Why did Oceania fight with Eurasia? What George Orwell wanted to tell us with his dystopian novel “1984”
Published in 1948, the novel 1984 by British writer and journalist George Orwell (real name Eric Blair) is one of the most significant works of the XNUMXth century. Memorable images created by Orwell, such as “Big Brother”, “thoughtcrime”, “doublethink”, “newspeak”, still influence public opinion today. The term “newspeak” (in the original newspeak) is currently used to designate a language that is totalitarian in its function, as opposed to natural language, which serves as a means of human communication.
In Russia, the English writer George Orwell is known primarily for his novel “1984” and the satirical story “Animal Farm.” They clearly contained criticism of the Soviet totalitarian regime, which is why the novel became a political pamphlet that played a significant role in Western propaganda during the Cold War.
In turn, the ideologists of Soviet propaganda insisted (and perhaps not without reason) that J. Orwell, who exposed the iron cages of real socialism, with his novel “1984” was aiming not so much at the Soviets, but at the country of which he was a citizen at that time – to the UK [2]. However, what is significant is that the book itself was not published in the Soviet Union until 1989 and was banned so that the reader could not compare what he read with what he observed around him.
Orwell was led to the story “Animal Farm” and the novel “1984” by both book and real-life experience. From August 1941 to November 1943, the writer worked for the BBC (hosting programs on India), which allowed him to understand the mechanism of “ideological indoctrination” of people. A significant role was also played by the six months spent in Spain during the civil war - most of this time Orwell fought on the Aragonese front in the POUM brigade [3].
In his essay “Remembering the Spanish War” (published in 1943), he doubted that it would ever be possible to create a true account of it. history: What evidence will Franco keep for the future? And the Republicans, according to Orwell, often resorted to lies. Orwell was convinced that the Republic failed not only because of the military superiority of the Francoists, but also because of ideological intolerance within the Republic itself, purges and reprisals against those who had the courage to defend independent political opinions.
“Some kind of history will be written, and when all those who fought leave, this story will become generally accepted. And that means, if you look at things realistically, a lie inevitably acquires the status of truth,”
- said Orwell. The germs of the writer’s main works are obvious here.
In this material we will primarily touch on two themes that run like a red thread through Orwell’s entire work “1984” - this is the theme of war and the theme of the “new language of deception”, the expressive means of which is “newspeak”.
The concept of war in Orwell's novel "1984"
In the world of George Orwell's 1984, divided into three superstates (Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia), war plays an important role in their strategy. As researchers of Orwell’s work rightly note, the survival of each of the three states was based on the following internal and external strategies.
First, the state must subject its citizens to the will of Elder Brother (Big Brother); secondly, the state had to fuel the population’s hatred of its enemy through a constant state of limited, local war; thirdly, states must maintain a balance and enter into more and more new alliances with a certain periodicity in order to prevent the complete unification of two states against a third [4].
War in the world of George Orwell plays a completely different role than it played before - it is not waged to conquer territories, not to unite people in one state, not to seize new markets, and not even to enrich the ruling group. The war in the world “1984” is essentially a fiction, which is intended primarily for the domestic consumer.
“Compared to past wars, the current one is simply a fraud. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, even if they were aware of the commonality of their interests and sought to limit the destructiveness of war, still waged a real struggle with each other, and the winner always ruined the vanquished.
Nowadays, as is easy to see, war is a purely internal matter. The war is waged by the ruling group against its subjects, and the purpose of the war is not to avoid the seizure of its territory, but to preserve the social order. Therefore, the very word “war” is misleading. It would be better, apparently, to say that, having become permanent, the war stopped altogether...
If the superstates, instead of fighting each other, had agreed to live in permanent peace, each within its own inviolable borders, the results would have been the same. Eternal peace is the same as eternal war" [1],
Nowadays, as is easy to see, war is a purely internal matter. The war is waged by the ruling group against its subjects, and the purpose of the war is not to avoid the seizure of its territory, but to preserve the social order. Therefore, the very word “war” is misleading. It would be better, apparently, to say that, having become permanent, the war stopped altogether...
If the superstates, instead of fighting each other, had agreed to live in permanent peace, each within its own inviolable borders, the results would have been the same. Eternal peace is the same as eternal war" [1],
– this is what the main character of Orwell’s novel “1984” Winston Smith writes in his diary.
This is precisely the meaning of the slogan of the ruling party of Oceania: “War is Peace.” In political terms, the meaning of war is that, on the one hand, it is a zone of entropy, where you can dump all the accumulated negativity of society, and on the other hand, it is a phenomenon with the help of which you can evoke the necessary emotions - joy, fear, etc. War is thus a means of control over society.
“Even the most inconspicuous member of the Party must be competent, hardworking and even intelligent within some narrow limits, but at the same time it is necessary that he be a gullible and ignorant fanatic, that his predominant feelings are fear and hatred, that he is capable of worship and to fiery rejoicing.
In other words, his entire state of mind must correspond to the state of war. In this case, it does not matter whether the war is actually being waged or not, and since there cannot be a decisive victory, it does not matter whether military operations are successful or unsuccessful. Only one thing is important: that a state of war exists” [1].
