George Orwell’s ‘1984’ and Hannah Adrent’s ‘Ideology and Terror

George Orwell was born Eric Arthur Blair on 25 June, 1903 in British India. He worked in the Imperial Police in Burma, until he left to pursue life among the working classes in Paris, to research for his first novel, ‘Down and Out in Paris and London’.

The alias ‘George Orwell’ was born at this time, mainly because he feared a poor reception of Down and Out would damage his literary ambitions.

In 1936 he travelled to the depression-hit areas of the industrial North of England in order to research a long essay. The trip, Orwell’s first real encounter with ordinary working class people, instilled in him a vague belief in socialism.

At the end of the year, prompted by the outbreak of civil war in Spain, he traveled to Barcelona and joined an anarchist militia, the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). It was during his healing behind the lines after being shot in the throat, that the POUM was formally accused of being pro-fascist, by the Stalinist Government forces, and its members thrown into jail and shot. Orwell escaped and returned to England, but the experience turned him into a lifelong anti-Stalinist.

The Spanish Civil War played the most important part in defining Orwell’s politics. Having witnessed the success of the anarcho-syndicalists in Anarchist Catalonia, he said “I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before.”

Orwell worked on propaganda for the BBC during World War Two. In 1943, he became editor of the Tribune, a weekly left-wing magazine.

In 1945, Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ was published. A political novel set in a farmyard but based on Stalin’s betrayal of the Russian Revolution. ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ was published in 1949. By now Orwell’s health was deteriorating and he died of tuberculosis the next year.

‘1984’

Orwell was fascinated by the capacity of totalitarian regimes to attempt to control minds, by manipulating language. Orwell had already set forth his distrust of totalitarianism and the betrayal of revolutions in Homage to Catalonia and Animal Farm. Down and Out, and Coming Up For Air both celebrate the individual freedom that is lost in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Throughout history tyrants have enslaved people; but remained unable to enslave the mind. With modern mass media and government, Orwell thought, it might be possible to enslave minds. This was the central theme of his final novel, which for a title he chose the year he wrote it, with the last two digits swapped.

The world of 1984 is a futuristic description of life in England after a socialist revolution, in a state of constant war, no one is free, and everyone is ignorant. The society parallels Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Nazi Germany. There are similarities: the betrayed-revolution; the subordination of individuals to ‘the Party’; and the rigorous distinction between inner party, outer party and everyone else, and joycamps, which are a reference to concentration camps or the Gulag.

The party’s slogans ‘War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength’ are analysed in a fictional book that appears in the novel. The slogans embody the Party. Through constant war, the Party can keep domestic peace; when freedom is brought about, the people are enslaved to it, and the ignorance of the people is the strength of the Party. And through their constant repetition, the terms become meaningless.

The Party’s power – as in all totalitarian systems, can be seen to be dependent on those who view it as an oppressive force; those who desire to resist it. If the Party’s power is to continue to exist, those who desire to resist – regardless of whether they intend to or not, must be eliminated. However, if all the resistors are eliminated then the Party’s power would disappear. Therefore, if it is to remain powerful, the Party must also create dissidence, if only to destroy it.

Orwell’s theorised government used a complex system of thought control, or ‘reality control’. As Orwell explains in the book, the Party could not protect its iron grip on power without exposing its people to constant propaganda. Yet knowledge of this brutality and deception within the Party itself could lead to disillusioned collapse of the state from within. Newspeak was the method for controlling thought through language; Doublethink was the method of controlling thought directly, to champion belief over rational thought.

Doublethink means to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind at the same time, and accepting both of them. In the case of Winston Smith, Orwell’s protagonist, it meant being able to work at the Ministry of Truth deleting inconvenient facts from public records, and then believing in the new history which he himself had written.

Through doublethink, the Party was able to not only bomb its own people and tell its citizens that the bombs were sent by the enemy, but all Party members – even the ones that launched the rockets themselves – were able to believe that the bombs were launched from outside.

Together, these tools hid the government’s evil not only from the people, but also from the government itself. The phrase “two plus two makes five” is used throughout the book as a representation of an illogical statement, especially one made and maintained to suit an ideological agenda. Winston Smith, uses it to consider the possibility that the State might declare “two plus two makes five” as a fact; he ponders that if everybody believes in it, does that make it true?

The Thinkpol were the secret police of the novel whose job it was to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police used psychology and omnipresent surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority

Some believe governments may be currently enforcing laws that implement a de-facto kind of thoughtcrime legislation. Hate crime laws that mandate harsher penalties for people who commit crimes out of racism or bigotry. Opponents of those laws claim that all crimes are committed out of an element of hate, so that defining a specific subset of laws as ‘hate crimes’ is meaningless, and that these very laws in fact imply the inequality of citizens before the law.

