"Contrary to Conventional Logic: George Orwell’s Portrayal of Twentieth Century Totalitarianism"

February, 2021

Introduction

For the majority of human history, the definition of “civilization” has hinged upon a group of people collectively accepting the social contract under a centralized power--government. While governments can be a determinant for the development of “civilized” ideals, this centralized power is not inherently beneficial or benevolent, subject to the quality of those who possess control. Vague terms like “democracy” and “republic” have arisen over the last few hundred years to distinguish a certain government as more just than others, when in fact these qualifiers have become subject to the manipulative tendencies of corruption, used to mask avarice or justify violence. The interplay between corruption and facade came to a head in post-World War I Europe, where totalitarianism took an unprecedented stranglehold over countries like Germany, the Soviet Union, Italy, and Spain. George Orwell, born Eric Blair in 1903, came to middle age in an increasingly deteriorating Europe; with Joseph Stalin already in power in the Soviet Union as well as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini controlling Germany and Italy respectively, the Spanish Civil War began in 1936 between the Fascists and the Republicans, threatening to further empower totalitarianism. Orwell, an Englishman, enlisted on the side of the Republicans in 1937 to fight fascism, experiencing the realities of twentieth century war and totalitarian violence firsthand. As the Republicans eventually succumbed to Francisco Franco’s forces and Europe became farther polarized, Orwell returned to London, publishing Animal Farm after the end of World War II and 1984 just before his death in 1950. These works, along with the essay “Shooting an Elephant,” are primarily allegorical of the disjointed world of deceiving governments in which he spent his life, criticizing totalitarianism by taking it to its darkest extremes. Throughout his texts, Orwell portrays early twentieth century totalitarian societies as contradictory to conventional logic through the utilization of juxtaposition, animal symbolism, and paradox through his descriptions of totalitarian motives, mob mentality, and the manipulation of history.

​

In reality, the concepts of juxtaposition, symbolism, and paradox are intangible mental constructs; however, Orwell’s employment of these devices in describing totalitarianism emphasizes the perversions of reality present in these environments. History provides many views of what should be deemed “conventional logic,” but the most prevailing, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s social contract theory presented in The Social Contract, provide consistent qualifiers for how governments should govern. Although Rousseau’s theory asserts that the only just way to govern is for individuals to form a collective, he clarifies that, “If then the people promises simply to obey [it] loses what makes it a people,” (7). Since totalitarianism is a collective at its inception, its transition into an authoritative, unquestionable entity puts it in conflict with the social contract, flying in the face of any philosophically logical methods of governing. The entities that Orwell references, such as Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, appear as functional societies, but have paradoxically done away with socially conscious ethics in favor of total control. The nature of this unadulterated power is a significant culprit in the twisted logic present throughout 1984, Animal Farm, and “Shooting an Elephant.”

Totalitarian Motives and the Nature of Power

​

A totalitarian society cannot emerge without a power-hungry ruling party chasing absolute power, and in each of the aforementioned works, Orwell expands upon the nature of power and totalitarian motives, using juxtaposition to illustrate a totalitarian state’s relentless pursuit of power which has no place for diversity or individuality. 1984 details a worst-case scenario of worldwide totalitarianism through the eyes of its protagonist, Winston Smith. Throughout Winston’s haphazard quest to join with the shadowy Brotherhood to take down the Party, he is ruthlessly pursued and punished by members of the Inner Party, who seek to re-brainwash Winston before executing him. Winston’s torturer is O’Brien, who posed as a friend in order to goad Winston into committing irreversible crimes against the Party. When Winston asks why the Party is hellbent on maintaining power, O’Brien replies, “‘The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power’” (263). O’Brien’s statement is a juxtaposition of what a government of the people wants and what a government for power wants, revealing that power is itself the motive for more power, a feedback loop that simultaneously acknowledges and disregards its faults. This specific use of juxtaposition highlights a contrast between what can be democracy and totalitarianism, conjuring images of the fair England versus the tyrannical Germany. Orwell includes this statement to highlight the frightening absurdity of totalitarianism, the perversion of desire that absolute power generates.

