Log in

View Full Version : my essay (please review!!)



omni29
03-07-2009, 11:06 PM
The novel shows that the manipulation of language is the most powerful means of controlling the minds of individuals. Discuss.

In the novel ‘Nineteen eighty-four”, written by George Orwell, the dystopian society of Oceania is maintained through the use of many control measures, including the falsification of the past, streams of constant propaganda and organisations for children. However, the most powerful and central method of control is not just the ongoing manipulation of language in the development of Newspeak, but also the thought process of doublethink. Although the other systems mentioned are effective in identifying, converting and eliminating heretics, Newspeak and doublethink bring on an era where they will no longer be necessary, at least not to such an extent, as heretics cannot exist in a world where unorthodox thought and speech is not possible. By the purging the English language of unorthodox words and double meaning and controlling the minds of their people through doublethink, the Party will be able to create a world in the near future in which it will be literally impossible to express or even imagine an unorthodox thought.

The Party uses children’s organisations to control the minds of its youth from a young age. They explicate to children that their loyalties lie only with the Party. They are also encouraged these various leagues and organisations (eg. Anti-sex league, Junior spies) to reject relationships of any kind and spy to on their surrounding individuals, even their own parents. The extent of the indoctrination is shown by Orwell through the inclusion of the Parsons children in the novel. These children are completely unlike those that exist in our world; they are desensitised to violence and clamber to attend a public hanging. “They’re disappointed because they couldn’t go to see the hanging” says Mrs Parsons, quite casually, suggesting this desire is not uncommon among the youth of Oceania. The children are ruthless in their quest to weed out the unorthodox and, as a result, even their mother lives in fear of being denounced by her own children: “What stuck Winston most was the look of helpless fright on the woman’s greyish face.” These children will grow into adults who have, through the course of their life, been completely brainwashed with propaganda and have never experienced life before the revolution. Without this comparison, their desire to rebel is diminished, almost to the point non-existence. However, when Newspeak becomes the primary language of Oceania and Oldspeak is forgotten, these organisations will no longer be necessary. What need is there for the ‘Anti-sex League’ when sex and all its meanings has been deleted from the language without a trace?

Newspeak is the control of thought through language and is described as “the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year”. The Party seeks to create this language for two purposes. The first is to drastically reduce the frame of thought that an individual is capable of, which will in turn increase their submissiveness. Just as Syme says, “Every year fewer words,… and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.” With the adoption of Newspeak, the public will be more tolerant to the terrible standards that they are kept in; more susceptible to Party propaganda and more unaware of the Party’s actions and their own surroundings and this is exactly what is desired by the Party as “orthodoxy is unconsciousness”. There will no longer words like freedom and peace as “the whole concept of freedom will be abolished”. This will make it much easier for the public to accept their meaningless life of poverty and slavery as the concepts and words to describe something better than what they have will be eradicated, hence rebellion against the Party will cease to exist. The second reason is to eliminate double meaning and unorthodox words and therefore abolish heretical thought. After all, we think in words, so how can one have an unorthodox thought if there no longer exists a word in which to think it? In the appendix, Orwell writes that “It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted,… a heretical thought should be literally impossible.” These two effects result in strengthening the Party’s control over the minds of their people. Just as Newspeak controls thought, falsification of the past controls memory.

Falsification of the past and propaganda play significant roles in keeping the memories of individuals under control. The Party is constantly changing records of the past in order to support the propaganda spread by the Party. The telescreens found in every house, shop and city street are used to send waves of misinformation which all seems to show that the Party has improved life in Oceania. This includes lowering rations but reporting the reduction as an increase by changing records. This is evident when Winston, along with Syme and Parsons, is brought via telescreen an announcement informing them that the chocolate ration had been increases to 20 grams a week when “only yesterday… it had been announce that the ration was to be reduced to 20 grams a week.” There is no longer any physical proof stating that the ration was in fact reduced – “the chosen lie would pass into the permanent records and become truth”. By doing this, the Party makes the public more content with the government and their regime, which reduces the chance of heresy. However this type of reality and memory control would not be possible at all if it were not for the use of doublethink.

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs. This thought process is essential for the government of Oceania in keeping the minds of its individuals under control. The purpose of doublethink is to provide a frame of thought to the public so that they can accept whatever the Party releases as truth. The Party needs its public to be able to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, only “to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed” and then, promptly forget it once again. The flexibility of mind that is afforded by doublethink reduces the chance of a member of the public realising that the majority of information provided by the Party is in fact contradictory and hence a lie. Without doublethink, the falsification of the past would not be possible as both the people altering the documents and records and the public would see that the Party is lying about their past and that, in fact, standards of living are diminishing every year, which would result in rebellion.