Simplification of language

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. The appendix chapter describes the development of Newspeak, and explains how the language is designed to standardise thought. The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can’t be said, then it can’t be thought. One question raised by this is whether we are defined by our language, or whether we actively define it. This can be seen by Ludwig Wittgenstein’s proposition, ”The limits of my language mean the limits to my world.”

Orwell bases this system on his critical view of the quality of written English in his time, citing examples of dying metaphors and meaningless words, and that the end result of this language corruption is the literary and vocal system used in 1984. In his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’, Orwell wrote about the importance of clear language, arguing that vague writing can be used as a powerful tool of political manipulation because it shapes the way we think. In that essay, he provides five rules for writers:

• Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech that you often see in print.
• Never use a long word where a short one will do.
• If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
• Never use the passive where you can use the active.
• Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

Orwell states that in this system, sentences consists less and less of words chosen for their meaning, and more of pre-constructed phrases ”tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.”

He added that this literary corruption was firmly entrenched into political speech of his day (which arguably is no different today) and that ”writing are largely the defence of the indefensible.” He gave the examples of British rule in India, and the Russian purges. He continued that because political language must hide these government atrocities, it must contain many euphemisms and ”sheer cloudy vagueness.”

”Defenceless civilians are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called PACIFICATION. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called TRANSFER OF POPULATION. ”

Such turns of phrase are needed if a speaker wants to name things without calling up pictures in the minds of his audience. Thus, Orwell summarised, ”Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Furthermore he predicted that as simplification of language is present in totalitarian systems, the German, Russian and Italian languages will have deteriorated as a result of their totalitarian rule. This indisputably happened in Maoist China when the communist party actually changed the language – officially to improve the literacy rate, but also to reduce power that bourgeois intellectuals held.

Although Orwell didn’t accuse governments as responsible for the direct debasement of language, they easily exploit it for their own purposes, in the aim of removing all words of possible opposition. Therefore, because thought is linguistic, you can’t think what you can’t say, so it becomes impossible to criticise the regime because all critical vocabulary no longer exists.

Ideology and Terror

Hannah Arendt argues that all forms of pre-totalitarian terror; tyranny, despotism, dictatorship, revolutionary and counter-revolutionary movements, have a clear goal, and usually cease once the objectives have been achieved. For example, a tyrant exercises terror in order to eliminate his opponents and thereby secure and consolidate his power whereas the chief goal of revolutionary terror is to establish a new order. The totalitarian dictator, on the other hand, only commences his rule once the regime has eliminated all its real enemies.

The totalitarian state is a movement. No winding down, no stability, no return to the past can be allowed, or the whole regime will collapse as its need will be constantly questioned. Everything must be kept in motion – including the secret police, whose members are constantly being shifted and are never allowed to stay in one area too long.

The totalitarianism system seeks total power and to so it politicizes every aspect of personal existence – destroying the concept of ‘the private sphere’ as well as the public sphere. This is the reason why Arendt argues that ideology and terror are essential to totalitarian rule. Totalitarian states collectivise the people who live under it in order for them to serve the state, but because of our individuality, most people are not too happy to give up their freedom. So two methods are used to create an atmosphere of fear to convince the people to willingly hand it over: state terror and ideology.

The purpose of terror is not to kill vast numbers of people – but to instil fear into the survivors and remove their ability to resist against the government whether premeditated or not – not just in action, but even in thought.

Ideology compliments the policy of terror, by eliminating the capacity for rational thought by those who carry out the orders of the government, ensuring no potential opposition can come from within the government itself.

To Arendt, totalitarianism is the total domination of a particular people through a combination of simplistic ideology and constant terror. All traditions, all values, all political institutions are destroyed and all behaviour, public or private, is controlled directly by the state, or indirectly through fear of punishment. In an ordinary dictatorship such as Mussolini’s, thousands of people were arrested for political crimes, but most of these were acquitted by the Italian courts. In Nazi Germany there were no acquittals. To be arrested was to be convicted – and to be convicted was to be removed from the face of the earth.

That is the difference between dictatorial and totalitarian terror.

‘Modern Liberalism Has Moved Significantly Away From its Classical Liberal Origins’ – Do You Agree?

Classical liberals, such as John Locke, espoused the principles of individualism, liberty, justice, and equality. Modern liberals rhetorically endorse the same principles, using the same language, but attach a different meaning to these terms. However, when the differences in the meanings attached to these terms are carefully considered, the modern liberal definitions conflict with those of classical liberals.

