
'1984' at Seventy: Why We Still Read Orwell - pseudolus
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/1984-at-seventy-why-we-still-read-orwells-book-of-prophecy
======
m-i-l
The article asks "What accounts for its staying power?" but misses what I
think is the main reason for its staying power - it has something of relevance
for each era in which it is read. In the 1950s and 1960s, in the context of
The Cold War, people primarily saw it as a critique of totalitarianism. In the
1970s and 1980s, in the context of increasing use of CCTV, people primarily
saw it as a critique of the surveillance society. And nowadays, in the context
of "fake news" and "alternative facts", people primarily see it in terms of
the malleability of "truth". Interestingly, one of the main themes that hasn't
been the focus for any past generation, is how controlling language can
control thought, but maybe that is something still to come.

Anyway, given it was set 35 years after it was published, and it is now 35
years after it was set, we've reached a turning point - the title year will be
closer to the author than to us.

~~~
cthor
The "language can control thought" idea is called linguistic determinism, and
has been considered bogus by linguists for a while now, at least the strong
form of it.

~~~
cwkoss
Could you point me towards some linguists who think this idea is bogus?

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12165254_Language_s...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12165254_Language_space_and_the_development_of_cognitive_flexibility_in_humans_The_case_of_two_spatial_memory_tasks)

This study found that a child's language production abilities predicts
performance on a reorientation task: simply - young humans tend to perform
like rats until they learn to use prepositional phrases.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
OP is referencing the Whorf hyopthesis.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)

~~~
godelski
I was under the impression that Linguistic Relativity (or Sapir-Whorf) as in
"the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition."
was well recognized. I would think programmers would be particularly fond of
this idea, because I for one tend to go about problems differently when I
write in different languages (also a technique I use when I'm stuck on a
problem).

~~~
cwkoss
It seems self-evident to me that if you present humans with a set of novel
stimuli, giving them a 'vocabulary' for the configuration of the stimuli would
help them remember the configuration more durably.

Ex. sets of 3 blocks of various colors are presented to subjects. Either the
experimenter gives a 'control lecture' showing possible upcoming sets and they
just list the colors, or they teach the subject a _name_ for each of the
possible sets - gibberish like 'flurback' and 'orshwalg'. Present a list of
sets, spending the same amount of time 'discussing' each set with each set -
either with or without using names.

I would predict the 'names' group would significantly outperform in long-term
memory formation of which sets were shown in which order.

~~~
godelski
Another good example I heard is with colors. Different languages have
different words for colors, blue being a specifically unmentioned one in
Greek. So if you're calling the sea "wine-red" and the sky white, it just
makes sense that you would compare other similar colors with the limited set
of categories you have. I mean it seems easy to simulate. You set up a
classifier to classify colors but leave out blue. Sure, it is going to poorly
predict blues and misclassify them as things like reds, whites, or greens, but
isn't that what SW predicts?

------
baal80spam
In my opinion, Huxwell's Brave New World is much more 'accurate' for Western
world, while 1984's surveillance state is what we observe in the East.

~~~
pseudolus
I don't think Huxley's Brave New World has aged too well. Many of its central
concepts such as 'soma', 'hatchery and conditioning centers', and the caste
system - alphas to epsilons - don't have readily transposable equivalents in
our modern day society. Granted, many of the technologies in 1984 don't
either, but its central concepts resound to our times.

~~~
tasuki
> Many of its central concepts such as 'soma', 'hatchery and conditioning
> centers', and the caste system - alphas to epsilons - don't have readily
> transposable equivalents in our modern day society

Ah, not yet! Give it time!

\- Soma, I'm sure you can imagine

\- Conditioning centers... advertisement everywhere?

\- Caste system... genetic engineering for the rich

~~~
ahartmetz
Caste system: lack of social mobility

------
sudoaza
The leader of the strongest country lies every time it speaks. Once and again
wars are sold as freedom campaigns and coups as saving democracy. Surveilance
has been institutionalized and privacy comoditized. We are in the most
orwelian era yet.

~~~
VvR-Ox
This attitude may give you some downvotes - BTW: Many people here are from the
US and they usually react to criticism about their countries policy and leader
in a bad way.

