Orwellian: What does it mean?

[Nathanael D. Striker]

 

Today, I present a discussion on the term "Orwellian". Penned by Eric Arthur Blair (aka George Orwell), the term is commonly associated with the Oceanic Government found in his book 1984 (for those who haven't read 1984, I highly recommend it). The TED video above makes the claim that an Orwellian society does not imply an Authoritarian society; in fact, an Orwellian society can be a Democratic one. I find this claim very intriguing as I imagine most, myself included, typically imagine an Authorization society conducting the actions that take place in 1984 and assume that a Democratic society is incapable of it; however, the examples in this video highlight why that assumption is wrong. One of the main components of the term Orwellian- the manipulation of language- can be seen in our society. For example, politicians telling voters what they want to hear, but doing something else under the guise of representing their voters.

 

I pose these questions to you. What does the term Orwellian mean to you? As you have defined it, is it prevalent in our society? Why? How can we best combat it?

 

If any other discussion questions pop up, feel free to explore them.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Frankly, I think orwellian is just another political buzzword used to push a narrative over the realities of a situation.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Frankly, I think orwellian is just another political buzzword used to push a narrative over the realities of a situation.

What is your reasoning for that assertion? Are you saying people throw that word around without understanding what it means? If so, that can be considered Orwellian in of itself.

[Simping For Hina]

I mean: That was the point of 1984 and the use of language itself. We get so muddled with words that we concise them and exploit them in the vagueness of the meaning rather than refining language to fit a singular idea, because language is all connected and there is no clear notion of what the denotation and connotation are. There is no universal validation of a definition anymore, nor was there really. The dictionary is fine for the understanding of the meaning, but not the use of the word or anything like that. I am pretty happy that "Politics and the English Language" was mentioned, since that essay is probably one of the most important tools for literacy when discussing politics. It is still a used tool for anything dystopian or postmodern.

From Orwell's use of controlling in 1984, and even Fahrenheit 451, the biggest metric to try and control is the use of information. Information is broken down to the communication of language, as a means to tell of the past, plan for the future, even have a conversation. It is pertinent to the interaction of society, which is also why the tool of it cannot be broken. Now, this is also where language is remarkable. The use of "Orwellian" here might be a moniker for "dystopian" or anything "totalitarian", it doesn't have refinement to itself. The definition is as vague as the use of it. While it helps to bring out a concept, it does not flush that concept out and only scratches the surface.

We are able to compare society to Oceania because of the emphasis on what metrics are used and how the could /possibly/ be presented if the metrics are furthered, without regard to the opposing idea. Exactly like how language is used now, it is also used in the reverse fashion. We promote the use of language in many ways, that break down the definition and the use of it in order to define how it is used and the definition we use. The public has control over the use of language where as the media has control over the information. It is a battle of what we let ourselves hold back from saying and what we allow to cloud the use of how we speak or what we do.

If you want to discuss the limits of language, then (HEY HINA) I suggest looking into Borges and some secondary sources that have been used to study Borges. Borges is objectively more free in the confines of writing than Orwell is, while being a nod to the opposite means of living. Where Orwell lived to fight against what he opposed. Borges tried to break free what what he opposed. Politics are only one addition to all that encompasses the world and there are limits to what politics can do if we open ourselves up to understanding what we can do against it.

[mido9]

One of the main components of the term Orwellian- the manipulation of language- can be seen in our society. For example, politicians telling voters what they want to hear, but doing something else under the guise of representing their voters.

Well, that would be a baldfaced lie, but I think at that point calling it orwellian is just to make it sound more dangerous than it is, just a big awful lie.

 

I thought about it, and I think that's sorta the whole gimmick of calling something orwellian, it's to give something that can be called a lie or a reframing of a word or euphemism or etc a bigger sense of importance than it actually has.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Well, that would be a baldfaced lie, but I think at that point calling it orwellian is just to make it sound more dangerous than it is, just a big awful lie.

 

I thought about it, and I think that's sorta the whole gimmick of calling something orwellian, it's to give something that can be called a lie or a reframing of a word or euphemism or etc a bigger sense of importance than it actually has.

You could say I was struggling to create my own example of Orwell's ideas in our society. Though, it does present a catch 22 of sorts. If you decry something as Orwellian without understanding what the term entails, you are guilty of the very thing you are decrying. If you don't, then a whole other can of worms is opened. Interesting, eh?

[vla1ne]

the question is how well you define your accusation. for example, were i to call north korea orwellian, i doubt many of you would disagree with me. because there's ample reason to claim as much (torture and work camps, strict language policing, false illusions of grandeur living while the citizens actually live in abject poverty, ect). on the other hand, were i to call britain orwellian, i'd likely face opposition, because although the government is arguably leaning towards policing the population in a manner similar to 1984, and seem to be leaning ever further into the manual book they are not actually dystopian enough to qualify for the term, and would be more accurately described using other words, which would do all involved parties a service, simply by properly highlighting the problems, instead of inflating them on lofty buzzwords what don't properly describe the situation.