Together, Newspeak and doublethink have the potential to replace all the control measures that are currently in place in the world of ‘Nineteen eighty-four”. There will be no need for other systems of control as there will be no heretics. Unorthodox thought and speech will become more and more difficult as Newspeak reaches its advanced stages and doublethink will allow the public to label everything said by the Party as truth. For what use it there for the Thought Police, telescreens and torture when the minds of the masses are so completely under the Party’s control?

JBI
03-08-2009, 02:49 AM
It's wordy and uses long, often run-on sentences. Try to keep one point per sentence, or at most two extremely related points. You also don't use any quotes, so your thesis (what thesis) doesn't have any real support. Don't analyze texts, criticize texts. All essays should argue, and I don't feel yours does.

The Atheist
03-08-2009, 03:51 PM
Pretty good effort - if I were marking it, you'd do ok.

JBI has some valid points regarding length of sentences, so only small changes are needed.

I don't think you necessarily have to argue any points as the idea is to show that you understand the uses in the book rather than explore whether or not they're right. Arguing the points might get you a higher mark, but you also might lose continuity which is good.

omni29
03-08-2009, 07:02 PM
Thank you! That's really helpful (both of you). [btw JBI i did use quotes]

JBI
03-08-2009, 07:58 PM
No, The Atheist, if it is a good essay, it needs an argument. Critical essays aren't to understand the work, but to interpret the work. One doesn't say what happens, one says why it happens or the affects it has.

The Atheist
03-09-2009, 03:00 AM
No, The Atheist, if it is a good essay, it needs an argument. Critical essays aren't to understand the work, but to interpret the work. One doesn't say what happens, one says why it happens or the affects it has.

Ever hear the old expression about spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar?

Maybe putting the cart before the horse will be a better guide.

five-trey
03-15-2009, 12:05 AM
It's wordy and uses long, often run-on sentences. Try to keep one point per sentence, or at most two extremely related points. You also don't use any quotes, so your thesis (what thesis) doesn't have any real support. Don't analyze texts, criticize texts. All essays should argue, and I don't feel yours does.

I disagree; every essay is not an argument. An essay is required to do what's asked of it. Here the objective is a bit ambigious with the word "Discuss," but that definately does not imply that the writer should argue. More so, it indicates that the writer should ANALYZE the work, not argue the prompt's validity.

I do, however, whole-heartedly agree with your second post: an essay should discuss "why" something happens, not "what" happens. And I think that is probably this essays biggest weakness.

While you discuss the various ways that language is used as a means for control in 1984, you don't touch on the depths of the discussion. Why does Orwell portray language as a powerful force in the wrong hands? Basically, you need to discuss the purpose of the novel.

Another thing about your essay is that it is so restricted within the confines of 1984. Your essay is in a shell, suffocating because it is so limited in its discussion. You have to break out of that shell, possibly use outside examples, and ultimately relate this novel and its purpose to the reader of your essay. How does language as a tool of mass manipulation speak about our time? Orwell's time? Pass the baton to your audience; give them reason to think after reading. The best place, and sometimes only place, to do this is in your conclusion.

omni29
03-16-2009, 02:26 AM
In response to JBI, I finally got the essay checked by my teacher and she said it was fine that I didn't argue; I guess Australian marking is different to Canadian marking, but thanks anyway. :)

The Atheist
03-16-2009, 03:10 PM
In response to JBI, I finally got the essay checked by my teacher and she said it was fine that I didn't argue; I guess Australian marking is different to Canadian marking, but thanks anyway. :)

What class are you in?

omni29
03-16-2009, 07:20 PM
12 (17 years old) - yeah our school system not too great i know

The Atheist
03-18-2009, 03:17 AM
12 (17 years old) - yeah our school system not too great i know

Take a tip - none of them are great. I'm in NZ, so our schools are extremely similar to yours.

I'll be interested in your mark, because at your age, the main focus for me would be showing that you understand the book.

Let us know.

& Good Luck!

omni29
04-25-2009, 09:59 AM
I got an A, if you still want to know : )

The Atheist
04-25-2009, 05:05 PM
Well done!

omni29
04-27-2009, 08:19 AM
thanks, with a lot of help from this website mind!