​

Conversely, Orwell’s essay on his experience as a British colonial in India, “Shooting an Elephant,” details the intoxicating grip of power from the authority’s point of view--the pressure that comes from holding the weapon. Even though Orwell does not wish to kill an elephant that has destroyed parts of the town he patrols in, something inescapable grips him: “Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd -- seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet… when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys… He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” (36). This revelation juxtaposes the appearance of power with the true nature of power, illustrating it not as a gift but as a curse, as power seems to be more of an obligation than a choice. Orwell’s realization of the forsaking of freedom in order to maintain power sheds light on the nature of totalitarian oppression--they become what people want of them and can manipulate others from there. In the case of 1984, the governments become what the people want them to be and spend their time maintaining that image at any cost, as they are pushed not by their subjects but by the gullibility of their own will to power.

​

While in the previous two works Orwell utilizes juxtaposition as a tool to expose the situational irony inherent in totalitarianism, Animal Farm employs juxtaposition to emphasize the absurdity of its reality. As an allegorical work representing the story of the Soviet Union, this work does not provide commentary so much as it repackages it into a more digestible form. The working farm animals that represent the working class have lost hope of seeing the utopia that the pigs had promised them at the beginning of the revolution, and at the conclusion of the fable, they catch a glimpse into the farmhouse window, revealing the pigs and humans together: “Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which” (115). If the pigs truly are men, it follows that the juxtaposition of the species’ respective faces reveals that there truly is not any juxtaposition, as there seems to be no contrast; what should be a difference between pig and man is no longer distinguishable in nature. This bizarre finale serves to sum up Orwell’s perception of totalitarian leaders: no matter the motive for rebellion and control in the beginning, those with too much power are doomed to become the very oppressors which they had opposed. Societies will arguably always be the same if too much power lies in the hands of the leaders, who will go to lengths to consolidate their power. Irving Howe, a prominent literary critic, also highlights the importance of the nature of power in Orwell’s works in his 1982 literary review of 1984 entitled “Enigmas of Power.” Citing the eerily prophetic accuracy of Orwell’s commentary on power structures in the work, Howe writes, “Can we now be so certain that Orwell was wrong in giving O'Brien that speech about power... we have lived to witness a remarkable development of the Communist state: its ideology has decayed, far fewer people give credence to its claims than in the past, yet its power remains virtually unchecked… That a high Soviet bureaucrat might now talk to an imprisoned dissident in the bluntly cynical style that O'Brien employs in talking to Winston Smith does not therefore seem inconceivable” (30). This critical review reinforces the points Orwell makes throughout each of the three previous works, centering around the phrase “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” making use of the example of the Communist Party in 1982. Although their goal is no longer revolutionary, they still wear the same uniforms. Like the pigs’ faces, O’Brien’s speech indicates a drastic departure from conventional logic, directly supporting the claim that Orwell intentionally portrayed totalitarian societies with an addiction to the maintenance of the ruling class, as power is their interest. Through juxtaposition, Orwell illustrates the disconnect between totalitarianism and logic, highlighting the slippery slope that accompanies the pursuit of authority.

