Draft:Orwell's "1984"
Surveillance, Control, and the Collapse of Autonomy in Orwell’s 1984
Abstract
George Orwell’s 1984 is widely recognized as both a dystopian masterpiece and a prophetic critique of the modern information society. This article provides an analytical interpretation of the novel by examining its core mechanisms of surveillance, control, and truth manipulation. Drawing on Shoshana Zuboff’s theory of surveillance capitalism ([1]) and José María Díaz Nafría’s concept of cybernetic subsidiarity ([2]), the paper situates 1984 within contemporary debates on algorithmic governance and data power. Contrary to techno-utopian visions of transparency and democratization, Orwell's narrative presents a world where information is monopolized and weaponized. The study traces how this control structure anticipates modern developments in predictive policing, platform capitalism, and behavioral optimization, and it argues that Orwell’s work remains crucial for understanding the ethical risks posed by the evolving architecture of the digital age.
Historical Background
Orwell’s Political Context
George Orwell, born Eric Arthur Blair, wrote 1984 during the late 1940s in a world scarred by war and ideological extremism. His experiences in the Spanish Civil War, where he witnessed the brutal effects of authoritarian factions on both sides, profoundly shaped his political worldview ([3]). Orwell became deeply skeptical of centralized power, whether under fascist or communist banners, and this skepticism permeates his later works. While Animal Farm (1945) offered an allegorical critique of the Soviet Union, 1984 advanced that critique into a full-fledged dystopia. The novel’s publication in 1949 reflected growing concerns about Cold War tensions, mass propaganda, and state surveillance. Orwell extrapolated from contemporary authoritarian practices to construct a society where the mechanisms of power were perfected and internalized. In doing so, he provided not just a political warning, but a philosophical challenge to Enlightenment ideals of truth, autonomy, and rationality.
Totalitarianism and the Mid-20th Century Ideological Wars
The mid-twentieth century marked the global clash between liberal democracies, fascist regimes, and communist states. Totalitarianism, as described by thinkers like Hannah Arendt ([4]), aimed not only at political domination but at reshaping reality itself. Orwell’s vision of the Party in 1984 echoes this ambition. The regime controls history, language, and even thought, replacing empirical truth with ideological constructs. One of the novel’s most powerful slogans—“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past”—encapsulates this strategy. In this framework, memory is not a matter of individual recall but of state design. Such manipulation turns history into a flexible tool of control, ensuring that the Party’s authority appears eternal and unquestionable.
Totalitarian Aesthetics and the Erasure of the Individual
Beyond political systems, Orwell also critiques the aesthetics of authoritarianism. Uniforms, repetitive slogans, and ritualized hatred serve to homogenize human experience. The recurring rituals, like the Two Minutes Hate, act as emotional training exercises, converting fear and frustration into loyalty. These practices reflect what Arendt referred to as the destruction of the individual as a moral agent. In 1984, citizens are not merely watched; they are molded. Their language is reduced to “Newspeak,” their history is erased or altered, and their desires are reprogrammed. The Party’s ultimate goal is not just obedience but love. By forcing Winston Smith to love Big Brother, the regime seeks to annihilate resistance at its root—within the soul of the individual.
The Utopia Regarding the Information Society
Big Brother and the Dream of Total Social Order
At the heart of Orwell’s dystopia lies a distorted utopian vision: the complete elimination of disorder, ambiguity, and unpredictability. The Party, under the symbolic authority of Big Brother, promises perfect stability and unity. This reflects a deeper ideological impulse within information societies that seek to govern through precision, prediction, and control. José María Díaz Nafría identifies this phenomenon within the broader classification of “utopias of the information society,” specifically the utopia of perfect social order, where society is imagined as fully computable, knowable, and governable through information systems ([5]). In 1984, this is realized through a highly organized state apparatus that not only monitors but engineers behavior through language, history, and emotion. The apparent peace of Oceania is maintained not by consensus or justice, but through a seamless fusion of surveillance, propaganda, and fear. This represents a grotesque inversion of the Enlightenment ideal that knowledge liberates; here, knowledge becomes a tool of oppression.
The Illusion of Choice and Predictive Governance
In 1984, individual choice is eradicated. However, the mechanisms by which this occurs resonate with contemporary developments in predictive governance and behavioral optimization. The Thought Police act not in response to action but to potential. They intervene before disobedience occurs, based on facial expressions, word choices, or minor deviations from normativity. This anticipates present-day concerns about predictive policing and algorithmic decision-making, which claim to optimize outcomes by minimizing human error and maximizing system efficiency. Zuboff’s theory of “surveillance capitalism” highlights how modern platforms similarly anticipate user behavior to guide, monetize, or preempt choices ([6]). The result, both in the novel and in today’s systems, is the same: autonomy is replaced with algorithmic certainty. Free will becomes a liability rather than a right.
