George Orwell's 1984, Part 2: Crash Course Literature 402

Summary

In this Crash Course Literature episode, John Green explores George Orwell's '1984,' focusing on its depiction of a surveillance society where language manipulates human consciousness. He discusses Newspeak, memory, and how language may shape thought, referencing the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Noam Chomsky's counterarguments. The episode also examines Winston Smith's struggle for humanity under totalitarian control and how Orwell's questions about language, power, and oppression remain relevant today. Green draws parallels to modern surveillance and social media, emphasizing Orwell's timeless inquiry into the nature of humanity.

Takeaways

• 📚 The video discusses George Orwell's *1984* and its portrayal of a dystopian world where every human activity is monitored and recorded.
• 🗣️ *Newspeak*, the language in *1984*, is designed to limit thought by removing words for dissent and rebellion.
• 🧠 Consciousness is explored through Orwell's view on memory, manipulation, and language, questioning whether language is imposed or innate.
• ⏳ The Party controls the past by altering records and memories, which affects how people perceive reality and history.
• 🔗 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is introduced to discuss how language influences thought, with counterarguments from Chomsky and Pinker.
• 💡 Instinct plays a central role in *1984*, where human instincts like survival and rebellion clash with the Party's manipulation.
• 🧠 Winston's consciousness and self are broken through physical and psychological torture, not just through language restrictions like Newspeak.
• 📖 Orwell's novel remains relevant today, with its critiques on surveillance, propaganda, and truth manipulation resonating in modern society.
• 📱 Social media and personal privacy are compared to *1984*'s surveillance, highlighting the trade-offs between convenience, security, and exposure.
• ❓ The video ends with a reflection on Orwell's timeless questions about humanity, freedom, language, and oppression, encouraging viewers to keep questioning.

Q & A

What is the main focus of George Orwell's 1984 as described in the video?

The novel 1984 imagines a dystopian world where human activity is constantly monitored and recorded, exploring the implications of surveillance, truth manipulation, and the oppressive power of a totalitarian regime.

What is Newspeak, and what was its intended purpose in 1984?

Newspeak is a language designed by the Party to limit freedom of thought by reducing the range of ideas expressible. Its goal is to make political dissent and 'thoughtcrime' impossible by eliminating the vocabulary to express such thoughts.

How does the Party in 1984 manipulate the past?

The Party manipulates the past by controlling records and memories. Winston's job is to alter historical records so that Big Brother's predictions are always correct. This aligns with the Party’s belief that 'the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it.'

What role does memory play in the Party's control over people in 1984?

The Party exploits the brain's natural tendency to reshape memories each time they are recalled. By controlling both written records and people's memories, the Party can influence and manipulate what people believe about the past.

What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, and how is it related to the themes in 1984?

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests that the structure of language shapes how people perceive and categorize their experiences. This concept is related to 1984, where the Party tries to control thought by manipulating language through Newspeak.

How does Winston's instinct for survival influence his actions in 1984?

Winston’s primary instinct is survival. Despite his hatred for the Party, he instinctively adapts to the oppressive conditions to avoid punishment. This instinct for survival, along with torture, eventually leads to his betrayal of Julia and acceptance of Party ideology.

Does writing in Newspeak change Winston's consciousness in the novel?

Although Newspeak is designed to limit thought, writing in Newspeak alone doesn’t immediately change Winston’s consciousness. It is only after being tortured and psychologically broken that he starts thinking in Newspeak and loses his sense of self.

Why did George Orwell include an appendix in Standard English at the end of 1984?

The appendix, written in Standard English, indicates that the totalitarian regime eventually falls and humanity triumphs over oppression. It shows that free thought and speech survive, though Orwell doesn’t explain how this victory was achieved.

How have interpretations of 1984 changed since its publication?

When first published, some viewed 1984 as an attack on socialism. Over time, 'Orwellian' became a term used to describe forms of oppression like surveillance and propaganda. Critics continue to draw parallels between the novel and modern issues like misinformation and government overreach.

How does the video connect modern society with Orwell's 1984 in terms of surveillance and privacy?

