Harnessing Words, Shaping Minds: A Comparative Analysis of Newspeak in 1984 and Language Manipulation in Animal Farm

Harnessing Words, Shaping Minds: A Comparative Analysis of Newspeak in 1984 and Language Manipulation in Animal Farm

Md. Saddam Hossain^1*, Professor Dr. Md. Shahjahan Kabir², Farhana Yeasmin³, G.M. Nazmul Ahsan⁴, Md. Kaeum Sepai⁵

¹District Child Affairs Officer, Bangladesh Shishu Academy, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs

²Professor, English Discipline, Khulna University

³Assistant Professor, Department of English, Jashore University of Science and Technology

^4,5Student, MA in ELT, Khulna University

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8110281

Received: 18 December 2024; Accepted: 23 December 2024; Published: 26 December 2024

ABSTRACT

This study looks into the use of language as a tool of power and control in George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, particularly emphasizing language manipulation and its impact on society structures. The study uses a comparative analysis to investigate how Orwell depicts language control in both novels—1984 through the formation of Newspeak and Animal Farm through propaganda and rhetorical manipulation. The analysis uses fundamental theoretical frameworks, such as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, to investigate how language influences the mind, behavior, and perception of truth. In 1984, Newspeak was employed to limit thought and silence criticism; similarly, in Animal Farm, language was used to transform collective consciousness and legitimize repressive power dynamics. The results show that, while both novels emphasize the perils of verbal manipulation, 1984 focuses on structural control, whereas Animal Farm demonstrates language’s rhetorical power.

Keywords: George Orwell, Language Manipulation, Newspeak, Propaganda, Totalitarianism

INTRODUCTION

Language is used not just to communicate but to market ideas, persuade actions, and control entire populations. George Orwell, perhaps the most perceptive analyst of political and cultural systems, models the concept of language as a weapon in his best-known novels, 1984 (1949) and Animal Farm (1945). Orwell’s works show how language can be used to oppress, deceive, and solidify power. Orwell’s concept of Newspeak in 1984 demonstrates how lowering and restricting language may limit free thought, crush criticism, and remove the prospect of rebellion. Newspeak is the pinnacle of language control under a totalitarian state by reducing terminology and eliminating words that allow for critical thinking or opposition. On the other hand, Animal Farm shows a distinct but equally evil kind of linguistic manipulation. In the novel, Orwell, through propaganda, slogans, and persuasive speech, shows that those who are in power manipulate reality, change history, and rationalize their behavior. The farm leaders manipulate the common people through their language. They also give their people a fake sense of upgrading and equality while resistance subsides. The repeated saying, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” expose the hypocrisy and moral depravity that lurk beyond the surface of compelling language. This study aims to compare Newspeak in 1984 with language manipulation in Animal Farm. This study intends to explore the more profound consequences of linguistic control in shaping human thought, behavior, and society by evaluating how Orwell depicts language weaponization in these two distinct but interconnected narratives. It will look at Orwell’s warnings on how language, when controlled or corrupted, can rob individuals of their agency, pervert reality, and become the basis of totalitarian regimes. It highlights Orwell’s timeless attack on despotism and uncovers the enduring relevance of the texts for understanding the role of words in a deceitful world.

Research Questions

1. How does Orwell portray the relationship between language and thought control using Newspeak in 1984?
2. What language manipulation techniques are employed by the ruling class in Animal Farm, and how do they influence the perception of truth and power dynamics?
3. What similarities and differences exist in Orwell’s depiction of linguistic control in 1984 and Animal Farm, and what broader messages do these works convey about the power of language in totalitarian systems?

Research Objectives

1. To explain the function of Newspeak in 1984 that is intended to restrict free thought and help keep the authoritarian power in control;
2. To explore how propaganda, slogans, and rhetorical strategies were employed in Animal Farm and their ability to shape collective consciousness and reify power hierarchies;
3. To compare and contrast how language is used as a tool of politics in 1984 and Animal Farm －showcasing how Orwell critiques the political weaponization of language.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study employs the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Michel Foucault’s idea of power and discourse to interpret the complex interconnection between language and power depicted in George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests that language affects our thoughts and thus, our ideas about reality. That is very close to Orwell’s idea of Newspeak in 1984, where limiting words strengthensthe power’s control on thoughts, and it is impossible to conceive or articulate subversive thoughts when someone does not even have the words necessary to do so. It provides a basis for analyzing how the language constructs in 1984 perpetuate such a barbaric level of tyrannical power and control of society by the Party.

