Skip to main content

In 1984, what is the concept of doublethink?

In 1984, the concept of "doublethink" centers on the practice of accepting two opposing opinions as truth.


Winston explains it as the ability "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out." The book provides an example of "doublethink" through how the government treats proles (the proletariats or working-class citizens).


On one hand, the Inner Party claims the proles needed to be freed from the clutches of capitalism; according to the ruling class, men "had been hideously oppressed by the capitalists, they had been starved and flogged, women had been forced to work in the coal mines...children had been sold into the factories at the age of six." On the other hand, the Inner Party asserted the proles were nothing more than "natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals." The two claims are contradictory, but the Inner Party insists on the right to disseminate lies masked as truths.


Later, we are told "doublethink" is central to Ingsoc (English Socialism). The Inner Party uses it as a way to maintain an appearance of "complete honesty" while working to make "conscious deception" acceptable to the masses.



To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary.



In the book, even the names of certain government entities contain elements of "doublespeak" and "doublethink."



The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in DOUBLETHINK. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely.



The purpose of "doublethink" is to delude the masses and keep citizens destabilized enough to distrust their own senses and realities; this is one way the ruling elite maintains its hold on power.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.