The video highlights that while we don’t live under a totalitarian regime like Oceania, modern society has widespread surveillance through devices like cameras and smart home systems. It raises questions about the trade-off between privacy and security, and how much of our lives we willingly expose online.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Orwell's 1984 and the Power of Language

In this paragraph, John Green introduces the topic of George Orwell's novel '1984' and its exploration of a dystopian society where every human activity is monitored. He discusses the concept of Newspeak, a language designed to limit thought and the manipulation of language and memory by the Party. Green also touches on the broader themes of the novel, including the relationship between language and consciousness, the impact of surveillance on society, and the novel's reception and interpretation over time.

05:03

👀 Surveillance and the Loss of Privacy

This paragraph delves into the theme of surveillance in '1984' and draws parallels with contemporary society. Green discusses the novel's depiction of omnipresent government surveillance and how it reflects modern concerns about privacy. He also addresses the role of social media in shaping our lives and the trade-off between security and convenience. The paragraph raises questions about the impact of constant surveillance on our sense of self and our humanity.

10:03

🤔 The Role of Social Media in Shaping Consciousness

In the final paragraph, Green reflects on the role of social media in modern society and how it might be shaping our consciousness. He acknowledges the positive aspects of social media while also considering the potential loss of privacy and the implications of sharing so much personal information online. Green concludes by emphasizing the enduring relevance of Orwell's questions about the nature of humanity, the role of language, and the impact of societal structures on individual freedom.

Keywords

💡Newspeak

Newspeak is a fictional language created in George Orwell’s *1984*. It is designed to limit freedom of thought by reducing the range of possible expressions, effectively narrowing what people can think. In the video, Newspeak represents how language can be manipulated to control thought and prevent dissent, highlighting its significance in the Party’s control over society.

💡Big Brother

Big Brother is the figurehead of the totalitarian regime in *1984*, symbolizing constant surveillance and control over the citizens of Oceania. The video discusses how the Party, through Big Brother, manipulates the past and controls the present to maintain power. This character is also compared to modern-day surveillance, emphasizing the invasive presence of authority.

💡Surveillance

Surveillance refers to the continuous monitoring of individuals’ actions, a core theme in *1984* where the government watches its citizens through devices like telescreens. The video compares Orwell's vision of surveillance to today's technological monitoring, such as smart devices and social media, questioning the trade-off between privacy and security in modern society.

💡Memory

Memory in *1984* is manipulated by the Party, which rewrites historical records to align with its current narrative. The video explains how memory is unreliable because it is reconstructed each time it is recalled, making it vulnerable to external influence. This mirrors how the Party controls the past to shape the present, as highlighted by Winston’s role in altering historical records.

💡Crimestop

Crimestop is a concept in *1984* referring to the automatic mental process of avoiding dangerous thoughts, particularly those against the Party. It represents the self-censorship that people internalize under oppressive regimes. The video shows how Crimestop functions as a survival instinct in Orwell’s world, stifling any potential rebellion against authority.

💡Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is a linguistic theory that suggests language shapes how individuals perceive and categorize their experiences. The video connects this theory to Orwell’s *1984* by questioning whether the structure of language, like Newspeak, can limit human consciousness. This hypothesis is central to understanding how language can influence thought and behavior.

💡Ingsoc

Ingsoc, short for English Socialism, is the political ideology of Oceania in *1984*. It represents a system where the government controls every aspect of life, including history, language, and thought. The video emphasizes how the principles of Ingsoc, particularly the belief that the past is mutable, serve to maintain the Party’s power by controlling how citizens remember and understand reality.

💡Doublethink

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time and accept both as true. This concept is vital in *1984* as it allows the Party to enforce its changing narrative without being challenged. In the video, Doublethink is linked to modern issues of misinformation and propaganda, where contradictory ‘truths’ can coexist in society without being questioned.

💡Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime is the act of thinking against the Party, an offense in *1984* that is punishable by death. The video explores the idea that controlling language and thought makes dissent impossible. Thoughtcrime is a powerful tool for the Party to suppress free expression, drawing parallels to how modern societies may also regulate speech and ideas to maintain control.