The Theory of Power and Discourse by Michel Foucault describes how power binds knowledge and produces our social worlds, as power can inform what can and should not be spoken. This is why it is correct to apply this paradigm to 1984 and Animal Farm, as it describes how power in a society sustains by manipulating language. Where the leaders of Animal Farm use narration as a mechanism of control justifying their rule, the Party in 1984 utilizes Newspeak to destroy all possibilities and maintain power.

By incorporating theoretical perspectives of language and power politics, this research develops an investigation of language as the major theme of Orwell’s work and its connections to the wider political contest against power.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Language as a tool for power and control has been frequently studied in Orwellian studies. This section examines significant scholarly viewpoints on Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, focusing on linguistic control, propaganda, and the link between language and power.

According to Christopher Hitchens (2002), Newspeak embodies the political power of language: the systematic elimination of words associated with dissent and insurrection which limits people’s ability to think freely. For example, in 1984, Anthony Burgess (1985) claims that the poverty of language helps produce a society in which all men are alike and docile through the elimination of vocabulary. For both cases, these results provide substantive evidence for the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which postulates that constraining linguistic resources constrain thought codability, specifically with respect to complex or contradictory concepts. Orwell (1946) emphasizes how language can be exploited to inhibit critical thought and political resistance. He contends that confusing, euphemistic language is used to misrepresent reality and serve political domination. Language is a weapon that is much stronger than anything else.

Woloch (2003) emphasizes the nuanced techniques in Orwell’s novels to show totalitarian coercion. In most of his works, Orwell talks about colonization or totalitarianism. Both 1984 and Animal Farm depict regimes that distort language to uphold hierarchies and suppress thought. It portrays that long-lasting power is guaranteed if thought can be suppressed. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis asserts that language shapes the perception of reality (Whorf, 1956). Power is related to language. Orwell builds on linguistic determinism suggesting that rulers control thought by controlling words. Words are the most powerful tools. Meyers (1975) discusses Newspeak’s structured vocabulary reduction to eliminate dissenting thoughts. Newspeak narrows linguistic expression, so rebellion becomes ‘unthinkable.’ Therefore, people will need help to think deeply.

According to Hitchens (2002), 1984 portrays a psychological ‘doublethink’ enabled through linguistic contradictions. If language is easy, life gets more challenging. In 1984, language becomes a weapon that enforces cognitive dissonance as a survival mechanism. Orwell criticizes euphemistic political rhetoric by portraying Newspeak’s destructive simplification (Burgess, 1985). Euphemisms in Newspeak conceal state violence and replace meaningful discourse. Many fascists used euphemisms to last long.

Glover (2001) explores how totalitarian regimes exploit language to restrict consciousness in Orwell’s novels. Language manipulation curtails freedom by eroding individuals’ ability to articulate dissent. Orwell’s Ministry of Truth destroys historical evidence, demonstrating control through language revision (Atwood, 2003). Without manipulation, illegal power cannot go further. By erasing words and rewriting history, the Party asserts eternal dominance. Rodden (1999) shows how slogans like “Four legs good, two legs bad” epitomize propagandistic oversimplification. Its gradual change shows propaganda in a cold mind. Animalism reduces ideology into simplistic terms, suppressing critical inquiry. Zwerdling (1974) highlights the repetitive nature of propaganda slogans. Repetition ensures slogans become ingrained, discouraging alternative interpretations. It is also an art if it is done correctly. Beadle (1976) examines how Squealer revises history to serve Napoleon’s agenda. Orwell uses Squealer as a caricature of the media, which distorts facts for political leaders. Sugarcandy Mountain is an outstanding example. Taylor (1984) argues that pigs are more verbally skilled and, thus, have the means to dominate. Bloom (1987) notes that phrases like ‘readjustments’ mask the cruel realities of lower meals. In short, euphemisms in Animal Farm influence perspective and manipulate the perception of exploitation as a necessary sacrifice. The characterization and their use of language show Orwell’s genius.