In other words, his entire state of mind must correspond to the state of war. In this case, it does not matter whether the war is actually being waged or not, and since there cannot be a decisive victory, it does not matter whether military operations are successful or unsuccessful. Only one thing is important: that a state of war exists” [1].
Members of the Inland Party of Oceania, writes Orwell, often know that some reports from the front are false, and that there is either no war at all, or it is being waged for completely different purposes than those that were proclaimed. But this knowledge is easily neutralized by doublethink.
According to Orwell, doublethink is the ability to simultaneously hold two opposing beliefs (which is possible as a result of special indoctrination and rewriting the past) or change one’s opinion to the opposite if ideologically necessary. For this reason, every member of the party has no doubt that the war is on and will undoubtedly end in the victory of Oceania.
If a person began to doubt the veracity of the official version or risked expressing politically unacceptable thoughts that contradict the principles of Ingsoc (English socialism), he committed a “thought crime.” Those who committed “thought crimes” were arrested by the “thought police.”
The Thought Police in Orwell's novel is a secret security agency charged with capturing and punishing people disliked by the authorities. This governing body is located in the Ministry of Love, where people were tortured in order to force them to sincerely believe the policies of the state. In this way, Big Brother controlled public opinion.
An important feature of the thought police is the ability to ensure that the population lives with a sense of constant surveillance. The feeling that your every step is controlled leads to complete psychological suppression of a person. People have no right to feel dissatisfaction with life and are unable to even think about opposing the ruling party [5]. In their work, the Thought Police use many scientific discoveries and technological inventions, such as the television screen, which is a mixture of television and CCTV camera.
But let's return to the topic of war.
In the world of 1984, none of the opposing superstates are able to achieve complete victory over their opponents. Oceania cannot defeat Eurasia, and, as already indicated above, such goals, apparently, are not set. In Orwell's dystopia, "the economy exists only through war and for war."
“Everywhere there is the same pyramidal structure, the veneration of a semi-deified leader, and an economy that exists only through war and for war. It follows from this that not a single superstate is capable of conquering others, but even if it did, it would not derive any benefits from it. On the contrary, while they are at enmity, they serve each other as support” [1],
- writes Orwell.
In the year the novel takes place (1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. And neither in public nor in private statements was it allowed to say that at one time these three forces were grouped differently. But the main character of the work, Winston, knew very well that in fact only four years ago Oceania was at war with Eastasia and was an ally of Eurasia.
However, it was just a piece of secret knowledge that he possessed because his memory was not well controlled. Officially, no change of allies ever occurred. Oceania is at war against Eurasia - which means that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Whoever was the enemy at the moment was always portrayed as an absolutely eternal enemy.
Some Orwell scholars believe that this sudden change of enemy and ally of Oceania parodies the sudden change in Soviet propaganda towards Nazi Germany in 1939 and a similar change in German propaganda towards the USSR during the same period, and then the reverse jump on June 22 1941.
Newspeak is a language that serves the ideology of the ruling group
“The peculiarity of a totalitarian state is that, while controlling thought, it does not fix it on one thing. Dogmas are put forward that are not subject to discussion, but change from day to day. Dogmas are needed because absolute obedience of subjects is required. However, it is impossible to do without adjustments dictated by the needs of the policies of those in power. Having declared itself infallible, the totalitarian state at the same time rejects the very concept of objective truth.”
– wrote J. Orwell in his essay “Literature and Totalitarianism” in 1941.
Control over thought is, first of all, control over language, over how people speak, what means of description they use [2]. In the novel 1984, the government of Oceania, with the help of linguists, develops and introduces a new form of language - Newspeak. Newspeak, the official language of Oceania, was developed to serve the ideology of Ingsoc, or English socialism.
Newspeak is the English language with the most simplified grammar and vocabulary. At the time of the work, 1984, Newspeak was not yet widespread among the people. The government plans to completely replace Oldspeak (ordinary English) by 2050. Words that contradicted party policy were designated as thought crimes.
The vocabulary of Newspeak is constantly shrinking: one word takes on the functions of a noun and a verb, others lose some of their meanings. The word loses the ability to convey shades of feelings, a complex train of thoughts, thereby they are simplified, as if annulled, because the authorities do not need all this: it is too difficult to control. This is what happens, for example, with the word “freedom”: in Newspeak you can say “the dog is free from the collar,” but “freedom of speech” is not. The last construction and similar ones are considered a thought crime [5].
Newspeak, the language of manipulation (and here J. Orwell was ahead of his time), flourishes in the era of post-truth, distortion and deception in the name of gaining and extending power, in the name of keeping key life-support resources under control by a small group of those in power. The bureaucratic machine masters the art of substituting concepts and evaluative modes [2].
And now the drying out of the sphere of social protection - healthcare or education - becomes “optimization”, bringing the corresponding area to its optimal, supposedly necessary state. Closing enterprises and laying off workers becomes a “reorganization.” An explosion becomes a “bang,” a plane crash becomes a “hard landing,” and an economic recession becomes a “decline in economic growth.”