💡Telescreen

The Telescreen is a device used by the Party in *1984* to both broadcast propaganda and surveil citizens. It is a symbol of the constant monitoring that people in Oceania are subjected to. The video compares this with contemporary technology, such as smart devices, that can potentially spy on users, raising questions about privacy in the modern world.

Highlights

George Orwell's 1984 imagines a world where every human activity is monitored.

Newspeak language in the book aims to make speech independent of consciousness.

Consciousness is defined as our awareness of ourselves and our environment.

Language may be imposed on us or it could be an innate feature of humanity.

Orwell's novel connects to our society's relationship with truth and surveillance.

Winston Smith works in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth.

The past is mutable and only exists in written records and human memories.

Newspeak is designed to narrow the range of thought and prevent dissent.

Memories are shaped by the present and can be manipulated.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests language determines perception and categorization of experience.

Chomsky argues humans are born with an innate knowledge of grammar.

Pinker claims language is a basic instinct and part of being human.

Orwell explores the relationship between instinct and language.

Winston's strongest instinct is to survive.

The Party manipulates human instincts for its own purposes.

Language and thought are deeply connected, influencing each other.

Physical and psychological torture, not Newspeak, is what truly alters Winston's consciousness.

Orwell's 1984 is used to diagnose and solve problems in various eras.

The term 'Orwellian' is often misused to describe government power abuses.

Contemporary life has issues with the dissemination of objective fact.

Surveillance is a reality in both Oceania and today's society.

Social media allows us to broadcast our lives but at the cost of privacy.

Orwell's questions about humanity and society are still relevant today.

Transcripts

Hi I’m John Green, this is Crash Course literature, and today we’re going back to

the future–that is now past–to George Orwell’s 1984, which imagines a terrifying

world in which every human activity is recorded and monitored.

How unpleasant would that be, he said staring into a camera lens.

So, as mentioned in our previous episode, the Newspeak language created in the book

was intended “to make speech [...] as nearly as possible independent of consciousness”

(319).

In an episode of Crash Course Psychology, my brother, Hank, defined “consciousness”

as “our awareness of ourselves and our environment.”

I would add that consciousness also explains our ability to experience life and to feel

emotions.

So can the structure of a language actually be “independent of human consciousness.”?

Well, today, we’ll explore whether language is imposed on us from the outside or whether

it’s an innate feature of humanity.

I’m also gonna talk about how this novel was perceived, when it was published, in the

actual 1984, and how people think about it today.

And we’ll go ahead and make some connections between Orwell’s novel and our current society’s

really confusing relationship with truth and surveillance.

Yeah, we can still criticize surveillance society.

that’s not a thoughtcrime.

Yet..

INTRO In 1984, Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith,

works in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth (in Newspeak, known as “Minitrue”).

He adjusts financial and weather forecasts so that “Big Brother’s” predictions

are always retroactively correct.

He also removes references to “unpersons,” or “vaporised” political dissidents.

And he rewrites history so that Oceania appears always to have been at war with EastAsia.

Or with Eurasia.

It changes, depending on shifting allegiances.

The “central tenet” of Ingsoc (the version of English Socialism practiced in Oceania)

is that the past is “mutable,” that it has “no objective existence,” and it exists

only in “written records and in human memories.”

Orwell writes: The past is whatever the records and the memories

agree upon.

And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of

the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to

make it” (219).

So, Winston mainly writes in Newspeak--a version of English with grammar and vocabulary designed

to “narrow the range of thought.”

The idea is that, without the language to express dissent, political crimes, in thought

or deed, will become impossible.

But quickly, before we get to the chicken and egg problem of language and thought, though,

I want to pause to ask you to think about this novel’s relationship to memory.

Now, we know from neuroscience that each time a memory is accessed, you’re remembering

it anew--there’s no, like, spot in your brain containing a memory; it is formed each

time you have it.

And that means that your memories are shaped by your now--and that at least to some extent,

the Party is right when it says that telling people what they remember does change their

memories.

So, the Party is manipulating a real, structural feature of the human brain--as we learned

in our discussion of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude, “What matters

in life is not what happens to you but what you remember and how you remember it.”

OK, so with that noted, let’s turn to thought: Many experts have explored to what extent

our ability to think is dependent on language.

