The Great Battle of Oneself
As two gin scented tears trickled down the sides of Winston’s face, he had finally won. No longer stricken with agony and strife, he was ok. He loved Big Brother. Orwell portrays how totalitarian regimes rewire the perception of individuals to become instruments of their own oppression, thereby paralleling Arendt’s concern with the manipulation of isolated individuals living under a manufactured reality. The party’s manipulation of truth erodes the line between objective and subjective, replacing reality with fabrication. As Arendt warns, such manipulation is fortified by the isolation that inhibits relationships, ultimately weakening one’s ability to confirm reality through shared experience. Today, through social media algorithms and online echo chambers, people experience a similar manipulation of truth, gradually internalizing distorted perceptions that make them complicit in their own control.
The Party’s control of truth converts citizens into collaborators in their own mental subjugation. When the Party defines truth itself, individuals must constantly rewrite their own thoughts to match its version of reality, turning obedience into an act of self-surveillance rather than external coercion. While sitting at his desk one day, Winston stumbles across a forgotten half-page fragment torn out of the Times. The paper included a date 10 years prior and a photograph depicting the delegates Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford in New York. While the photo depicted the delegates in New York, they themselves had confessed to engaging in illegal activities on Eurasian soil on that very same date. Baffled, Winston concludes “the confessions were lies”(78). It is in this very moment that Winston has found evidence of history that has since been altered. More importantly, the evidence is tangible and doesn’t merely rely on Winston’s senses and memories. Thus, it would technically be much harder to refute the existence of something physical. However, this is far from the case. As Stéphane Courtois states, “it was not always easy to learn the facts or to discover the truth…regimes had mastered the art of censorship”(11). The Black Book’s “art of censorship” parallels the Party’s system of falsified records and confessions. As Winston uncovers the truth behind this censorship, his awareness is simply not strong enough to survive in a world where proof is systematically destroyed. Any and all true historical accounts had been rewritten so many times that this photograph no longer held any significance. This historical truth is essentially fictionalized, and any means to verify it have been erased. Thus, totalitarian regimes convert censorship into a self-sustaining environment of truth.
As Winston gazes at the picture of Big Brother, it’s as if an immense force is penetrating his skull, almost signaling him to reject the evidence of his senses. Winston’s inability to resist the mental invasion reflects Arendt’s warnings of totalitarian power transforming lies into unquestioned beliefs. This forces individuals to internalize falsehoods until they become indistinguishable from their own thoughts. The party’s absurd declaration “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five”(80), captures not only falsehood, but a collapse of reason. It denies the existence of an independent and external world. As Winston stated, “you would have to believe it”(80). This wasn’t just a declaration; it was orthodoxy. As coercion turns inward, belief is forced on a psychological level in which citizens must discipline their own thoughts to survive. In a parallel manner, Arendt observes that “gigantic lies and monstrous falsehoods can eventually be established as unquestioned facts”(437). Both illustrate a system in which lies are woven into the fabric of reality through repetition and power. The “demoralizing fascination” Arendt attributes to this idea mirrors Winston’s sense of helplessness. People begin to accept falsehood not necessarily because they are convinced but because of the meaningless, exhausting, and simply impossible nature of resistance. As truth is replaced with consistency and repetition, it becomes increasingly difficult for individuals to distinguish between belief and obedience. For totalitarian regimes, truth is merely an extension of power, cleverness and as Arendt describes “infinite repetition”(437). The party’s real power comes not from violence but the ability to make individuals accept fallacy as reality turning perception itself into a mechanism of control.
Alone with his thoughts, Winston not only questions the party, but his own mind and sanity. Terrifyingly, the simplest logic that “two plus two makes four” might itself be madness – After all, there was no way to validate. As Winston begins to doubt his own reasoning, Orwell illustrates Arendt’s insight that totalitarianism corrupts the very faculty of thought, turning rationality into a tool for accepting falsehood. As Winston’s logic turns against itself, the fear of being wrong obscures his will to be right, highlighting how Winston actively sustains his own indoctrination. The oxymoron “heresy of heresies” transforms common sense into a political crime, exposing how the Party simultaneously inhibits thought and disobedience. Arendt’s “lying world of consistency” corroborates the totalitarian impulse to implement a comforting illusion of stability in which people no longer feel the raw human emotions of confusion or pain when confronted with uncomfortable truths because, as Arendt stated, everything is perfectly consistent. Winston’s hesitant syntax and spiraling clauses, “they might be right…what then?”(80), parallels Arendt’s idea that people in totalitarian regimes prefer the comfort of coherent lies to the uncertainty of truth. Orwell’s tense but subdued tone reflects the exhaustion that comes with trying to protect against self-deception. What begins as constant rationalization evolves into psychological adaptation. Eventually, it becomes easier just to pretend one understands the seemingly absurd. Both Arendt and Orwell display that the desire for internal peace trumps that of external reality, leading to self enforced delusion. This causes a mental collapse in which individuals no longer need to be forced to lie because they find safety within the lie itself.