Newspeak and the Engineered Mind
Orwell’s Newspeak is more than a fictional language; it is a blueprint for cognitive constraint. Its goal is to reduce the range of thought by reducing the range of expression. In doing so, the Party constructs a population that is not merely censored but conceptually incapable of dissent. This aligns with contemporary anxieties around algorithmic filtering and platform curation. By shaping the information environment, these systems influence what users perceive as thinkable, relevant, or true. The utopia of total efficiency becomes a dystopia of semantic control. In both cases, the ability to question the system is systematically eroded.
Harmony Through Submission: Love as Domination
The most chilling aspect of Orwell’s utopian critique is the Party’s demand not just for obedience, but for emotional allegiance. The transformation of Winston Smith culminates not in resignation but in love for Big Brother. This reveals a model of power that seeks psychological closure rather than political stability. In today’s context, this is echoed in the normalization of data extraction through gamified trust, emotional AI, and corporate “care.” Platforms build emotional resonance with users in order to deepen engagement and loyalty, transforming intimate experience into behavioral surplus. As Díaz Nafría observes, the utopia of informational harmony masks a deeper asymmetry in control and agency ([7]).
Dystopical Aspects of Information Control
Surveillance and the Cybernetic Panopticon
Orwell’s vision of constant surveillance is embodied in the figure of Big Brother and the ubiquitous telescreens that watch and listen to citizens at all times. This mechanism enforces not only physical obedience but psychological self-discipline. The awareness of being observed becomes internalized, leading to anticipatory compliance. This model aligns closely with what Díaz Nafría describes as the “cybernetic panopticon” — a distributed, anticipatory system of control in which observation is embedded into the structure of communication itself ([8]). Unlike Jeremy Bentham’s original panopticon, which relied on the possibility of being seen, Orwell’s system ensures that surveillance is constant and total, eliminating the need for physical coercion. In the digital age, this logic persists in the form of ubiquitous sensors, location tracking, and behavioral analytics. Users carry their own telescreens in the form of smartphones, which report on their location, preferences, and social connections—often without explicit consent.
Emotional Engineering and Ritualized Hatred
The Two Minutes Hate, a daily ritual in which citizens express violent emotion against the Party’s enemies, serves as a form of emotional regulation and political bonding. Orwell suggests that totalitarian regimes do not merely suppress emotion but strategically channel it to sustain loyalty. This emotional engineering finds modern parallels in algorithmic amplification of outrage on social platforms, where anger and fear drive engagement and attention. As Zuboff notes, emotional volatility becomes a resource—harvested, measured, and sold ([9]). Just as the Party manages hate to maintain control, digital systems now monetize affect to sustain platform economies.
Truth Rewritten: Memory Holes and Epistemic Authority
Perhaps the most striking dystopian element in 1984 is the Party’s ability to alter the past. Through mechanisms like the “memory hole,” historical records are destroyed or rewritten to fit the current political narrative. Citizens are expected to accept these revisions as truth, even when they contradict previous versions of reality. This manipulation of epistemic authority anticipates contemporary concerns about disinformation, deepfakes, and the algorithmic shaping of historical memory. As Díaz Nafría and Zuboff emphasize, modern information architectures not only collect data but also structure the frameworks through which that data is interpreted ([10]; [11]). In both Orwell’s fiction and real-world platforms, truth becomes conditional and programmable.
Anti-Intellectualism and Mass Distraction
Orwell’s Party deliberately reduces intellectual complexity by feeding the proletariat—referred to as “proles”—with pornography, meaningless entertainment, and simplified narratives. This strategy parallels contemporary critiques of the “attention economy,” in which algorithmic platforms reward superficiality and discourage sustained critical thought. Marshall McLuhan’s insights into media as extensions of human perception help illuminate this dynamic ([12]). Just as 1984 enforces conformity through intellectual poverty, today’s digital systems often incentivize distraction over reflection, entertainment over knowledge.