Semantic manipulations have limited applicability if they obey the laws of logic, but in totalitarian states the rules of formal logic are subject to replacement by dialectical balancing act, giving rise to doublethink: peace is war, freedom is slavery [2].
It is worth noting that the current situation in the media sphere is increasingly reminiscent of the gloomy picture that George Orwell painted for us in his dystopian novel. Despite the fact that the totalitarian states that the British writer harshly criticized no longer exist, after the Second World War the era of a total-manipulative information society began.
As a conclusion
It is a mistake to believe that “totalitarian dictatorship” for J. Orwell was synonymous only with Hitlerism and Stalinism - he wanted to demonstrate that the totalitarian system, in whatever country, in whatever circumstances it arose, invariably has a number of typical characteristics and tries to control thoughts and feelings of their subjects. This statement seems quite controversial, but the author’s goal is to explain what exactly Orwell wanted to say with his dystopian novel and what role war played in it. Criticism of “1984” was not the purpose of this material.
“Totalitarianism has encroached on freedom of thought in ways never before imagined. It is important to be aware that his control over thought pursues not only prohibitive, but also constructive goals. It is not just forbidden to express - even to admit - certain thoughts, but it is dictated what exactly one should think.
An ideology is created that must be accepted by the individual, control his emotions and impose a pattern of behavior on him... The end of literature as we knew it is inevitable if totalitarianism is established everywhere in the world. That’s what has happened so far where he prevailed,”
An ideology is created that must be accepted by the individual, control his emotions and impose a pattern of behavior on him... The end of literature as we knew it is inevitable if totalitarianism is established everywhere in the world. That’s what has happened so far where he prevailed,”
– Orwell wrote in his essay “Literature and Totalitarianism.”
Of course, Orwell exaggerated - neither in Bolshevik Russia, nor in fascist Italy, nor even in Nazi Germany (these were the states that were considered totalitarian) literature ceased to exist. Moreover, it developed one way or another. However, ideological restrictions were indeed imposed on it, which George Orwell was opposed to.
He also saw totalitarian tendencies in states that considered themselves democratic - in particular, the image of the “Ministry of Truth” was inspired by Orwell’s work experience at the BBC. English readers will easily recognize the building described in 1984 as the BBC building on Portland Place.
One of the central themes of Orwell's novel 1984 is the theme of war, which totalitarian states constantly used to control the population. War in Orwell's world is constant, permanent. Without war there would be no justification for low living standards, and besides, war served as a means to unite people.
“As long as the war could be won or lost, no ruling class had the right to behave completely irresponsibly. But when a war becomes literally endless, it ceases to be dangerous... Capacity and even combat effectiveness are no longer needed. In Oceania, everything works badly, except the thought police" [1],
– writes Orwell in “1984”.
One can disagree with Orwell and criticize him, pointing out, for example, the rather vague meaning of the concept of “totalitarianism” (which for Orwell is a kind of embodiment of evil), or unfair criticism of socialism. However, for Orwell there were always two socialisms - one that he saw in Republican Spain (which he supported), the other that established by Stalin (which he had a negative attitude towards) [6].
“Socialism, if it means only centralized management and planned production, has in its nature neither democracy nor equality,”
– he wrote in a review of J. Burnham’s book “The Managerial Revolution” [6].
Be that as it may, regardless of our attitude to Orwell’s views (sometimes very contradictory), it should be noted that he created a fairly plausible and gloomy world and correctly identified many trends, especially in the media sphere.
Doctor of Sociological Sciences Mikhail Chernysh in the article “Orwell: an honest word in an era of ideological conflicts,” wondering what the secret of the success of “1984” was, noted that the strength of George Orwell’s works is that he really knew how to look into the future and pose problems before they appeared, and thereby warn about the dangers that threaten societies as technology develops.
“He owes his popularity to the fact that in an era of great confrontations he managed, like few others, to maintain the freedom to say what he thinks, to be himself when it was especially difficult” [2].
Использованная литература:
[1]. George Orwell. "1984".
[2]. Chernysh M. F. Orwell: an honest word in the era of ideological conflicts // World of Russia. T. 30. No. 1. P. 163–172.
[3]. Krasavchenko T. N. The Path to History: How George Orwell entered the canon of world literature.
[4]. Litvyak O. V. The idea of national statehood in J. Orwell’s novel “1984” / O. V. Litvyak, A. S. Kamenchuk. // Modern pedagogical education. – 2021. – No. 3. – P. 213–219.
[5]. Tishakov E.V. State control over science in George Orwell’s novel “1984.” – Materials of the XIV International Student Scientific and Practical Conference “Dialogue of Cultures - Dialogue about Peace and in the Name of Peace” (Komsomolsk-on-Amur, April 21, 2023). – Komsomolsk-on-Amur: AmGPGU, 2023.
[6]. Chalikova V. A. Comments on J. Orwell’s novel “1984” / collection “George Orwell: “1984” and essays from different years.” – Ed. "Progress". – M, 1989.
Information