In the late 1920s, the ethno-linguist Edward Sapir began talking in academic circles about

his theory that the structure of the language a person uses determines how they perceive

and categorize experience.

When his student, Benjamin Whorf, published his writings in the 1950s, this theory became

known as “the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.”

Then, in the 1960s, Noam Chomsky questioned the premise of this theory, arguing that humans

are born with an innate knowledge of grammar that forms the basis for language acquisition.

And in 1994, Steven Pinker argued that language is a basic instinct, and that the ability

to understand, manipulate, and add to it based on one’s own experiences is an expression

of one’s humanity.

In fact, he wrote a book called The Language Instinct.

But before any of these theories were published, Orwell was also thinking about the relationship

between instinct and language.

Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

The word “instinct” appears 31 times in 1984.

Winston is a creature of instinct, and his strongest instinct is to survive: “To hang

on from day to day and from week to week, spinning out a present that had no future,

seemed an unconquerable instinct, just as one's lungs will always draw the next breath

so long as there is air available” (emphasis added, 155).

Winston understands that his society is inhumane: “It MIGHT be true that the average human

being was better off now than he had been before the Revolution.

The only evidence to the contrary was the mute protest in your own bones, the instinctive

feeling that the conditions you lived in were intolerable and that at some other time they

must have been different” (emphasis added, 76).

So to Orwell there are human instincts toward generosity and survival and liberty, but Orwell

is also aware how dangerous human instincts can be, particularly when manipulated by a

totalitarian state.

For example, the Party transforms an innate fear of death into mob violence:

“For how could the fear, the hatred, and the lunatic credulity which the Party needed

in its members be kept at the right pitch, except by bottling down some powerful instinct

and using it as a driving force?”

(emphasis added, 136).

It also transforms the survival instinct into a form of self-repression: “Crimestop”

is the ability to cut off one’s ideas, “...as though by instinct, at the threshold of any

dangerous thought” (217).

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

But of course, those thoughts are only dangerous because the government might kill you for

having them.

But -- and I think this is critical -- writing in Newspeak and participating in Party rallies

alone does not alter Winston’s consciousness, and it doesn’t seem to change his instincts

-- he’s still able to love Julia, and in little ways to live his “ownlife” life.

But then, eventually, Winston does betray his girlfriend, Julia, and he comes to believe

that he “should” repress his thoughts.

So ultimately, he loses his sense of self.

But not, I would argue, entirely because of Newspeak.

Mostly because of torture.

In the end his consciousness can’t survive being threatened with having his head put

in a cage with hungry rats.

It is then that Winston breaks down and wishes that Julia receive this punishment in his

place.

And by betraying Julia, he loses his ability to love.

He loses faith in his own humanity.

And after Winston is psychologically broken, he starts to think in Newspeak.

Consider his stream of (non-) conscious narrative: “The mind should develop a blind spot whenever

a dangerous thought presented itself.

The process should be automatic, instinctive.

CRIMESTOP, they called it in Newspeak” (emphasis added, 288).

So initial use of Newspeak might be part of Winston’s journey toward the lack of consciousness,

but it’s the physical and psychological torture that really take him there.

And with that in mind, we can turn to the question of whether words actually matter.

I mean, can ‘good’ language or ‘good’ books enhance the human experience?

I believe so.

And I think Orwell must have believed so, too, or else he wouldn’t have written 1984.

And as we talked about in the last video, we know that free expression survives within

the logic of the novel, because the appendix is written in Standard English

It also refers to the totalitarian government in the past tense.

So we know that humanity eventually triumphs over oppression and oppressive language!

Free thought and free speech endure!

Great, but Orwell doesn’t tell us how those victories were won.

One minute, Winston is in love with Big Brother, the next minute, Appendix in Standard English.

But that hasn’t stopped readers from trying to use 1984 to diagnose (and solve) problems

unique to their times.

Like, when 1984 was first published, Time Magazine claimed that “any reader in 1949

can uneasily see his own shattered features in Winston Smith, can scent in the world of

1984 a stench that is already familiar.”

Other early reviewers at the time read 1984 as an attack on British Socialism.

In a letter to a friend, Orwell explained that the novel:

“...is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labor Party (of which I

am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable and

which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism.”