Creating the Sheep/Mob Mentality

​

Maintaining power over the masses is essential to prolonging the reign of a totalitarian regime, and in his works, Orwell emphasizes the effects of creating a mob mentality conducive to a regime among the masses through the employment of animal symbolism. With the most prominent example of this technique being Animal Farm, the setting of a fable is used to assign animal roles to the general groups that form a society. The indefinite masses become the sheep, while horses like Clover and Boxer are representative of the working class. Though the horses are not technically sheep, the way in which Orwell describes them speaks to his intentions for portraying them as strong yet mentally-weak. After Napoleon’s increasingly dictatorial and brutal actions to control Animal Farm, Orwell writes about Clover, “Whatever happened she [Clover] would remain faithful, work hard, carry out the orders that were given to her, and accept the leadership of Napoleon. But still, it was not for this that she and all the other animals had hoped and toiled. It was not for this that they had built the windmill and faced the pellets of Jones’s guns. Such were her thoughts, though she lacked the words to express them,” (71). As the embodiment of the female working class or societal body, Clover is illustrated as perceptive, yet without the powers of articulation that figures like Napoleon have. Although Clover can clearly see that Napoleon’s rule is wrong, she has never been taught how to express her thoughts by the regime, so she cannot unite the animals under her vision. Totalitarians use a lack of education to ensure less opposition, meaning that every complex contradiction to the bleating of the sheep fades from existence while the mob’s ideals stay at the forefront. This pattern exemplifies totalitarianism’s aversion to conventional logic, as their success is secured by the ignorance of the masses rather than their empowerment. In an article entitled “The Brain is Wider Than the Sky: Analogy, Emotion, and Allegory,” Paul Thagard of the University of Waterloo examines the efficacy of allegories in texts, using Animal Farm as a central example. Shedding insight into the historical basis for Orwell’s fable, Thagard uses models to draw equivalence between the story’s characters and the Russian Revolution, implying the necessity of ignorance to totalitarian control: “It is easy to construct the analogical mapping that Orwell used to highlight negative aspects of the Russian Revolution… the pigs are the communist revolutionaries, the other animals are the workers, the dogs are the secret police…” (135). Following this logic, the sheep in Animal Farm can be said to represent the brainwashed masses in the real world, forming a vital component of Orwell’s critique of totalitarian societies. The most universal analogy Orwell draws is between human sheep and animal sheep, which serves to emphasize how similar totalitarian sociological trends are to his fable. In order to function, totalitarian societies like Soviet Russia had to create a mob mentality, and Orwell uses Animal Farm to illustrate the bizarre reality of a society that values and fosters conformity over justice.

​

Even when Orwell’s works are not chiefly about fictional animals, the symbolism of animals can be found throughout works such as “Shooting an Elephant” and 1984. In these stories, animal symbolism also sheds light on Orwell’s portrayal of totalitarian states, specifically their reliance on the sheep mentality. After recounting the events of his actions to stop the elephant in India during “Shooting an Elephant,” Orwell transitions into an aside in which he explicates his motive to shoot the elephant instead of leave it be: “I often wondered whether any of the others [Indian civilians] grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool,” (40). Having acknowledged that his decision to act in favor of the chanting mob was not truly of free will, Orwell implies that he was under pressure from those he wanted to impress, therefore making an unwilling choice. The animal symbolism of shooting the elephant represents that in oppressive situations, it seems that the best action is always to side with the authority. Orwell implies that powerful regimes exploit this feeling to grow their military and fanaticism through artificially generating mob mentality. Without the creation of a pressure to conform, or a rampaging elephant, a totalitarian state has no true influence over its citizens, just as sheep will not follow if there is no authoritative leader. Orwell also uses animal symbolism to provide commentary on totalitarianism within his descriptions of the actions of characters in 1984. More specifically, Winston’s encounters with other workers in the Ministry of Truth reveal a stark contrast in the way that an independent person like him acts in comparison with one who is completely in the Party’s grasp. About a sycophant, Orwell writes, “It was not the man’s brain that was speaking; it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck,” (54). Emphasizing that a sycophant’s speech cannot be differentiated from that of a duck, Orwell implies that the sounds coming out of his mouth originate from Party programming rather than his own thought. The symbolism of the quacking of a duck represents the brainlessness of the “sheep” which the allegorical Party creates, indicative of a mentality that cannot be considered consciousness. Through his employment of animal symbolism, Orwell is able to emphasize the backwards nature of totalitarian societies, as their vision of model citizens hinges on anti-intellectualism rather than the strong values of independence and self-sufficiency. Even with total command over their subjects, totalitarian societies exploit the human predisposition to fit societal norms by not giving their subjects adequate means to become independent thinkers. Across his works, Orwell presents the sheep mentality in abstract form, using visual and sonic cues to distinguish between a weak and strong mind within an oppressive society.

