, they are essentially abolishing their ability to control the public, and therefore abolishing their regime. To replace a slogan such as "freedom is slavery" with "unslavery is slavery" would open the minds of the citizens to the thought that in "unslavery," how can one find "slavery," as they directly contradict each other. Yet to use the quote "slavery," would give rise to the understanding that the citizens are all truly slaves.
In total, is language truly a contributing factor in the oppression of a society, or do the conscious thoughts and actions of a totalitarian government make or break the regime?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The concept of "Newspeak" is one of the most difficult (and most original) ideas presented in 1984. The idea of limiting (and controlling) thought by limiting and controlling language is an intriguing one. You have done a good job of pointing out some of the potential flaws in the government's plan.
First of all I think it is important to point out that the slogans of the party "War is Peace" "Freedom is Slavery" and "Ignorance is Strength" mainly apply to those being ruled and not the party in power. (The exception is "Ignorance is Strength" which means that the strength of the party depends on the ignorance of those being controlled).
Therefore, the ruling party will not be abolishing their own ability to control as they will most likely not restrict their own language (remember that there is actually a very small inner circle that controls the power in 1984)
In my opinion, I think that Newspeak would most likely just abolish the concepts of "Freedom" and "Slavery" all together and neither word would be a part of the language. The party would hope to reduce the masses to such a state of "unconsciousness" that no one would even know they were being controlled. It would never occur to them that there is any other way to exist.
Is language that powerful? It is difficult to determine. We are capable of thinking in ways that cannot necessarily be expressed in words. All languages and cultures have particular concepts where the vocabulary does not quite fit. Perhaps The Party in 1984 has overestimated the power of language.
By the way Ashley, you should rent "V for Vendetta". The actor (John Hurt) who plays Winston in the original "1984" movie, plays the face of Big Brother in "V for Vendetta". I think you'll also prefer the ending over "1984".
I also just finished "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. It makes a very interesting companion novel to "1984" (as both deal with distopian societies, however in each novel the government uses completely opposite methods to control people). I recommend it if you enjoyed the ideas presented in "1984". Huxley also weaves numerous references to Shakespeare throughout (Macbeth, Hamlet, The Tempest, Othello, King Lear) which you would actually understand.
Post a Comment