In the years after the book was published, readers began associating Orwell’s name

with the forms of oppression that he critiqued.

Surveillance?

“Quite Orwellian!”

Propaganda?

“Also Orwellian.”

But actually anti-Orwellian!

In 1983, a Time Magazine journalist tried to reappropriate the term “Orwellian”

to make it signify, “the spirit that fights the worst tendencies in politics and society

by using a fundamental sense of decency.”

Of course, that was a failure.

If you Google “Orwellian,” you’ll find a long list of ways it has been applied to

various misuses of government power.

Poor Orwell.

Not since Dr. Frankenstein has someone so often been inappropriately alluded to.

And then of course there is the question of our today, and whether it resembles the Oceania

of 1984.

In terms of politics, neither the U.S. nor the U.K. look much like Oceania.

Whatever you think of our elected officials, they are just that.

Elected.

In fact, a higher percentage of people on Earth today live in democracies than did in

1949, or for that matter 1984.

So it’s actually been a pretty good seven decades for democracy, but, there are some

similarities between contemporary life and the future that Orwell imagined:

For instance our time has some serious issues with the dissemination of objective fact.

There’s a good reason that Stephen Colbert’s word “truthiness,” meaning “a truth

that wouldn’t stand to be held back by fact” was chosen by the American Dialect Society

as the word of the year in 2005.

Propaganda, both subtle and overt, continue to distort social and political discourse

around the world.

And then there’s the issue of surveillance...

in Oceania, the government places microphones and telescreens in public spaces and private

homes.

And the telescreen is an addictive content provider--broadcasting news, weather reports,

and interactive exercise videos.

It detects sounds above a whisper and movement within its field of vision.

In Winston’s apartment, it can be dimmed, but not turned off completely.

Creepier still: there was, “...no way of knowing whether you were being watched at

any given moment” (3).

Today, we, too, have audio and video surveillance in shops, and airports, and public parts of

big cities, and also in our homes--alexa, can you make sure not to spy on me?

{[[Alexa, off-screen]] I’m sorry, John.

I’m afraid I can’t do that.}

I have to say, I don’t find that answer terribly comforting.

And this loss of privacy is the trade-off that we make for increased security and convenience.

But also, think about how much of your ownlife and consciousness also exists out there in

the personal information you willingly post online.

We have Snapchat, and Instagram, and Twitter, and Pinterest, and Tumblr, and WhatsApp, and

LinkedIn, and YouTube, and I think we still have Google Plus.

And if you’re waiting for me to denounce social media, I’m not gonna.

These are amazing ways to broadcast pictures of yourself being cool and to publish your

thoughts from the sublime to the ridiculous.

We indicate our preferences by liking, swiping, reposting, and commenting.

We tag all the wonderful places that we visit and show everyone what we ate while we were

there.

Social media is fun!

It’s awesome!

I’m in favor of it.

But have you read the privacy policy of each service you use?

There’s no question that something is lost when you choose to make any part of your ownlife

public.

Winston can’t turn off his telescreen.

Many of us choose not to turn ours off , exposing a lot of our ownlives to surveillance, and

I believe that does ultimately shape our lives.

It’s certainly not a 1984-level control of the private self--but it is worth considering.

In our era, for those of us lucky enough to live in democracies, Big Brother is not a

totalitarian government, able to alter the consciousness of its citizens through various

forms of torture.

Instead, Big Brother is each of us.

We are watching each other--in the best ways, and the worst ways.

Does this distract us from our physical bodies, our animal desires, our bonds with real life

family and friends, our impulses to help others (you know… that business of being conscious

and human)?

Or does it ultimately enhance our humanity?

I don’t know.

But I don’t think time spent considering those questions is wasted.

And that’s Orwell’s true genius: The questions that he asked in 1949 about a hypothetical

1984: they’re timeless.

What is the nature of humanity?

Which social orders best allow humanity to flourish?

Which oppress it nearly beyond recognition?

And what is the role of language and literature in liberating the oppressed?

Keep asking those important questions and you will be “Orwellian” in the most heroic

sense of the word.

Thanks for watching.

I’ll see you next time.