Liberalism is defined as the political ideology of the preservation of individual liberty. Liberty is interchangeable with freedom, because if a man is unable to act as he wishes, his freedom is thereby restrained by another. In other words, Liberalism attempts to first argue that the foundation of society is founded upon by a social-contract amongst individuals, and that these individuals engage in said contract to best preserve their ability to think and act as they wish. John Locke, the father of this tradition, affirms this notion, arguing that ‘creatures of the same species and rank… should also be equal amongst another,’ and that ‘every man has a property in his own person…nobody has any right to but himself.’ Core themes that set the foundation for Liberalism are the emphasis placed upon the individual, freedom and reason. Given Locke’s argument of self-ownership, individuals are at the root of Liberalism.

In addition, the purpose of individuals instituting government, via the social-contract, is to preserve their ability to pursue their aims with protection from other individuals that could potentially harass them whilst in pursuit of these aims. An additional liberal theme is the concept of justice: ‘a moral standard of fairness and impartiality’.

The function of the government is thus as Locke sums up as a ‘night watchman state’. This implies a limited state, which both preserves one’s civil liberty and protects one from aggression (either within said society or from a foreign nation). Classical liberals believe man is best designed to maximize his freedom to allow him maximized reason. This belief in the individual argues that since man is best enabled to handle his own economic and moral choices, he should be protected in as much as he doesn’t infringe upon the boundaries of another man’s liberties. In addition, Classical Liberals believe in the existence of natural rights. Thomas Jefferson explained these natural rights as seen in the Declaration of Independence:

‘That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’, implying that government is designed as a ‘necessary evil’ because of its power to limit freedom to man, even if it is to protect them from aggression. The Classical Liberal ideal is then, the least government possible, the absolute protection of natural rights, and the freedom of individuals to pursue their aims without fear of attack or coercion from governments.

This leads way to an acceptance of laissez-faire economic principles, as advocated primarily by Adam Smith, where reasonably, individuals should also be free to pursue economic aims. Due to man’s access to reason, and self-interested individualism, Classical Liberalism sought to embrace and maximize the ideas of free markets as a means of maximising man’s desires such as their pursuit of happiness.

During the 19th century – arguably at the height of Classical Liberalism, rooting itself in the still relatively new industrialism of society, the Social Darwinist movements were seen as the economic norm. However, several groups and thinkers began to arise in the mid 19th century, arguing that the Social Darwinism attitude produced severe inequality and poverty. Here we see the modern divide, between the Classic’s desire to provide economic freedom and the Modern Liberal’s desire to promote social equality. And so, from the perceived failures of a laissez-faire approach, as well as a new understanding of justice and equality, the schism between Classical and Modern Liberalism occurred.

Several changes in the understanding of the government’s role in the economy began to become more widely recognised. Evolving alongside an increasing size of government was the Keynesian ideas of using government to positively ‘manoeuvre’ the economy into producing jobs and demand. This attitude of big helpful government is first seen in the ideas of Herbert Croly. He argues for an increased size of government to control corporations, and serve the ’causes of democracy, equal rights, and ultimate social harmony,’. Croly is incredibly important in that he marks ‘the shift in liberalism from an emphasis on laissez-faire to one on interventionist government,’ where increasingly, the government shapes society instead of the individual, a very illiberal concept argued by the Classical Liberals ever since.

From this, Modern Liberalism is born in the wake of grievances against the perceived unfair nature of laissez faire economics. Maintaining the individual as primary importance, Modern Liberals thought that through using government, as seen in the 20th century most famously by the endeavours of FDR’s New Deal, society could maximize an individual’s freedom. John Stuart Mill attempted to emphasize the individuality and self-actualization of an individual, ‘the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs,’. This idea of self-actualization and individuality formed the bridge into modern liberalism: the goal is to provide the environment which best allows individuality to experience freedom.

This led to the idea of positive freedom, which were rules made not to protect an individual from government, but to aid access to fulfilling and advancing a person’s liberty. This came into fruition within the idea of FDR, whom working within the depression, advocated for a positive role for government. The idea was to utilize the government to ‘level the playing field’, by helping the disadvantaged poor. By implementing welfare-state policies, such as social security, it was argued that the government could pull individuals from the restraints of economic and social inequality that prevented them from maximising their liberty. As justice was earlier mentioned, Government now took the responsibility of enacting social justice, or ‘a fair or justifiable distribution of wealth and rewards in society,’. We thus see the following themes within Modern Liberalism as individuality (although less emphasis than is put upon classical liberalism), positive freedom, equality, and social justice.

Roosevelt’s ‘An Economic Bill of Rights’ speech’, gives us an early unrefined idea of the basis of the modern liberal description of individual freedom:

‘We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence… In our day these economic truths has become accepted as self-evident… The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farm or mines of the nation; The right to ear enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation…the right of every family to a decent home… The right to adequate medical care…The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age… The right to a good education. All these rights spell security’.

