An Orwellian Analysis of 2023 Global Affairs: Why '1984' is the greatest social commentary of all time

 

I was in Year 12 when I first read George Orwell's '1984', which I admittedly, stuffed right at the bottom of my school bag, along with all the other textbooks contributing to my chronic stress and misery at the time. 

Now while 17 year old me was reasonably just concerned with meeting the marking criteria, 21 year old me who has lived through the rise and fall of Donald Trump, COVID-19 and the emergence of Andrew Tate exposing the 'matrix', Orwell's damning humanitarian predictions seems to look it a lot more different. 

That is, it all seems to look a lot more real. 

At the crux of Orwell's neo-Dystopian text is a fictional and seemingly unlikely illustration of the future of societal control. Newsflash, it's definitely not unlikely nor is it entirely fictional. 

Orwell reveals that control will no longer be enforced for in its traditional, Nazi-esque sense, but rather will seep in, quietly and permanently through intense mass manipulation.  But what makes '1984' the greatest social commentary all time, is the fact that it almost prophetically dissects the exact method of societal control.  

It is a cyclical process of reduction and repetition, that works as such: 

1. Reduce any social topic to a binary issue through stripping it from its inherent nuance and complexity.

2. Repeat this version of the truth enough times until it becomes reality.  

This blueprint of 'silent totalitarianism', which Orwell seems to have somehow stolen (perhaps from Stalin himself) has increasingly shaped the world today. In fact, a number of global affairs up until 2023, such as #MeToo, Black Lives Matter and the all too known gender debate just to name a few, can quite easily be rooted back to this particular method nearly every time. Based on your stance you are quite literally, as Orwell describes in his novel, "good" or "ungood". 

Or as we may better identify as: 

Left-leaning or a racist. 

Feminist or a sexist. 

Pro- they/them or a bigot.   

These labels are conclusive and permanent markers of your identity, and the problem lies in exactly that inference. 

The key element of control here, is the ability to prevent free-flowing social dialogue through the binary operation of linguistic meaning.

Label A has Meaning C, as Label B has Meaning D. 

This a rule without the possibility of exception, and in the Western World in which this type of control tends to flourish under the guise of 'libertarianism', one wrong use of a word or label could get you #cancelled. Indeed, the banning of adjectival language  in 1984's Oceania is a cautionary metaphor for this kind of strategic stamping of undesirable labels, which is increasingly evident today. 

The truth is that humanity is far from black and white, and for human growth to occur there must be room to acknowledge necessary ambiguities that define the human experience. As per Jordan B Peterson, in order to be able to explore these dark cracks where controversial thoughts manifest, we must risk being offensive and accept the possibility of being offended. Or else, as Winston experiences in '1984', we may eventually experience rebellion in the form of writing in a personal diary. The diary itself being a metaphor for an ability to think independent of overt external influence and censorship. Winston's rebellion was in fact his desire to question, criticise and decide for himself, and the diary was merely a means to that end. 

It is equally important to consider however, that 'offensive' concepts do not exist inherently nor do they emerge with bright red, trigger warnings. What is deemed offensive is socially constructed and collectively agreed upon by society within the pressures of a particular zeitgeist. Needless to say, certain racial slurs were not nearly as offensive in 19th century Southern America as it is during the existence of Black Lives Matter today. 

But is all social progression, good progression or there a tipping point leading to an opposite extreme? 

If absolute truth is to be preserved, this possibility is a journey worth embarking on. 

It may be argued that what began as a noble pursuit to reverse obvious social imbalances has been overshadowed by an underlying political agenda and broken floodgate. Indeed, Orwell's text hones in the reduction of language as a form of control, that reveals a more obvious opportunity for political gain. 

A community in which language is reduced is similarly unable to think beyond the jail cell of this literary confinement. 

But when reduction is paired with repetition, this is when control is powerfully imposed. This dangerous duo is what allows normalcy to be altered, re-constructed and implemented. All of a sudden, at the snap of a finger from those in power, or as the Tate's refer to as the 'matrix'. 

But this isn't just a temporary light-bulb moment or theoretical discussion. Oh no... it has had real and practical outcomes, which is why it is so damning.  

The intentional agenda to reduce intelligent conversation, has noticeably been translated to a reduction in our attention spans - in every sphere of human life. From entertainment, dating to political conversation, the sheer inability to engaged in deep and meaningful dialogue is reflected in the very mediums we use to communicate. 

It isn't a coincidence that 'reels' are now the most popular form media on social media. 

It isn't a coincidence that the Western world promotes hook-up culture and degrades the nuclear family. 

Nor is it coincidence that most prominent news platforms only cater to one side of the story. 

These realities are all indicators of a chronic decline in patience and ability to reap the fruits of labour - all which have been impacted by the waterfall effect of an inability to think critically. As Winston is repeatedly fed the paradoxical moto that defines Oceania, 'War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength", we too are repeatedly bombarded with new versions of realities we once knew to be true.

As Nazi Germany's cultural curator Joseph Goebbel's once said, "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.' 

But unlike Oceania that seems to controlled by a single-overpowering entity, who is the 'Big Brother' of the 21st century West? 

Ironically, it is we as individuals who continue to run relentlessly on this hamster wheel of socio-political sensitivity, that ultimately results in an ability to find meaning in the grey-area. 

And the grey-area is indeed where the truth often lies. 

The only thing Orwell's '1984' perhaps missed out on, was that Winston, despite his failure, actively fought not to be controlled. He retained the spirit of independent and critical thinking that is at the heart of humanity. 

We now choose to be surveilled, or at the very least are indifferent to it. I would argue that the former is better than the latter - at the very least, it signifies the existence of a conscious choice. 

What has allowed the system to continue for so long, and for it to sky-rocket so strongly is the fact that we as individuals are dedicated to its operation.  

Why? For that I (ironically) have no explanation.

However, I do recognise that this is the most untraditional battle humanity has confronted, that must be fought, not in a battlefield on horseback, but simply by thinking and speaking. 

I mean, it may only be a matter of time before this very article is deemed offensive and subject to 'cancellation', for which I'm not sure any kind of armour or shield would offer adequate protection.  

After all, apparently George Orwell himself is now on the target list. 

It seems the Ministry of 'Truth' has finally spoken.