In his 1984 writing, Orwell (p.10) indicates how the societies fight to archive utopianism. There are high hopes that the current settings of the twenty-first century and the predictable future of governance will be sustainable and responsible especially on issues of cultural identity and preservation. As predicted in ‘1984’ by Orwell (p.10), the current major threat to humanity is lack of enough support for local uniqueness and distinctiveness. People have not yet embraced the need for cultural enrichment in their day-today lifestyles.
According to him (p.2), the future holds possibilities for more personal, meaningful and understandable relationship or the need to understand the social cultural settings in a better way. Utopia destiny is a collection of ideas for a sustainable future.
Orwell (p.12), sparks ideas that are more creative and that inspire ambitions for better lifestyles and techniques of governance.
Human lifestyle will need less governance by rules and more enhancement of behaviour, unlike the past when people did not exhibit thoughts. This is well depicted from the character of Watson who was an official, whose role was diminished by the totalitarian rule at airstrip one. The situation at England forces Watson to confine personal thoughts to private writings, away from the telescreen (Orwell, p.3).
Most of current work-tools such as the television, surveillance webcams, cell phones and listening appliances relate to the telescreen due to easy manipulation and ability to preach propaganda. These unnecessary political wrangles make officials to behave in a definite and similar manner of thoughts and actions. The type of governance in his writing tries to limit information from publicity, just like the current government. The public in certainly not sure of the way government officials utilize fund allocations. The government often conceal the required transparency, and citizens never know what the head of state does every day due to limited form of communication.
There is however some improvements due to the media freedom thus the reason why we are able to know majority of the details that can affect governance such a good example was the Lewinsky-Clinton incident in the white house. Recording of thought by state officials such as Watson was a critical crime according to 1984 by Orwell (p.2). Comparatively, the officials fail to reveal information, because they are in accord with reasons and service to the “Big Brother” who in this case is the government Orwell (p.19). The twenty first century government want similar situations where those involved stand in accord with one objective.
Revealing of career-disparaging information is also questionable in majority of the current government systems. There is a close connection between the behaviours of 1984 governance and the current one, since people have to follow defined procedures. They are possibly not as harsh as those of the twenty-first century are but when we break laws, the consequences for our actions are still unsympathetic.
The restrictions as shown in the 1984 by Orwell (p.37), indicates that people were restricted to speaking in the workforce since this would be social interactions. Social interaction is also a prohibited practice in majority of the workforce today.
The workplace is not a social situate but a work setting. We can consider the way of life from Orwell writing as despicably over-harshness, but it is very similar to how we act today. Order and efficiency requirement for are common to all social settings. One of the key reasons why earlier and current governance styles find it necessary to engage doublespeak, is because it is a natural way of realizing slavery into the systems and where total surveillance in put into practice.
As Orwell (p.4), puts it, the character Watson works for the government as a propaganda asset whose task is to alter information in support of government actions or claims and still believe in the truth of those claims.
Today people still respond instinctively with a similar concept or logic of doublespeak. Doublespeak is not a confine in the text of Orwell, but is an evident part of our society as well. Good examples include our government fight for peace. U.
S. government engagement in war with Iraq on March 19th 2003, due to the assertion by the Bush Administration that Iraq was in violation of some U.N. Security Councils Resolutions among them being in possession of weapons of mass destruction seem ridiculous (Bush, p.1) . It is not possible to fight in order to enhance peace.
Fighting stands in the way of peace and therefore current peacekeeping forces resembles the classical use of doublespeak where Orwell (p.4), bring in the name of ministry of peace in the writing. Arguably, today and future prospective consists of doublespeak in action rather than verbalize. Is our government really concern with the welfare of citizens through defence and need for peace, or is hiding the concept of invasion and attack in their undertakings?
Orwell (p.5) presents the patriot act in his writing where citizens are required to forsake freedom, which the government alleges to protect and freedom.
The concept is outrageous and lacks meaning. Relinquishing basic human rights to gain freedom is doublespeak. The Orwell’s indication (p.4), that “War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength” is total doublespeak.
Almost every religion preaches peace and prohibits violence.
If our religious practices were for the love of neighbourliness, then it is doublespeak to consider a holy conflict.
Bush, George. “Remarks on Iraq.” National Assembly, 2003.
Web. October 25 2010. Orwell, George. “1984.” New York, NY: Signet Classic Publishers.1977