Misunderstanding George Orwell

George Orwell is one of my favourite authors. Not only did he write two of my all-time favourite books, Animal Farm and 1984, his prose has also had a profound impact on my writing style. I frequently find myself referencing him subconsciously, as he’s that compelling. I don’t say that about many respected authors, especially overexposed ones. He’s that good.

That said, a lot of people misrepresent him. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Orwell is one of those authors The West knows through osmosis, yet so many miss the point of. And it’s a bipartisan issue. Because while Orwell’s popular, enough to have a term named after him, he clearly had a vision not many people appreciate. Which is a problem.

George Orwell lived in England during the middle of the 20th Century. A soldier during the Franco War, Orwell’s time in battle had a profound impact on him. He was a Marxist, but he was incredibly critical of extremism. And this was apparent in his writing, such that his two most-famous novels can be read as commentaries on Marxist-Communism. I think that gets overlooked.

What’s additionally overlooked is his anti-authoritarian outlook. Orwell was no fan of Soviet Russia. Animal Farm was basically his scathing rebuke of The USSR. However, he wasn’t a fan of excessive government oversight generally. 1984, while taking place in England, was a warning about how governments control the flow of information. That’s not exclusive to left or right-leaning systems.

Why is Orwell misrepresented? I get why he’s beloved, his commentary hits home with many people, but he’s frequently misappropriated to suit a narrative: minorities having representation? Orwellian! The internet selling you something based on your search history? Also Orwellian! Both examples hold different degrees of weight, but they highlight how partisan the divide is.

I’m going to be perfectly honest: “Orwellian” as a term means something different entirely. Minorities having representation isn’t “Orwellian”, it’s equity. Search histories selling you stuff also isn’t “Orwellian”, it’s the byproduct of Free Market Capitalism. “Orwellian” is much darker and more disturbing. “Orwellian” involves government surveillance to suppress individual expression. That’s partnered with Authoritarianism, which is a problem in many countries.

I’ll use two contemporary examples. The first involves China. China gets plenty of undeserved flak from conservatives, but its government remains one of the last bastions of old-school Communism. China’s had many conflicts, and I’m not an expert on them, but the government suppresses information and personal autonomy. It’s not uncommon for individuals to go missing if they have too much influence, and criticizing government overreach, as with the Uyghurs, Tienanmen Square and Hong Kong, has led to violence and oppression. That’s “Orwellian”.

Another example is Iran. Iran’s modern history is a mess, but its 47-year rule by The Ayatollahs is a classic example of what Orwell was criticizing. Iran’s people are brutalized and oppressed for defying the state, and it’s not uncommon for there to be social media blackouts whenever there are civilian protests. This is also an issue because Iran’s government has been accused of having “sleeper cells” around the world. That’s also “Orwellian”.

Orwellian tactics aren’t exclusive to authoritarian regimes. Politicians who overstep for personal reasons, like Donald Trump, are also guilty of Orwellian behaviour, enough that it should be alarming. It doesn’t matter their political persuasion, it’s Orwellian. Because this behaviour suppresses individualism, which is what George Orwell was concerned about. It isn’t, however, disagreeing with someone on a sensitive issue. That’s not “Orwellian”, that’s “disagreement”.

I know what I’ve stated above is clouded by personal bias. I’m not immune to that, as much as it seems otherwise. However, people so frequently get blindsided by biases that they’re quick to call something that it isn’t. It’s not unlike reading into something that isn’t there, or claiming that a piece of media is an allegory for something when that doesn’t hold water. George Orwell’s writing is about government oversight, not individual oversight.

It also speaks to our polarized climate that we recognize some forms of Orwellian Authoritarianism, yet are oblivious to others. George Orwell’s commentary wasn’t about left or right, conservative or liberal. It was about Authoritarianism. It doesn’t hold political allegiances. I think that needs emphasis.

I know it’s tempting to romanticize foreign governments based on elementary-level understandings of how they operate. However, romanticizing them overlooks human flaws, or even ignores people. Because every form of government run by people has problems. Humans, by nature, are flawed and shortsighted, so it’s easy for power vacuums to turn into authoritarian regimes. This is what Orwell was commenting on, and it’s what gets overlooked in our partisan understanding of him.

So yes, definitely read George Orwell’s books. And definitely discuss them with others! But recognize that their messages resonate not for partisan reasons, but for bipartisan reasons. Being anti-authoritarian is healthy, but being selectively anti-authoritarian isn’t. This distinction will not only make you a more critical thinker, it’ll also make you more well-rounded. That, I think, is what Orwell was trying to achieve with his books.