~~~
sudoaza
I get downvoted sometimes for expressing my opinion, i've come to expect that
here (though your prediction and my expectations were so far wrong in this
case), but i dont think saying that Tr*mp lies shamelessly is new to anyone,
even its suporters.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
There has been no president in any of our lifetimes that hasn't lied
shamelessly.

~~~
sudoaza
True

------
iliaznk
I like the "prototype" book, the one that inspired Orwell to write his 1984,
much better. It's
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_\(novel\))
I read it in Russian though, and the language of the book is just like poem!
Love it. I also find it superior in terms of plot and characters, and it's so
much more atmospheric and real to me.

~~~
danharaj
One of the most important books I read in college. I don't remember which
translation to English I read but it was good.

~~~
e12e
English copy in the public domain in certain jurisdictions:

[https://wikilivres.org/wiki/We](https://wikilivres.org/wiki/We)

[https://mises.org/library/we](https://mises.org/library/we)

In Russian:

[http://az.lib.ru/z/zamjatin_e_i/text_0050.shtml](http://az.lib.ru/z/zamjatin_e_i/text_0050.shtml)

------
germanlee
It wasn't a book about prophecy. It was a book on his present. He just set it
in the future since he couldn't afford to tick off the censors in britain.

1984 was inspired by his work as a propagandist for the BBC Eastern Service
during ww2. He based the "Ministry of Truth" on the BBC and the dreaded room
101 on a BBC conference room.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-
Four)

Animal Farm is about the absurd and hypocritical political structure of the
Soviet Union. 1984 has always been about Britain/West with a heavy focus on
truth, propaganda and the news. But whether eastasia, eurasia or oceania, the
ultimate message is that it's all one and the same and 1984 applies to all of
them.

"In the end he succeeded in forcing her memory back until she did dimly recall
that at one time Eastasia and not Eurasia had been the enemy. But the issue
still struck her as unimportant. 'Who cares?' she said impatiently. 'It's
always one bloody war after another, and one knows the news is all lies
anyway.'"

    
    
                                                        - Orwell 1984
    
    

Sound familiar? What was true of orwell's 1940s britain or oceania seems true
today.

Funnily enough, the BBC ( in the 1984 style ) "rehabilitated" orwell's legacy
for their own purposes. Just like big brother "rehabilitated" winston in 1984.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-
arts-41886208](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41886208)

In 1984, who are the champions of censorship? The ministry of truth. Who are
the champions of censorship in the west? The news industry - one of the major
supporters of censorship is oddly enough the new yorker. Who are the ones
demanding that social media censor and who are the ones insisting certain
words or topic shouldn't be discussed?

~~~
unityByFreedom
> Who are the champions of censorship in the west? The news industry

What 1984 is talking about is state-wide censorship, where news organizations
are punished for reporting on topics that make the state look bad. That is
Russia, China, North Korea, and other repressive regimes.

In the west, some media might choose not to cover a topic, but you still have
other news organizations, and now blogs and social media.

So, yes, censorship does happen within bubbles, but if you live in a free
country you can simply look into another bubble to get the other perspective.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
> What 1984 is talking about is state-wide censorship, where news
> organizations are punished for reporting on topics that make the state look
> bad. That is Russia, China, North Korea, and other repressive regimes.

Sadly, it seems that Australia can now be added to this list.

------
qdfgizcbm
One thing about Nineteen Eighty-Four that I find interesting is that in the
society it depicts, only a minority of people actually demand a big effort
from the oppression mechanisms. Most of the population seems to be effectively
pacified by ignorance, drugs, sex, simple entertainments, simple propaganda
(such as militarist nationalism against *-asia), and usually having enough
food to not starve. They probably are not actually likely to engage in
wrongthink except on rare occasions. It is the minority in the "Inner Party"
(and probably higher levels as well) that demands extra attention.

