Examples Of Manipulation In 1984 By George Orwell

Force and manipulation are used in ways to control and influence people into believing what a government, or majority, wants them to believe or do. In George Orwell’s 1984, when the main character is caught and punished, he is told that whatever the party holds to be truth is truth (Orwell 205). This is comparable to modern society when there are controversial issues or differences of opinion. The people are influenced in direct and indirect ways, manipulated by a majority for their own benefit and gain; even if it means the people may have to compromise their own rights or beliefs. A personal truth is not what matters.
Propaganda is widely used to control a citizen’s way of thinking, and is a strong tool of manipulation in both modern society

and Orwell’s novel. In an article by Kristina Benson regarding this issue, she brings up past president Woodrow Wilson and his writings in Leaders of Men. She writes, “Wilson outlines his perspective on leadership and persuasion: Men are not led by being told what they don’t know. Persuasion is a force, but not information; and persuasion is accomplished by creeping into the confidence of those you would lead” (Benson152). This relates to a similar quote in 1984, spoken by Winston: “Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence” (Orwell 229). This quote also parallels telling a person that ignorance is bliss or their lack of knowledge will not hurt them. Forms of propaganda can include, but are not limited to: social media, flyers, and the internet. They are all widely used especially when an election is underway. In a recent article, Trick or Tweet, Mahanta Siddhartha notes these ways that are used to make a sly impact. Some examples are flyers used to “merely startle people” during an election, sending out absentee ballots with wrong addresses and due dates, using sites like YouTube or Twitter to attack candidates and make up rumors or videos depicting a tainted morale. Mahanta adds, phone calls and texts were also used to persuade a voter while using slogans and misinformation to influence them (Mahanta 25). Autism is another issue commonly referred to as an epidemic, putting people in a state of panic when it comes to vaccinating their children since they are the main source for blame. Even without concrete evidence, vaccines are said to be a main cause. In an article by Sarah Glazer, she clearly states, “Two reports by a NAS blue-ribbon committee have failed to find a link between autism and childhood vaccines” (Glazer 2). She goes on to also include, “Despite new studies, many parents remain convinced that vaccines caused their child’s autism, especially since some of the classic symptoms of mercury poisoning seem to mimic autism” (Glazer 2). It appears that parents, without a medical degree, think they know the answer and choose to go against the facts that are medically proven. Jethro Mullen wrote an article specifically stating evidence from a study done on children who had an older sibling with autism. Mullen writes, “They found no evidence that receipt either 1 or 2 doses of MMR vaccination was associated with an increased risk of ASD” (Mullen 1). As previously stated, parents are influenced into believing the contrary, and as a result they are not getting their children vaccinated which proposes another issue, illness. As dozens of measles cases began popping up in the United States in recent months, unfounded fears about a link between vaccinations and autism have resurfaced (Mullen 1). This shows the power of propaganda. Parents are scared enough to not get their children vaccinated; therefore, their children become ill and it becomes a different issue. This is comparable to 1984 because of Big Brother’s influence, manipulation, and their use of articles, flyers, falsifying information and constantly changing it to keep control over the people.
Even though in 1984 there is an intense view of an oppressed society, the act of restricting or stripping a person of their personal rights is always an act of extreme control.

For instance, taking someone’s religious liberty or forcing them to compromise what they believe in is a violation and unjust. An example is the controversy in Indiana involving The Religious Freedom Restoration Act. People are upset and saying that the state is using the Bible and freedom of religion to discriminate against homosexuals. Genuinely said by the author, Tara Helfman, “Lost in all this fury was the simple purpose of these RFRA’s: They are designed to stabilize an unsteady line of judicial precedent regarding how judges should treat laws that impair the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.” (Helfman 28). Society forgets to acknowledge that certain religions may not agree with a certain lifestyle for reasons that are not for anyone else, but are personal and private. It is not discrimination, but more about personal beliefs and practices that should not to be taken personally by someone with opposing views. To persecute someone for what they believe in can been seen as a violation of their personal, religious views. Helfman adds, sometimes laws of general application-laws that are designed to apply equally to all Americans-impair the religious practice of some Americans (Helfman 29). Ironically in the text, 1984, a character in the book is overwhelmed with anxiety as he says, I allowed the word “God” to remain at the end of the sentence (Orwell 190). He knew he would be persecuted for using that word, even though there was absolutely no alternative that could take its place. The connection is very relevant, showing the controversy of religious views and rights. Although very opposite, sex is very much seen as taboo when openly discussed. Sex can be viewed as shameful. One way it can been seen as shameful is the fact that if it is liked “too much”, or in large