Hodgson (2010) states that both novels focus on erasing collective memory. Controlling historical narratives through language assures obedience in both Orwellian works. Eagleton (2016) asserts that Orwell’s works depict language as central to authoritarian ideology. In both texts, language is weaponized to align public thought with the regime’s goals. It is history that shapes the reader’s mind. Orwell (1945) claims that political language obfuscates real intentions. The simplification seen in Newspeak and Animalism reflects Orwell’s critique of political deceit. Orwell critiques propaganda using symbolic animals and ‘anti-language’ (Roberts, 1993). Slogans and Newspeak serve as tools of symbolic linguistic suppression. So, symbolic animals are the ones that show real-life characteristics.

Lewis (1997) argues that technology amplifies the effects of Newspeak compared to Animalism. Orwell contrasts the systemic linguistic control in 1984 with the pig-led manipulation in Animal Farm. Orwell’s pigs and party leaders employ words to fabricate realities (Beauchamp, 1984). Pigs are naturally dirty, showing their actual traits here. Leaders in both works distort language to construct compliant realities. Claeys (2010) situates Orwell as a pioneer of dystopian language critique. Later dystopian literature mirrors Orwell’s warnings about language manipulation. Arendt (1951) highlights parallels between Orwell’s works and real-world regimes. Orwell captures how dictatorships exploit language to sustain their dominance. Lakoff (1980) argues that Orwell anticipates the relationship between thought and metaphor. Orwell’s focus on language predicts cognitive frameworks controlling human thought. Orwell critiques how linguistic changes dehumanize individuals (Miller, 2003). Postman (1985) highlights parallels between Newspeak and modern media soundbites. Orwell’s predictions resonate today as the media compresses nuanced debates into oversimplified phrases. The same thing happens in both of the novels.

Carr (2010) identifies new forms of language manipulation emerging online. Modern technology use only quickens the control of language that Orwell laments. Lutz (1989) critiques the Orwellian manipulation of units within political discourses using euphemisms in political language.  The governments use their Orwellian strategies, sugar-coating destructive policies using seemingly harmless language even today. The core is that language controls others softly and forcefully later.

Even in the age of information, Orwell has important lessons in providing students with critical literacy (Applebee, 1996). Educators use 1984 and Animal Farm to challenge linguistic manipulation. Zuboff (2019) identifies linguistic erosion in modern surveillance societies. Orwell’s warnings about Newspeak foreshadow today’s linguistic distortions under surveillance capitalism. According to Ellul (1965), modern propaganda consists of repeated slogans. Animal Farm reminds the researchers of Orwell’s warning about repetition in today’s discourse. Hitchens (2002) explains how Orwell has been revisited in times of political upheaval. At the same time, though, Orwell’s observations about control through language are timeless and independent of context. Today, many countries’ systems resemble Orwell’s ideas. They are using the techniques that George Orwell did years ago.

METHODOLOGY

The researchers used qualitative study to examine linguistic manipulation in George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm. This article explores how Orwell depicts linguistic manipulation in both novels and identifies commonalities and differences regarding the use of linguistic control to maintain power. In this research, George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm worked as the primary sources of data and relevant books, scholarly articles, journals, web pages worked as the secondary sources of data. The work analyses how language shapes thoughts, acts, and social systems of each novel.

COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON 1984 AND ANIMAL FARM

The research shows that Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm represent language as a key tool for preserving authoritarian control. According to James A. Tyner (2004), 1984 uses language to repress individual thought, whereas Animal Farm reveals its collective and rhetorical strength. Both works, however, emphasize the importance of language in supporting authoritarian governments.

Newspeak words from 1984

In Orwell’s book 1984, the government uses a unique language called Newspeak to control people’s minds. They use words like ‘Big Brother’ and ‘Ingsoc’ to make themselves seem powerful and important. They punish people for thinking differently with words like ‘Thoughtcrime’ and ‘Doublethink.’

The government lies to people and takes away their stuff. It erases people from history and makes them ‘Unpersons.’ It also controls what people say and think, punishing them for showing any sign of disagreement. It even changes history and makes people believe false things.

Newspeak makes language very simple and forces people to think in a certain way. It uses words like ‘Goodthink’ and ‘Bellyfeel’ to make people agree with the government. It also uses strange words like ‘Plusgood’ and ‘Doubleplusungood’ to replace everyday words.

The government forces people to repeat things without thinking, a practice called ‘Duckspeak.’ They even call their labor camps ‘Joycamps’ to hide how bad they are. By controlling language, the government keeps people under its control and makes them obey.