------
casefields
It’s really too bad Hitchens isn’t with us anymore. I’m sure he’d have a lot
to about this and many other topics.

“The Importance of Being Orwell”

[https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/08/christopher-
hitch...](https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/08/christopher-hitchens-
george-orwell)

~~~
hydrox24
We still have Peter Hitchens, who won the Orwell Prize for Journalism in
2010[0], two years before his elder brother was memorialised in 2012[1]. The
two disagreed vehemently on a great deal of fundamental stuff, but Peter
posseses all of Christopher's independence of mind, perhaps more, and has
plenty to say because of that.

[0]: [https://www.orwellfoundation.com/journalist/peter-
hitchens/](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/journalist/peter-hitchens/)

[1]: [https://www.orwellfoundation.com/special/christopher-
hitchen...](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/special/christopher-hitchens/)

~~~
dlivingston
For the life of me, I haven't been able to take Peter seriously. Perhaps his
long standing position at the Daily Express and Daily Mail has something to do
with that...

~~~
hydrox24
I understand. I have taken to reading his column almost exclusively via RSS.
But it is worth noting that he works for the Mail on Sunday, which sounds
similar but is editorially independent of the Daily Mail. They now share a
website.

I believe he left the Daily Express having become dissatisfied with the paper,
though I am entirely unsure of that.

------
pseudolus
One of the fascinating things about '1984' is that in the actual year 1984 the
book, which did receive some notable publicity that year, was perceived as
being something of a 'dud'. Not that people perceived that they were living in
surveillance-free society but rather at that time people were more preoccupied
with nuclear war (anyone remember "The Day After"? [0]) and the tools that
would bring about an oppressive environment were still in the imaginations of
technologists. Strangely enough Apple, with its 1984 type commercial, was one
of the few companies that really went all in on the 1984 anniversary [1].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After)

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA)

------
vgetr
I liked 1984, but probably enjoyed Animal Farm even more. It was likely a
combination of the narrative itself and the fact that 1984 is more about what
_could_ happen while Animal Farm describes through fiction what actually _did_
happen (not that parts of 1984 haven’t happened already).

~~~
ionised
Animal Farm was a critique of Stalinism and the hijacked Bolshevik revolution
more than anything, and it's a good one considering Orwell himself leaned
socialist (which Stalinism certainly was not).

~~~
anigbrowl
It's very interesting to consider that to the extent AF is described as being
a critique of Communism, the implicit corollary is that Napoleon's triumph was
a systematic inevitability. Few bother to examine the parallels between the
Bolshevik and French metaphorical frames, and the latter Napoleon's successful
displacement of Sieyes.

------
gigatexal
Orwell is so relevant today even more so. The man must have seen the future in
some way because just the tv monitors in the rooms that are always on and
monitor you is such a similar concept to all of our home assistants and
smartTVs that collect data about us.

~~~
iscrewyou
People are PAYING companies to install cameras in their houses and outside
doors to let them collect data. He didn’t go far enough.

~~~
gigatexal
True! He’s probably rolling in his grave right now flabbergasted at how dumb
we are.

------
js8
The part I always liked the most about 1984 was when O'Brien plays back to
Winston the tape of what he would be willing to do for the revolution.

I think it's a reminder that we should be vary of compromising a moral stance
with the promise of better society. It is really a case against moral
relativism.

And I think that perhaps Orwell trolled us with that one. IMHO it should be
considered one of the main theses of the book. However, the argument is made
(and hypocritically) by the character we hate (O'Brien) towards character we
sympathize with (Winston), I think a lot of people miss it.

------
lanevorockz
The fight for Freedom is constant and never ending. I’m a bit of a pessimist
in this case. Since 9/11, anything became a reason to take away individual
liberty and we slowly moved towards an authoritarian utopia.

------
madengr
Interestingly, it’s the only movie I have seen that faithfully, and exactly
followed the book.

------
creaghpatr
Prophesizing/foresight aside, just as a narrative it's a great book with a
really satisfying story arc. Can't say that about most of the books I read in
high school.

------
alex_stoddard
Any recommendations for books written post 2000 that might bear comparison to
Orwell's "1984" come 2070?

