Thinking Is Forbidden: Orwell’s Prophecy

The dream of a “perfect society,” which has occupied human minds throughout history, has served as inspiration for countless works from Plato’s Republic to Thomas More’s Utopia. However, the political traumas of the twentieth century and the alarming rise of technology inverted this vision, giving rise to the genre of “anti-utopia,” more commonly known as “dystopia.” As M. Başak Uysal aptly observed, while utopia envisions a “earthly paradise,” anti-utopia serves as a warning sign showing how such a design could transform into a hell upon the loss of existing social values^【1】.

George Orwell’s seminal work 1984 is precisely the harshest and darkest manifestation of this warning. The novel does not merely critique a political regime; it also reveals how systematically the individual, privacy, and the very notion of “truth” are eradicated. According to Müftüoğlu and Özbay, Orwell’s Oceania is a prison where totalitarianism is not only evident in state governance but is felt at every moment of the individual’s “daily life,” with no possibility of escape^【2】.

The walls of this prison are not built of brick but of ideology. Power seeks not only to control the body but also the mind. As Soysal and Gül emphasize, in dystopias—and especially in 1984—the continuity of power depends on the flawless functioning of education and ideological apparatuses. Here, education is not a tool for liberating the individual but a weapon used to integrate him into the system, render him obedient, and engrave the Party’s “one truth” into the mind^【3】.

Let us now delve into the depths of Orwell’s dark world and examine, through these academic lenses, how Big Brother does not merely watch us but also designs how we think.

The most terrifying aspect of living in a dystopian universe is the absence of any hiding place. According to Müftüoğlu and Özbay’s analysis, totalitarianism in Orwell’s 1984 is not merely a form of political governance but a “practice of life” that intervenes in every moment of the individual’s existence—from eating and dressing to sleeping and facial expressions. The Party, claiming to create an ideal society, has completely erased the boundary between “private space” and “public space.” Your home is no longer a sanctuary but a branch of the state^【4】.

The technological device enabling this absolute control in Oceania is called the “telescreen.” These devices, which both broadcast and monitor, are the digitalized version of Jeremy Bentham’s famous “Panopticon” prison model. Müftüoğlu and Özbay describe this surveillance mechanism as follows: The individual (the prisoner) never knows whether he is being watched at any given moment, yet he must behave as if he is being observed every second. This uncertainty ensures that power remains invisible yet ever-present and vigilant. People internalize Big Brother’s gaze and become their own guardians^【5】.

In this system, the individual is an object of knowledge but never a subject of communication. The state knows everything about you, yet you cannot communicate with the state (or the telescreen). You can only obey.

How does human psychology shape under such surveillance? According to M. Başak Uysal, in 1984, social values have been replaced by pure “fear.” Human emotions such as love, friendship, trust, and loyalty have been substituted by fanatical devotion to the Party and the terror of betrayal. People have even come to fear dreaming, terrified of “committing a crime” (thoughtcrime)^【6】.

In this atmosphere, even children are transformed into informants who denounce their own parents. As Uysal notes, the family institution has not been destroyed but repurposed into a “surveillance cell” that embeds the Party’s ideology within the home. Your greatest enemy is no longer the soldier outside but your own child or neighbor^【7】.

The greatest fear of totalitarian regimes is the thinking, questioning individual. Therefore, in the world of 1984, the ultimate goal of power is not merely to enforce obedience of the body but to secure submission of the mind. As Soysal and Gül, drawing on Louis Althusser, argue, education in Oceania is not an instrument of enlightenment but the most powerful “Ideological State Apparatus,” designed to imprint the state’s ideology onto individuals. Schools do not aim to liberate the individual but to mold him into a passive, obedient object compatible with the system’s gears^【8】.

The sharpest blade in the Party’s control over the mind is “Newspeak.” Language is not redesigned to enable communication but to prevent it—to make understanding and even thinking impossible. According to Soysal and Gül’s analysis, the aim is to narrow the vocabulary and thereby atrophy the horizon of thought. If the word “freedom” does not exist in the language, then the concept of freedom becomes unthinkable. As words diminish, consciousness contracts, and it becomes physically impossible to imagine any reality beyond the Party’s dogmas^【9】.

Education and propaganda do not merely control the present but also the past. As Müftüoğlu and Özbay emphasize, in Oceania, history is not a fixed reality but a fiction rewritten daily according to the Party’s current interests. The slogan “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past” summarizes this manipulation. The individual is expected to possess the ability of “Doublethink”: holding two contradictory truths simultaneously and believing both. To believe that the nation is simultaneously at war and at peace, and that 2+2 equals 4 sometimes and 5 at other times, is the highest form of loyalty to the Party^【10】.

The education system teaches children not to think critically but to accept these contradictions unquestioningly. In Başak Uysal’s words, by the end of this process, the individual can no longer trust even his own memory and is forced to cling to the Party’s “one truth”^【11】.

George Orwell’s 1984 is not merely a critique of a political regime but a tragic manifesto on how difficult it is to remain human. Throughout the novel, the protagonist Winston Smith’s struggle is not only to overthrow the Party but to preserve his own mind and soul. Yet, as Başak Uysal rightly emphasizes, in Oceania, individual existence is regarded as a “mistake.” The Party’s ultimate victory is not the killing of dissidents but the emptying of their souls and filling them with love for the Party. In this system, where human values such as love, friendship, and trust have been eradicated, the individual survives only as a biological entity; his spiritual existence has been erased^【12】.

According to Müftüoğlu and Özbay’s analysis, the most chilling aspect of this dark tableau is the absence of any “outside.” Totalitarianism has infiltrated daily life with such flawless architecture that escape is impossible. The ideal society has transformed into a nightmare where the individual is reduced to nothing and power is deified^【13】. As Soysal and Gül also note, minds encircled by education and ideology have come to love their chains. For a human deprived of the capacity to think, freedom is indistinguishable from slavery^【14】.

Orwell offers no false hope at the end of the book. The story concludes with Winston’s love for Big Brother, a brutal reminder that totalitarianism can transform not only bodies but souls. 1984 does not offer a prophecy of the future; it whispers a dark possibility: how today could become tomorrow if we fail to pay attention.