Manipulation of Facts

​

Contrasting the notion of conventional logic, Orwell portrays totalitarian regimes of the 20th century as entities which have the potential to break free from the laws of physics through the exploitation of paradox; through these gaps in logic, the untrue can be perceived as true. The Party is one such fictional entity, and throughout 1984, it exists as a phantom. Influencing everything through its ministries and secret police, the Party uses its total control over its subjects to establish reality-altering systems that warp perception. Winston, as an employee of the Ministry of Truth, has a direct hand in “changing” the past through the alteration of articles and figures. Orwell describes the principles of allegiance to the Party and its system of distortion as follows: “And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting… All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control,’ they called it; in Newspeak, ‘doublethink,’” (34-35). As records can be manipulated, reality is malleable, and Orwell highlights the paradox of two simultaneous realities using “doublethink.” This paradox lies in the alteration of history, which can be solipsistically altered if one believes that it has been. Even if doublethink cannot technically exist, Orwell’s inclusion of the idea as a focal point illustrates how totalitarian governments were able to appear infallible, seemingly defying reality through mass misinformation. A malleable view of history is presented as a necessary trait within totalitarianism in 1984, and the paradox of doublethink serves to reinforce the concept’s lunacy, its ironic existence. The presence of paradox can also be found throughout Orwell’s life, with one such example found in his complicated feelings toward the Catholic church. In the literary magazine Commonweal, John Rodden and John Rossi’s review of Animal Farm, “A Book More Equal Than Others,” expands on the foundations of Orwell’s contradictory thinking. As a prominent power throughout Orwell’s life, the Catholic church was an inspiration, and Rodden and Rossi comment, “It would be fair to say he [Orwell] was not so much anti-Catholic as anti-church: it was not the faith as such that he found noxious, but the illiberal institution behind it… It was the hypocrisy of the church—indeed the extent to which it betrayed its own teachings and values, thereby turning itself into another mere ‘-ism’ like Marxism—that Orwell scorned,” (19). Orwell’s paradoxical view of Christianity provides insight into his perception of totalitarian deception, as the ability to separate faith from the church of that faith draws a direct parallel with how Winston was able to separate the fact that he had altered the past from the very action. Orwell simultaneously hated and appreciated Christianity, similar to how he viewed the British Raj--the imperial government Britain imposed on India--and the natives in “Shooting an Elephant”; similar to how history is both alterable and permanent. Ultimately, Orwell portrays the manipulation of facts as an intrinsic part of totalitarianism, with paradoxical, reality-defying concepts like doublethink arising from the need of citizens to absolve themselves of guilt while swearing total allegiance.

​

In addition to the allegorical Party of 1984, Orwell also explains how conditions for the manipulation of facts are created within reality in “Shooting an Elephant” and Animal Farm. Regarding the former, Orwell’s experience as an officer in British India is one of his first brushes with totalitarianism, as British control required an exertion of total power over Indian citizens and governments. Without a deep understanding of the big picture, this younger version of Orwell was much like Winston in that he knew the ends but not the means of colonial control. Recalling his confusion, Orwell writes, “With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saecula saeclorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s guts,” (32). The examination of having power through an empire and the detailing of the nonsense of enforcing law in a foreign territory (doublethink) serves to highlight the irregularity that the expansion of power brings. Ironically, Orwell’s hate for the state translates to a hate of those he wishes to liberate, illustrating the perversion of morals incurred as a result of the internal manipulation of facts. This is the paradox of enforcing power--those enforcing it see its folly and injustice, but at the same time are in a position where enforcing that power is paramount to their well-being. In societies where every citizen is a spy, Orwell suggests that these citizens will believe whatever facts the authority provides if it aligns with their own misgivings. On the other hand, the characters of Animal Farm are the victims of manipulation through constant misinformation that removes them from any significant power. While the invigoration of the masses is a core component of Orwell’s works, the complacency of the masses is equally as important, achieved through the deliberate manipulation of facts. As Animal Farm concludes bleakly, Orwell notes that Napoleon’s regime has not held up its promise to the animals to be better than their previous ruler, Jones: “There were times when it seemed to the animals that they worked longer hours and fed no better than they had done in Jones’s day… Squealer, holding down a long strip of paper with his trotter, would read out to them lists of figures proving that the production of every class of foodstuff had increased by 200 per cent, 300 per cent,” (75). A motif throughout Orwell’s totalitarian-addressing works is the inflated reports of production--the most blatant fabrication common among 20th century totalitarian regimes. The paradox lies in the fact that the animals produce more food yet are fed the same, and it is possible because they are not able to grasp that the figures could be false. A civilization in decline cannot technically prosper, but this is where totalitarianism is able to break from conventional logic through the sheer obedience of its dumbed-down, conformist masses. The manipulation of history is based on half-truth, an essential component of Orwell’s totalitarian nightmare. In roles of power and subservience, Orwell portrays the reality of totalitarianism as one of mental paradox--the tangibility of fiction pervading the minds of sycophants.