A study of Newspeak, in 1984, shows how it limits thought and suppresses dissent. Newspeak eliminates the possibility of dissent by continuously reducing vocabulary and making grammar more simplistic. By replacing more nuanced phrases with singular ones like ‘doubleplusungood’, critical thinking is curtailed and conformity is encouraged. It demonstrates how verbal manipulation in 1984 acts as a direct method for cognitive suppression, in line with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. These words are utilized to control minds and manipulate the people in the land. The weaker their language is, the easier it is to make them function. Critical linguistic knowledge provides deep thinking that is harmful to fascists.

Uses of Language in Animal Farm

In Animal Farm, Orwell depicts how rhetoric and propaganda are used to modify reality and affect collective consciousness. Scholars such as John Rodden (1999) points out that statements like “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” show how language distortions are used to defend inequality. Ian Watt (1957) examines the systematic manipulation of the Seven Commandments, demonstrating how language emerges as a tool for legitimizing power institutions and maintaining control. These investigations highlight the way Orwell utilizes the farm as a metaphor for the perils of unfettered political manipulation.

Slogans

‘Four legs good, two legs bad,’

‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.’

Euphemisms

‘A readjustment of rations’ (instead of a reduction),

‘Napoleon is always right.’

Propaganda Phrases

‘Tactics, comrades, tactics!’

‘Surely, comrades, you do not want Jones back?’

Manipulative Lies

‘Snowball was a traitor,’

‘It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples.’

Twisting of History

‘It was Napoleon who led the charge at the Battle of the Cowshed,’

‘Snowball stole the idea for the windmill.’

In Animal Farm, propaganda, slogans, and truth distortion manipulate language. Phrases like “Four legs good, two legs bad” and the rewriting of the Seven Commandments demonstrate how the ruling class manipulates the perceptions of the animals in order to ensure obedience and silence opposition. In contrast to 1984’s overt structural control, Animal Farm shows the subtler, more communal implications of language in preserving power as the animals internalize and reproduce these messages. Squealer’s words and Napoleon’splay an overwhelming role in manipulating all the animals. Animals like Boxer easily fall to them, along with other victims. Propaganda is not possible without language’s exploitation.

Comparative Insights

Although the both novels deal with the dangers of controlling language, 1984 concerns structural manipulations of language through censorship and the cultivation of a restricted vocabulary, while Animal Farm is concerned with language’s rhetorical and propagandistic features. While each book takes a different approach, they serve Orwell’s point that “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

Orwell’s books 1984 and Animal Farm show how language can be used to suppress people. In 1984, the government use a unique language called Newspeak to limit people’s thoughts. They remove words and create confusing phrases to stop people from thinking freely. They also change history to make themselves look good and control the future. In Animal Farm, the pigs use clever words and slogans to trick the other animals. They lie and rewrite history to stay in power. Both texts show how language can be used to create an illusory reality. People need to be careful about the language they hear and think critically to avoid being manipulated.

The findings reflect Orwell’s intense worry about the power of language to mold the mind and govern communities, which he addresses differently in 1984 and Animal Farm. In 1984, the structural manipulation of language through Newspeak demonstrates how limiting vocabulary hinders intellectual freedom and prevents resistance to totalitarian regimes.

Orwell’s novel 1984 is still relevant today. It is about a world where the government controls everything, even people’s thoughts. They use language to control people, watch them constantly, and change history to suit their needs. This novel makes us think about the balance between safety and freedom. As technology gets better, government can watch each of our activity and control us. It is important to think critically and be careful about what we believe to protect our freedom. 1984 shows how government’s control impede democracy.

Animal Farm, on the other hand, emphasizes how words may be used rhetorically to change public perception. Orwell shows how language can distort facts, defend oppression, and uphold power relations through propaganda, slogans, and gradual rule rewriting. Using the animals’ trust, the farm officials show that controlling meaning may be as practical as direct repression.

The comparative analysis reveals that 1984 investigates individual repression through linguistic constraint, whereas Animal Farm focuses on collective manipulation through rhetoric. Together, they highlight how language becomes a hazardous tool for dominance, with ramifications for both past and present authoritarian governments.

