Oppression In 1984

Oppression Through Grammar Dina Sayed 1-4

The novel 1984 by George Orwell highlights how the government uses multiple different tools in order to oppress their citizens, one of them being grammar and language. The concept of “Newspeak” is made to completely erase the ability to form rebellious and contrasting ideologies to the Party. The ultimate goal of Newspeak is to ensure even the possibility of rebellious thought is impossible since there are no words to formulate it. By forcing Newspeak on Oceania, the Party silences their subjects in order to maintain complete and utter control over them. Disregarding the risks of speaking out against the Party, the people of Oceania do not even have the ability to think for themselves Their words
have been policed and regulated until language is the barrier to their rebellion and not the citizen’s fear of voicing their displeasure.
While the concept of Newspeak may seem unrealistic and harsh, people do not realize that oppression through language and grammar is just as common in real life as it is in the novel. The only difference between the two instances is that the real world opts for a subtler approach to silencing.
Grammar is a given and accepted part of language. This is increasingly present in regards to the English language which inarguably dominates the world as the universal tongue. As such, everyone is expected to learn English at some point to be considered intelligent or intellectual, especially immigrants. However, not only do people need to have the ability to speak and understand English, they also need to have a correct grammatical knowledge. If not, others automatically resort to pointing out grammatical errors or their lack of fluidity in the language in order to invalidate their ideas and revolts. If they do not present their points using impeccable language skills, they are subsequently deemed ‘unintelligent’ and ‘uninformed’. People in power have been utilizing these techniques for centuries in order to mitigate the impact of uprisings and to avoid improving the system to cater to those who are non-able bodied, poor, or people of color.
People of color, those with disabilities, and people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum do not receive the same opportunities to get a “real” education as others. Consequently, these tactics are usually employed towards those oppressed groups and it is thus is easy to see that grammar and being ‘well-educated’ are not a real reflection of one’s intelligence, but instead a reflection of privilege. When those who are already at a systematic disadvantage voice their displeasure but are shut down under the guise of being unintelligent, there is little the oppressed can do to validate their opinions since they are already associated with a sort of savagery and absurdity that would render them irrelevant. It is not the existence of the English language that is inherently oppressive, but what is dangerous is what the oppressor (whether that is the government in real life or the Party) does with it and how they shape it to become a territory that limits and defines. The regulation of different dialects and vernaculars in order to silence the oppressed is inhumane and disrespectful. Oppressors make grammar
into a weapon that can shame, humiliate, colonize. In sum, the political power in 1984 and society in real life both employ language as a weapon to oppress those who are being exploited by the system