~~~
pseudolus
Not a book, but you might want to watch Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" [0][1]. It's
one of the the closest efforts I've seen to catching what, in my mind, is the
'look' of Orwell's 1984.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_\(1985_film\))

[1]
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

~~~
natechols
I always thought of "Brazil" as "Monty Python's '1984'".

------
paulie_a
I have never understood the love for orwell, 1984 is boring and corny. The
insight is not very deep.

Animal farm is pretty much a children's book.

Dr Seuss books had greater thought provoking material than orwell. Orwell
basically beat you over the head explaining simple ideas.

------
ravenstine
It's not a bad novel, but I wasn't particularly captivated by Nineteen Eighty-
Four(how the title is actually stylized) because the state it portrayed didn't
seem sustainable. This isn't to say there aren't parallels to North Korean
society, for instance, but the type of world in Nineteen Eighty-Four doesn't
seem like something that today's world needs to be afraid of as a whole; there
would be far too many suicides for such a system to be worth it to anyone who
wants to maintain power and growth.(Countries like North Korea aren't
particularly large in size or population compared to freer nations) Maybe it
made more sense in a world that wasn't driven by media and consumer culture.
Brave New World made a little more sense, but I also didn't find it that
compelling. Maybe I need to revisit the both of them now that I'm in my 30s,
as opposed to my early 20s.

I've found the "Village" portrayed in Patrick McGoohan's "The Prisoner" to be
a more profound message about the world that we actually live in. If the
viewer can get over it being a product of its time, as well as the confusing
ending, there's a lot of allegory packed into the show that reflects the
direction our own societies are headed in:

\- Surveillance is not only treated as a given but is incorporated into the
conveniences of everyday life. (e.g. The door to Six's domicile opens not
automatically but because he is constantly being watched)

\- The state wants your "information", so much that it knows more about you
than you know about yourself. (e.g. The authorities predict precisely what Six
would want for breakfast, right down to how many strips of bacon)

\- The line between government and corporation are blurred so much that all
food is produced and branded by the Village, which even has its own logo
plastered on everything. (All of the food provided to Six is branded as
"Village Food")

\- The inhabitants of the village all wear the same colorful(albeit ridiculous
looking) clothing, almost all of which is unisex. People come from all sorts
of ethnicities, yet are made to comply with a single bland culture in under
the superficiality of being "international". (The push for gender equality and
diversity, while laudable, can easily turn into its own opposite)

\- Most of the village inhabitants(or inmates) are infantilized, are
essentially adult children who wear child-like clothing and are even seen
playing like children. They have no responsibility or agency, but are
perfectly content to live a pointless existence inside a resort-like prison.

\- The village has a "democratic" system of electing "Number 2", but this
system is merely superficial as those who are _actually_ in power and the
media have already chosen who they want in said position, and the population
is easily swayed to vote for the chosen one.

\- Children are completely housebound, only every being seen in one scene of a
single episode in the series. Some have read into this as suggesting that the
children of the village are always kept inside for safety reasons, much like
how todays helicopter parents and governments overprotect children out of
irrational fears like "stranger danger".

\- The veneer of the village is cheerful in a saccharine-sweet way, so as to
drown out any of those negative thoughts or "sudden attacks of egoism". Much
like how we are constantly bombarded by music when we are shopping or simply
trying to have a conversation at public venues, the Village has a vast system
of PA speakers that are playing cheerful or calming music. The village only
goes further in that it also plays music in people's homes without their
consent.

\- The government of the Village is difficult to comprehend, and those who run
it are really prisoners themselves, but work within seemingly indefinite
layers of bureaucracy. Nobody actually knows who is _actually_ in charge.

\- Those who don't wish to participate in the society of the village, yet
would be content on being left alone, are considered "unmutual" and made to be
social pariahs. Labeling someone with such a blanket term is an easy way to
convince the dim-witted masses into agreeing with a position they might not
even understand.

\- The education system in the village, in the little glimpse that way saw it,
is very interested in making "learning" so efficient as to sacrifice
understanding for the sake of rote memorization. A system called "speed learn"
is used to give everyone an education in a matter of hours, yet all those who
are "educated" can do is recite what exactly they were told without any
insight or understanding of their absorbed knowledge.

A series called "Tyranny of the Masses" analyzes The Prisoner in greater
detail, though anyone watching The Prisoner by itself without expecting it to
be a spy-thriller should be able to figure out a lot of those things anyway.

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2pC1JKwn0Bi2y4v6D6fk...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2pC1JKwn0Bi2y4v6D6fkrf9roSDrEgcx)

Overall, I've found The Prisoner to be much more eye opening than even
Nineteen Eighty-Four or Brave New World, yet next to nobody I've told has
heard about it. It's much more profound and in allegorical to our time,
despite it having broadcasted in 1969.