Many of these very issues define Modern Liberalism today, as they still express these very concerns about fundamental rights. Classical liberals understood liberty to be the absence of physical interference by others upon one’s person and property. John Locke wrote that liberty is: ‘to follow my own will in all things, where the [natural law] rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature’.

Modern liberals have referred to this definition of liberty as merely negative liberty, and complained that positive liberty has been ignored. The classical liberal’s liberty is said to be negative because it says only that others refrain from interfering with you. Positive liberty is said to consist of possessing the positive capacity and means to do what you wish. Thus, for example, a wealthy person has more ‘positive’ liberty.

The classical liberal, on the other hand, would say that positive liberty is no kind of liberty at all, because liberty is only a negative term – freedom is always freedom from something, not the possessing of means – and that the natural right to liberty into which everyone is born is a freedom from the rule of others. Modern liberals suggest an additional right to positive liberty. However, this notion is not a differentiation but is completely opposite to the beliefs held by the classical liberals. A right to positive liberty is a right to means, i.e, goods and services. If what is meant is only a right to one’s own means, then this is just the classical negative liberty. Otherwise the only meaning of a right to ‘positive’ liberty is to have a right to the person and goods of someone else – the right to be provided with means from someone else’s person or estate (e.g, in the case of a ‘right’ to be provided with health care). But that entails a direct infringement upon a man’s right to natural liberty according to the classical liberals. As Locke wrote, ‘I have truly no property in that, which another can by right take from me, when he pleases, against my consent.’ Thus one person’s positive liberty is necessarily the denial of another person’s negative liberty. There is no middle ground. A right to positive liberty is in direct opposition to the right to negative liberty. The classical and modern liberals use the same term ‘liberty’ but in ways that are incompatible with each other. Logically both cannot be defended.

The situation is similar in the case of the principle of justice. Thus the classical liberals held justice to be the defence and respect of everyone’s right to what is theirs. On the other hand, modern liberals seek to augment justice by the concept of social justice. Antony Flew in the novel ‘Social Justice Isn’t Any Kind of Justice,’ shows that social justice dismisses ‘all possible grounds for any differences in entitlements,’ thus negating any possibility of justice. As in the case of liberty, social justice is not an addition to or add-on of ‘regular’ justice, but is a violation of it.

Both of the modern liberal concepts of liberty and justice include the idea of equality, but again here it is opposed to the equality that was claimed by classical liberals. The latter affirmed that ‘all men by nature are equal,’ but what was meant was that all men are born equally free and independent, Locke wrote,

‘That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level… and yet all this consists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another’.

When the classical liberals extolled this equality of rights, they were arguing against the idea that some men were born into slavery. They were not suggesting that we pursue other kinds of equality that would be in violation of justice. Modern liberals attempt to expand and pursue other kinds of equality – e.g, of wealth or income – or at least are in favour of eliminating ‘too much’ inequality of income.

Another principle taken from the classical liberal’s view of equality is that before the law, that ‘legislators are to govern by established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favourite in court, and the country man at plough’ (Locke). On the other hand modern liberals intentionally seek inequality before the law, as for example in the case of a progressive income tax or affirmative action. Thus the modern ‘equality’ is not an addition to the classical view of equality. They are incompatible with each other. After all, some may consider wealth-distribution to be a very invasion of something very private, which classical liberalism sought to protect.

Finally, modern liberals often do not support the individualism definition of classical liberals. Instead appeals are often made to the common good (or the ‘public welfare’) as opposed to the good of the individual. The common good is seen as a higher claim that overrides the individual’s claim to his life and liberty. The point was that the government may only protect the natural rights of the individual – to protect his life and liberty. To act on behalf of some collective good as a higher claim than that of the individual’s is to act contrary to the beliefs that classical liberals hold, because it violates the principle of equality before the law.

And so we find that although modern liberals use much of the same language as classical liberals when referring to fundamental principles, very different meanings are used. The modern and classical concepts are incompatible. In conclusion, modern liberalism is a theoretical ‘progression’ within liberal ideology that has moved so significantly away from solid liberal principles that some classical liberals argue that modern liberalism has abandoned individualism and embraced collectivism to the extent that it has abandoned a belief in the free market and endorsed economic and social intervention. The alternative view is that modern liberalism has revised core liberal ideas rather than abandoned them. Thus the modern liberal case for ‘big government’ is based on a belief in positive freedom. The modern liberal case for state intervention is simply put: they only support intervention when – usually because of social or economic disadvantage, individuals cannot help themselves.