Love as Control: The Destruction of Resistance
The final stage of Orwell’s dystopia is not physical submission but emotional surrender. Winston’s eventual declaration—“I love Big Brother”—marks the total collapse of personal resistance. This form of domination transcends coercion; it reprograms desire itself. This chilling logic echoes in contemporary systems where surveillance is disguised as service and emotional bonds are engineered to deepen user dependency. Emotional AI systems, such as companion bots and personalized assistants, simulate intimacy while simultaneously extracting data. As seen in Zuboff’s and Díaz Nafría’s analyses, such systems risk converting emotional vulnerability into predictive control.
Implications for the Present Information Society
From Telescreens to Smartphones: The Continuity of Surveillance
Orwell’s telescreens, which both broadcast and record, were once regarded as exaggerated metaphors. Today, however, smartphones, smart speakers, and connected devices perform these same dual functions—disseminating content while collecting personal data. Unlike in 1984, where surveillance is imposed by force, in modern society it is embedded in convenience. The user becomes both consumer and commodity. As Díaz Nafría explains, contemporary societies are governed not just through coercive institutions, but through layered systems of cybernetic feedback in which individuals are observed, profiled, and pre-emptively managed ([13]). The shift from enforced visibility to voluntary data sharing marks a transformation in the techniques—but not the aims—of control.
Behavioral Surplus and Predictive Authority
Zuboff’s concept of “behavioral surplus” describes the extraction of data beyond what is needed for service delivery—data that is then used to train predictive models and drive future behavior ([14]). In Orwell’s world, truth is rewritten to secure present power; in our own, predictions shape the future by altering what users see, buy, believe, and desire. This logic of preemption removes the conditions for free will. Much like the Thought Police in 1984, modern systems seek to anticipate and redirect behavior before it diverges from the norm. What Orwell represented through fear, platform capitalism achieves through frictionless design and behavioral incentives.
Data Colonialism and the Informational Self
Contemporary critics like Couldry and Mejias have argued that we are witnessing a new form of colonialism—one in which human life itself becomes the raw material for extraction. This “data colonialism” turns daily experience into capital, echoing Orwell’s portrayal of a world where even memory and love are exploited for systemic ends. In 1984, the Party colonizes time and thought. In today’s society, platforms colonize attention, emotion, and intention. As Díaz Nafría notes, these systems often bypass traditional institutions, creating layers of governance that are technically efficient but ethically opaque ([15]).
Algorithmic Personhood and the Loss of Moral Agency
As more decisions are delegated to algorithms, individuals are increasingly distanced from the consequences of their actions. Orwell’s warning about the erasure of moral selfhood gains new relevance. In 1984, Winston loses not just his beliefs but his capacity to judge right from wrong. This mirrors contemporary concerns about the abdication of responsibility in systems designed to “know better” than the user. When algorithmic recommendations replace deliberation, the conditions for ethical agency are diminished. Autonomy becomes a liability in a world that prioritizes efficiency over reflection.
Post-Truth Politics and the Programmability of Reality
Orwell’s concept of doublethink—believing two contradictory things at once—has gained new currency in the age of misinformation and algorithmic filtering. Platforms increasingly structure reality according to behavioral patterns rather than empirical truth. Personalized feeds, opaque curation, and politically segmented content ecosystems result in fragmented epistemologies. “2 + 2 = 5” is no longer just a Party slogan; it becomes an allegory for a world in which truth is contingent upon alignment with power or profit. As Zuboff warns, the architecture of surveillance capitalism incentivizes manipulation, not transparency; control, not enlightenment.
- ↑ Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5
- ↑ Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2017). Cyber-subsidiarity: Toward a global sustainable information society. In E. G. Carayannis et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense (pp. 1–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06091-0_39-1
- ↑ Orwell, G. (2000). Homage to Catalonia. Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1938)
- ↑ Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Schocken Books.
- ↑ Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2017). eSubsidiarity: An ethical approach for living in complexity. In The Future Information Society (pp. 59–79). Springer.
- ↑ Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5
- ↑ Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2017). Cyber-subsidiarity: Toward a global sustainable information society. In E. G. Carayannis et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense (pp. 1–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06091-0_39-1
- ↑ Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2017). Cyber-subsidiarity: Toward a global sustainable information society. In E. G. Carayannis et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense (pp. 1–12). Springer.
- ↑ Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5
- ↑ Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2017). eSubsidiarity: An ethical approach for living in complexity. In The Future Information Society (pp. 59–79). Springer.
- ↑ Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.
- ↑ McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. University of Toronto Press.
- ↑ Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2017). Cyber-subsidiarity: Toward a global sustainable information society. In E. G. Carayannis et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense (pp. 1–12). Springer.
- ↑ Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5
- ↑ Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2017). eSubsidiarity: An ethical approach for living in complexity. In The Future Information Society (pp. 59–79). Springer.