~~~
ahartmetz
The world of 1984 does indeed seem unsustainable because everything seems to
be based on negative emotions, and there are no(?) examples in history of such
a system surviving for a significant time. Nevertheless, I was willing to
suspend disbelief because of Orwell's amazing prose. "If you want a picture of
the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever".

Or let's take this one from Wikipedia: "We know that no one ever seizes power
with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end.
One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one
makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of
persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of
power is power."

~~~
cf498
>The world of 1984 does indeed seem unsustainable because everything seems to
be based on negative emotions, and there are no(?) examples in history of such
a system surviving for a significant time.

Unfortunately we are working on more and more technical means which could
enable such a system to persist. Many options to overthrow such systems are
already getting less and less successful. With scale able mass surveillance it
is (or will be in the future) possible to quell any unrest before it becomes
mass unrest. Which is not that hard if you have enough information early
enough, can actually process that data and have a functioning security
apparatus.

To give an example, in Germany Soccer fans are categorized by the police in A
- normally peaceful fans, B- open to join a riot and C- looking to start a
riot. Majority of fans are category A, a minority are category B and a few are
category C. For the police its generally sufficient to quell category C so
category B (or even A if things really go south) wont become a problem for
them. Similarly, there is a different willingness of people to go out and
protest to topple a regime. Its a lot easier to join in when there are already
hundred of thousands in the streets but very few will risk trying to start
something like that. Being able to prevent the individuals from the last group
from acting up is sufficient to quell the threat of a regime getting toppled.

Another point is that surveillance is becoming more and more absolute. Its not
just targeted at the population or even the category C equivalent but
everyone, including the people keeping the regime running. In the end you are
left with an negative apparatus without anyone actually profiting from it
which reinforces itself eternally by complete surveillance of every last
individual, which are dealt with as soon as they try to organize with others.
Its the perfect prison we are building for ourselves.

~~~
Nasrudith
Surveillance has ironically been wildly overestimated in their capabilities -
even though it is certainly bad in its "half mirror" form it isn't omnipotent.

They always need entities willing to follow orders and the who has all answers
which are "bad" in some way including from abilities limited abilities in
preference for by loyalty, limited loyalty but able, or under influence. If
they become sick of the status quo surveillance can't stop them from deciding
they would rather be "king" instead or a more generous "king" would sit better
on the throne.

Weaponized autonomous drones may change that but subsitutes subvertability for
loyality. Both meat and machines for the dictators of their hellscape require
maintenance and means of sustaining and grasping control weakens them.

That tangent aside - if nobody can stop a subject from doing x /right now/ and
they don't care about being known it is nothing buy the illusion of control.

We have seen how it is a farce against terrorism as it fails to prevent
anything and only at best helps to convict the violent people already out to
gain attention who also often don't get trials anyway.