Conclusion

​

Though totalitarianism is not as prominent today as it was in the early 20th century, Orwell’s essays, novellas, and novels concerning this specific power structure have only increased in relevance, thanks to their prophetic longevity. The examination of Orwell’s utilization of juxtaposition, animal symbolism, and paradox sheds light on the specific phenomena the author saw as integral to this brand of totalitarianism--the patterns through which the style of governing departed from what can be considered as conventional logic. Each of these patterns--the alluring nature of power, the rise of a grand mob mentality, and the fabrication of reality--prevail throughout 1984, Animal Farm, and “Shooting an Elephant,” providing insight into Orwell’s perception of 20th century totalitarianism while serving as warnings to future readers, emphasizing signs of a government going too far. Orwell’s most influential works have evolved since his death, transforming from indictments of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and the British Empire to cautionary tales and eerily prognostic assessments of global society’s advancement. According to Toby Ord of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, the chances of an “existential catastrophe,” or an apocalyptic event, stand at just one in six when manmade scenarios are factored in; these catastrophes are not limited to extinction, and the global expansion of a ruthless totalitarian like the government would fall under this category. Orwell’s enigmas such as Big Brother have seen themselves nearly realized through the advancement of technology, which has given birth to a repackaged form of totalitarianism reliant on total surveillance rather than civilian spies. Di Minardi’s article for the BBC, “The Grim Fate that Could Be ‘Worse than Extinction,’” highlights this new development with the help of Ord, raising the question of the modern world’s vulnerability to a new totalitarian regime with world-enslaving ambitions. While this bleak possibility is no foregone conclusion, the patterns of totalitarians that Orwell emphasizes are only gaining relevance as what seemed to be science fiction in the 1940s is drawing nearer to realization. The means to conduct perpetual war, employ mass surveillance, and alter history on an unprecedented scale may already exist, and that is precisely why Orwell’s historically accurate observations on totalitarianism are important to analyze in modern times. Understanding how the impossibilities of reality distortion and the manipulation of perception can wake into existence will be vital for the modern generations, who must grapple with the collision course that the limitless power of technology and the eternal drug of control find themselves on. If humanity is to invalidate O’Brien’s statement of, “‘If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever,’” (267) all must learn to recognize the consequences of leaving power unchecked in a rapidly changing world.

Works Cited

Howe, Irving. “Enigmas of Power.” New Republic, vol. 187, no. 27, Dec. 1982, pp. 27–32. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11257098&site=ehost-live.

Minardi, Di. “The Grim Fate That Could Be 'Worse than Extinction'.” BBC Future, BBC, www.bbc.com/future/article/20201014-totalitarian-world-in-chains-artificial-intelligence.

Orwell, George. 1984: a Novel ; with an Afterword by Erich Fromm. New American Library, 1961.

Orwell, George, et al. Animal Farm. Penguin Books, 2015.

Orwell, George, “Shooting an Elephant.” Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays. Penguin Books, 2009.

Rodden, John, and John Rossi. “A Book More Equal than Others. (Cover Story).” Commonweal, vol. 143, no. 15, Sept. 2016, pp. 16–21. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=118124846&site=ehost-live.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, et al. The Social Contract: or, The Principles of Political Rights. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1906.

Thagard, Paul. “The Brain Is Wider than the Sky: Analogy, Emotion, and Allegory.” Metaphor & Symbol, vol. 26, no. 2, Apr. 2011, pp. 131–142. EBSCOhost, http://search.ebscohost.com.jeffcolibrary.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=59600132&site=ehost-live.