A Short History of the Term “Orwellian”
On January 6, 2021, hours after the Trump-supporting mob seized upon the Capitol grounds and violently took over the Capitol building, Simon & Schuster issued a statement indicating that they would no longer be publishing Senator Josh Hawley’s upcoming book, citing his role in spurring on and inciting the insurrection effort.
In response to this deal cancellation, Hawley issued his own statement, declaring that Simon & Schuster’s decision to no longer do business with him was a direct assault on his First Amendment liberties and free speech itself: “This could not be more Orwellian.”
Actually, Sen. Hawley, it could.
Let’s start by saying that nothing Simon & Schuster did was a violation of the First Amendment, a censorship of free speech or Orwellian.
Let’s start with an operating definition, shall we?
Merriam-Webster (yes, we’re starting off like this because it’s hopefully a universally-accepted source of agreed-upon truth — good Lord, that is frustrating to have to write) states that the definition of “Orwellian” is as follows: of, relating to, or suggestive of George Orwell or his writings; especially: relating to or suggestive of the dystopian reality depicted in the novel 1984.
No duh, Webster, but thank you, nevertheless. That’s a really unhelpful definition. Kind of like using a variation of a word to define the same word. But maybe, if we first unpack the book 1984, its dystopian plot, and Orwell himself, we may be able to better understand its true meaning and incorrect, derivative, more modern uses (or abuses) of the term.
“1984” at a Glance
The book, published in 1949, is a dystopian novel about the abuses occuring to citizens while living under a totalitarian state. Oceania, where much of the action of the plot takes place, is one of three totalitarian states and is governed by one all-controlling Party. The Party has “brainwashed” its population into universal obedience to its leader, Big Brother. The Party has also created propaganda, masqueraded as news, called Newspeak, which, similar to that of the media in our very real world’s North Korea, is designed only to promote Party doctrine and obstruct free thought and speech.
The hero of the novel, Winston Smith, is still reeling from the nuclear World War that occurred only recently before the events of the novel begin. He works at a minor, ancillary Party outpost — the Outer Party. His responsibility is to rewrite history in the Ministry of Truth and to bring it in line with the political objectives of the Party. But Smith’s desire for truth leads him into covertly rebelling against the Party. Smith and other like-minded dissidents are being closely watched via Big Brother throughout the majority of the novel, unbeknownst to them.
A sting operation is conducted, with a member of the Inner Party approaching Smith as if he himself is a secret rebel. The sting is successful and Smith, along with Julia, his rebellious companion, is sent to the Ministry of Love to be tortured. The aim of this torture is not merely to elicit information but to break them down and destroy any dignity or humanity they may have left. At the last moment, during a specifically terrible torture where a cage of rats is to be placed on Smith’s head, he cries out for the torturers to “Do it to Julia!” instead. Following this betrayal, the torture ceases and Smith is released. Smith and Julia later on encounter one another. Smith is now completely given over to influence of Big Brother.
Why Orwell Wrote It
1984 is, in many ways, Orwell’s response to the very real imminent threats of Nazism and Stalinism (this post is concerned only with giving a short history of the term, but I encourage you to read about Orwell’s personal biography working for the Imperial forces in Burma (now Myanmar), where he began to reject the ideas of imperialism and colonialism — his essay “Why I Write” is a great place to start). The novel was an indictment of totalitarian, autocratic governments. Indeed, much of Orwell’s life was personally spent in militarized efforts combatting anti-democratic forces on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
It was exactly this lived experience that shaped Orwell’s view of politics and informed the very commentary he sought to provide as he crafted his dystopian fiction. More interestingly, Orwell was interested in how these very real fascist ideologies proliferated. For Orwell, the power of language and how governments used and manipulated language was an undeniable tactic used by totalitarian regimes to attain and maintain power. We see this insight explored in 1984, where the primary method of brainwashing citizens and furthering the Party’s political aims is through the policing of thoughts and speech. In addition to the thought police, the propaganda Newspeak network is made up of only the simplest and Party-approved words, with other words in the English language having been eliminated.
It’s an attempt by the regime in the novel at simplification of message — making the news an appealingly simple (and fabricated) narrative. This creates in citizens a cognitive dissonance Orwell calls Doublethink — a virtually hypnotic state, where individuals are conditioned to disregard their own perception in favor of the officially reported version of events, leaving the individual dependent on the State and unable to critically think for themselves. A lot of doublethink requires citizens to be confused as to the meaning of certain words:
The problem isn’t that citizens are told the opposite of what is true. The real issue is that their experiences have become so limited that they lack the perspective and the language to differentiate between major concepts.
The Nuance Needed
Using the term “Orwellian” simply to indicate something that is totalitarian is to miss Orwell’s actual message. Additionally, by simplifying the term, we risk doing exactly what Orwell was warning against in his commentary on autocratic regimes and the worlds in which they operate. Orwell wasn’t just using the plot of the novel to warn against the terror innate in authoritarian regimes but also to warn against it happening in democratic countries as well.
Orwell wrote in a 1946 essay titled “Politics and the English Language”:
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
He points to ways in which language is manipulated to distort perception of reality, whether through use of euphemisms (i.e. ethnic cleansing), dog- whistles (i.e. law and order) or other variations of coded language. In many ways, Orwell predicted the dangers of our current political “soundbite culture” — a digital media sphere that thrives on “hot takes” and 140-character commentaries. What we severely lack is nuance, but nuance isn’t going to get mouse clicks.
This version of news consumption appeals to us because of two very simple reasons: (1) As humans, we’re attracted to easily digestible and simple narratives and (2) Many of us lack the time, energy and emotional bandwidth to read primary news sources or gather multiple opinions before making our own. We follow news that we largely agree with, entrust our opinions to be made by those we find credible, and have news notifications turned on and go about our day. I’d argue Orwell would be wary about the method of news consumption today for the very reasons he wrote the novel. Language is powerful and our increasing preference for less nuance only makes the likelihood of language manipulation in our news sphere more of a potential threat and reality.
The Derivative Uses of Today
“Orwellian” as it’s commonly used today has far diverted from its original and correct meaning. As Josh Hawley used it this past week, he was implying that Simon & Schuster’s choice to back out of a book deal, citing his involvement in incitement of violence at the Capitol, was Orwellian — an unwarranted and tyrannical censorship of free speech.
The thing is — it wasn’t.
Simon & Schuster is a private corporation, with an ability to do business with whomever they please. Josh Hawley, for the record, despite the cancellation of his book deal, is not prohibited from finding another publisher or even self-publishing his upcoming book. The term Orwellian implies a tyrannical government’s overreach to police thought and speech and action. In this case, Josh Hawley is simply angry at a system that incentivizes businesses to make sound business decisions in pursuit of securing their bottom line.
Apparently partnering with Hawley isn’t good business. It doesn’t mean he’s being censored. He’s just damaged, mob-inciting goods.
Those that use the term to describe the deceptive and manipulative use of language — they might be on to something. If someone is using it to describe anger at privacy overreach by a government, they might be conflating authoritarian and Orwellian. And finally, if someone is using the term Orwellian to describe something they just don’t like, they may be more personally Orwellian themselves than the idea, person or outcome they’re railing against.
