George Orwell And Psychology In 1984

The novel  1984 ,   along with the book  Animal Farm , are the most famous works by writer George Orwell. This writer presents us with a political literature with extremely interesting psychological nuances. Orwell is famous for having an ideology based on democratic socialism (not to be confused with social democracy) and anti-totalitarianism. For this reason, Orwell traveled to Spain to fight fascism in the POUM militia during the civil war. This story is told in his book Fighting in Spain .

1984  is a dystopian novel based on a system of government called IngSoc (English Socialism). This government created a society based on the control of information, where the main premise is: “Who controls the present, controls the past, and who controls the past, controls the future”. Today, it is considered an excellent job to reflect on our current society, questioning the extent to which we have become an Orwellian society.

During the book, George Orwell presents a series of concepts or ideas that are very attractive from a psychological point of view. For that reason, in this article we’ll look at some of them in depth. Specifically, we will talk about: ​​(a) doublethink, (b) news language and (c) society based on information control.

The doublethink in 1984, book by George Orwell

One of the central aspects that allow for population control in the IngSoc system is doublethink. The doublethink means the power or the ability to simultaneously hold two contradictory opinions, sheltered two opposing beliefs at the same time in the same person.

The population is educated in double thinking so that they know how to accept contradictions and understand their practical existence. In the 1984 control society, the artifices of the totalitarian state are not hidden. The population is taught to accept and deny them at the same time. This is reflected in the three slogans proposed by IngSoc:

The ultimate goal of doublethink is for individuals to turn it into automatic behavior. Being able to keep two contradictory ideas in your head and not even realize that they are both contradictory. Now, does this happen in real life? Is there any relationship between doublethinking and our way of thinking? This is where the interesting psychological fact about doublethinking comes in.

Many studies have shown us that our brains hold contradictory ideas. This revolves around Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance. This theory claims that on many occasions we have dissonant ideas, but there are mechanisms to ignore or resolve this dissonance. Doublethinking would be a way of rationalizing dissonances and being able to live with them.

Today we use doublethink more than we realize, and governments take advantage of it to some extent. A clear example is the animosity that exists towards terrorist attacks, while many of our states (protected by the governments we vote for) also carry out similar acts and even sell weapons to these terrorist groups. Extreme care must be taken, as the rationalization of contradictions is an automatic process and we can carry it out easily and without realizing it.

The IngSoc News Language

Another key aspect of  1984  control is thought control. To achieve this, IngSoc seeks to alter the language so that thinking becomes practical and not useful for reasoning. For, if people reasoned excessively, they would eventually break with doublethink, which would lead to the destruction of the order of the state. Thus, following the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, George Orwell proposes that by changing the language we change the human mind.

To achieve this, IngSoc reduces language to its lowest level of complexity, transforming it into a fully pragmatic communication language. In this way, synonyms and antonyms lose their meaning. It no longer matters to communicate the nuances of words that lead to value judgments and interpretations. And antonyms generate conflict, and from conflict comes rationalization. An example of this might be removing the word “war” from the dictionary and speaking only in terms of more peace or less peace.

The lesson that we can extrapolate from the news language to our lives is the dangers of language. Language is capable of altering our perception and our thinking. So a political speech can look very different depending on the words that are used in it. When a politician tries to use words like “democracy”, “constitutional”, “peace”, and if he puts them on the other side of words like “attack” or “war”, regardless of his program, he is seeking the sympathy of the citizen. For that reason, it ‘s important to explore reasoning and not fall for the shallow but powerful inspiration of language.

The society based on the control of information

In   1984  , the “Big Brother” is the one who is always watching and controlling everything. Citizens are seen everywhere, even in their own homes.  Even within families, children are brought up to watch over their parents and report them if they commit a crime. A key aspect of control is the manipulation of information.

For IngSoc, the past can be rewritten to control government stability. In the novel, there is the Ministry of Truth which is dedicated to changing all texts, newspapers or books in order to favor “Big Brother”. If Big Brother said the chocolate rations would go up, and now there is less than before, the data from the past is modified to make it look like it has increased.

We are currently not immune to the manipulation and control of information. The mass media, such as television, radio or newspapers, often have behind them parties and governments that alter information to influence people’s opinions. Therefore, all information or reading requires a minimum of prudence and a lot of reflection.

George Orwell, in  1984,  presents a very interesting dystopian society with great parallels to our current society. It is important to reflect on them and see the perversion of our society. If we are to avoid evolving into an Orwellian world, it is important to keep a critical eye on the mechanisms of influence and persuasion so that, although they exist, we do not fall prey to them.