amounts, it is seen as an addiction. Sex can very well be an addiction, but that does not mean it is a mental disorder for every person who simply enjoys it in vast amounts or is open about it. Author Michelle Iwen observes, in modern society, culture is still relatively “sex negative” which holds that sexual expression is dirty, sinful, and wrong, except when it occurs in marriage and for reproductive purposes (Iwen 417). There are examples in 1984 that highlight this issue. Sex is viewed as a shameful act, seen as dirty, and only used as means for procreation. There is the anti-sex league, with women walking around in specific, red garb to show their celibacy, and the suppression of sexual desire is used to be seen as control. To support this comparison, Iwen makes a strong observation. She says more specifically, both sex addiction and alcohol addiction are “often coded as overindulgence, i.e., uncontrollable consumption with treatment requiring not homeostasis but extreme production in the form of abstinence, self-denial, and repression of desire” (Iwen 416). Similar to the text, being open about sex is seen as taboo or dirty, and the only way to counter that feeling and have control, is to supplement with the extreme. Gun control is an issue that surfaces when talking about liberties being restricted or taken away. In an argument against gun control, Joseph Sobran states, “The second amendment clearly forbids the federal government to “infringe” that right. Such a positive prohibition against such a power is much stronger than a tacit presumption against it (Sobran 2). He goes on to say, “The 10th amendment underlines the principle that all powers not ‘delegated’ to the federal government are ‘reserved’ to the states and the people. So the failure of the Constitution to delegate gun-control power to Congress should suffice to prove that Congress has no such power (Sobran 2). Sobran is expressing the fact that it is a constitutional right, as Americans, to hold this power and it is not up to the government to strip that right away. This relates to the control and the power hungry party in 1984, Big Brother. The party regulated what the people were to wear, how they were to speak, and what they were to believe. The party stripped away the basic needs and made their ways the only priority.
Privacy is something that should remain what it is, private. It is not something to be abused or invaded. There is a lack of privacy when it comes to the internet, information being hacked, and an advancement in technology is increasing the lack of privacy by making it easier to obtain personal information. In an article regarding advancements in technology, author Tom Prince states that big-data companies say they protect the identities of individuals behind the data. But scientists say even “anonymized” phone records- those with users’ names removed- can reveal identities (Prince 915). The lack of privacy on the internet, information being recovered and hacked, advancement in technology is increasing the lack of privacy by making it easier to obtain personal information. Prince goes on to quote security technologist, Bruce Schnier, who said, “This is ubiquitous surveillance. All of us [are] being watched, all the time, and that data [are] being stored forever. It’s efficient beyond the wildest dreams of George Orwell” (Prince 915). He compares it to the society in 1984, saying that the citizens are always under a watchful eye, living in a society under omnipresent surveillance. Prince adds that uses of big data involve businesses, governments, political organizations and other groups vacuuming up massive amounts of personal information from cell phones, GPS devices, bank accounts, credit card transactions, retail purchases, and other digital activities (Prince 912). The use of big data will definitely compromise personal privacy and security.
The use of manipulation, along with propaganda and invasions of privacy, can deeply influence and violate a person’s personal right’s in ways that are cunning and also unconstitutional. Comparable to Winston in the text, people can relate by being scared to go against the majority out of fear of being ostracized or persecuted for a different outlook any issue. Citizens are influenced and monitored whether they are aware of it or not. The Big Brother of the 21st century may not be as extreme as the one in 1984, but that does not mean he is not watching.