CONCLUSION

Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell are classic examinations of how language can influence behavior, thought, and social institutions. In Animal Farm, Orwell uses rhetorical manipulation and propaganda, and in 1984, he cautions against the weaponization of language under totalitarian governments. The comparative study shows that Animal Farm stresses rhetorical techniques to influence public opinion and defend uneven power relations, whereas 1984 concentrates on structural and systemic linguistic control to stifle individual freedom. The results demonstrate how language both reflects and modifies reality, supporting the theoretical implications of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. In 1984, Newspeak’s simplification of ideas and terminology made revolt ‘unthinkable,’ highlighting how intellectual freedom is restricted when linguistic tools are restricted.Through euphemisms, historical revisionism, and repeated slogans, Animal Farm, on the other hand, emphasizes the more subtle and pernicious power of words. Orwell shows how language can alter individual and societal perceptions by exposing how it can be used to obliterate memory, distort reality, and normalize injustice. Since language manipulation continues in political, media, and technical contexts, Orwell’s writings are still essential today. In light of propaganda and euphemism discourse, the study highlights the persistent risks of linguistic control and stresses the value of critical literacy and alertness. By shedding light on the relationships among language, power, and social control, Orwell’s stories serve as a sobering reminder of the importance of defending freedom and truth at any age.

REFERENCES

1. Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of teaching and learning. University of Chicago Press.
2. Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace & Co.
3. Atwood, M. (2003). Orwell and me. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com
4. Beadle, G. (1976). The language of propaganda in Orwell’s Animal Farm.Modern Language Studies, 6(2), 26–38.
5. Beauchamp, G. (1984). Politics and the imagination: George Orwell’s fables. Studies in the Novel, 16(2), 137–151.
6. Bloom, H. (Ed.). (1987). George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Chelsea House.
7. Burgess, A. (1985). Little, Brown.
8. Burgess, A. (1985). Nineteen Eighty-Four and the politics of dystopia. Clarendon Press.
9. Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. W. Norton & Company.
10. Claeys, G. (2010). The origins of dystopia: Wells, Huxley, and Orwell. In G. Claeys (Ed.),The Cambridge Companion to Utopian Literature (pp. 107–131). Cambridge University Press.
11. Eagleton, T. (2016). The event of literature. Yale University Press.
12. Ellul, J. (1965). Propaganda: The formation of men’s attitudes. Vintage Books.
13. Glover, J. (2001). Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century. Yale University Press.
14. Hitchens, C. (2002). Why Orwell matters. Basic Books.
15. Hitchens, C. (2002). Why Orwell Matters. Basic Books.
16. Hodgson, P. (2010). Orwell’s forgotten legacy: Language, thought, and memory. Journal of Orwellian Studies, 8(3), 45–61.
17. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
18. Lewis, P. (1997). The Orwellian influence on dystopian fiction.
19. Lutz, W. (1989). Harper & Row.
20. Meyers, J. (1975). George Orwell: The critical heritage.
21. Miller, K. D. (2003). Language, manipulation, and control: Orwell’s prophetic insight. English Literary Review, 21(1), 30–48.
22. Orwell, G. (1945). Animal Farm: A fairy story. Secker & Warburg.
23. Orwell, G. (1945). Animal Farm. Secker & Warburg.
24. Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English language.
25. Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Secker & Warburg.
26. Orwell, G. (1949). Secker & Warburg.
27. Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. Viking Penguin.
28. Roberts, J. (1993). Symbols, power, and language in Animal Farm.Orwellian Review, 2(1), 11–25.
29. Rodden, J. (1999). The politics of literary reputation: The making and claiming of “St. George” Orwell. Oxford University Press.
30. Rodden, J. (1999). Understanding Animal Farm: A student casebook to issues, sources, and historical documents. Greenwood Press.
31. Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5(4), 207–214.
32. Sapir, E. (1956). The influence of language on culture. In D. G. Mandelbaum (Ed.), Selected writings of Edward Sapir (pp. 109–127). University of California Press.
33. Taylor, D. J. (1984). Orwell: The life. Henry Holt & Company.
34. Tyner, J. A. (2004). War, violence, and population: Making the body count. Guilford Press.
35. Watt, I. (1957). The rise of the novel. University of California Press.
36. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings. MIT Press.
37. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll, Ed.). MIT Press.
38. Woloch, A. (2003). The one vs. the many: Minor characters and the space of the protagonist in the novel. Princeton University Press.
39. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Public Affairs.
40. Zwerdling, A. (1974). Orwell and the techniques of doublethink. The Antioch Review, 32(1), 47–64.