When intimate bonds are hollowed of affection and weaponized for surveillance, individuals lose the emotional independence needed to resist collective domination. Thus, the Party dismantles human connection by turning love, family, and desire into extensions of political loyalty, leaving citizens isolated and controllable.
There were no people, nor were there secret microphones. They were completely alone. After losing their way on a community hike, Winston revels in this rare moment of independence and discovery, desperately trying to take advantage of this freedom to connect and share his joy with Julia, who feels rather uneasy and guilty. The Party’s control over marriage drains affection, transforming marriage into a political act of loyalty to the Party rather than an act of love between individuals. It is through the unorthodoxy of Winston’s opinions that we are able to detect the illusory nature of marriages under Party control. Winston was well aware that “Katharine would have unquestionably denounced him to the thought police”(133). Their loyalty lay in betrayal, and their love was subordinated to ideology. This is paralleled by the function of real totalitarian regimes recorded in the Black Book of Communism, which describes an order stating, “Wherever arms are found, execute immediately the eldest son in the family”(16). Under this pretense, fear permeates families as love is distorted into a liability. The innate reaction to protect members of one’s family is what turns individuals into enforcers of their own oppression. Winston recalls his marriage with precision and numbness, not love, revealing how emotional connection has been replaced by political devotion, even if inadvertently. By erasing love’s spontaneity and replacing it with mechanical duty, the Party ensures that individuals learn to suppress affection instinctively, transforming the heart itself into an instrument of oppression.
Winston could have tolerated his lifeless marriage if not for the dreadful act of having to endure the “frigid little ceremony, ”or sex (132). What Winston abhorred most about this was how one of his and Katharine’s most intimate moments was simply reduced to “[their] duty to the party”(132). The party’s denunciation of sexual relationships shows how desire is reduced to political orthodoxy. Julia explains, “afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything… all this marching up and down and cheering… is simply sex gone sour” (133). Her observation exposes the fundamental concept of redirecting sexual privation into “war fever and leader worship,” distorting private pleasure into Party fanaticism. Orwell blends both Cynicism and Irony in Julia’s matter-of-fact, blunt, phrasing which contrasts the cold logic of a system that transforms instinct into compliance. Arendt echoes this dynamic by warning, “total loyalty is possible only when fidelity is emptied of all concrete content”(424). For the party, the sex impulse was one of the most dangerous aspects of this “concrete content.” However, like marriage, the party had turned it to account by hollowing out genuine emotion until loyalty itself becomes the only acceptable form of love. Both Orwell and Arendt reveal that destroying sensual and emotional life is crucial in sustaining total domination. By severing the link between feeling and freedom, the Party ensures that even the most innate impulses like love, pleasure, and desire become instruments of power.
Winston is well aware that the feelings of warmth and love he once felt from his mother and sister are now obsolete. By turning children into informants and breeding mistrust within the home, the Party ensures that surveillance replaces intimacy, fulfilling Arendt’s warning that totalitarian domination depends on isolating individuals until even private relationships become extensions of state control. Winston observes that “the children…were systematically turned against their parents,” transforming love into suspicion and the home into an extension of the Thought Police (133). Whereas in their control of intimacy, the party destroys love from within, trust is destroyed without the party at all, simply through the weaponization of children as informants. The Party’s manipulation of the parent-child relationship invades intimacy with fear. Parents live under the constant threat of betrayal from those they are supposed to love and protect. Orwell’s chillingly blunt tone reflects how normalized this destruction of trust has become. Arendt’s claim that “totalitarian movements depended less on the structurelessness of a mass society than on the specific conditions of an atomized and individualized mass,” highlights intense isolation. When families become groups of isolated individuals rather than connected communities, they are much easier to dominate. Arendt’s “atomized mass” becomes concrete in Orwell’s families, who no longer protect one another but perform surveillance for the state. In manipulating familial love, trust erodes so completely that they are conditioned to anticipate punishment before it comes.
The Party completes its cycle of total domination not by killing its enemies but by converting their minds and souls, proving that totalitarian power depends on the destruction of human dignity and individuality. By redefining truth and forcing people to internalize the Party’s ideologies, the regime turns human nature itself into a political instrument to be filled with its agenda.
With one hand on the dial, a stern and frustrated O’Brien loomed over Winston. He began his lecture, or rather brainwashing, marking the start of Winston’s deafening transformation. Totalitarian regimes annihilate human dignity by demanding self-destruction for the sake of ideological uniformity. Arendt argues that “for the sake of complete consistency that it is necessary for totalitarianism to destroy every trace of what we commonly call human dignity”(601). For Arendt, dignity is contingent on the capacity for independent moral judgment, an ability that Totalitarian regimes find intolerable. O’Brien corroborates Arendt’s idea of Annihilation by telling Winston, “It needs an act of self-destruction… you must humble yourself before you can become sane”(249). Sanity, a mark of reason, is now redefined as surrender. The Party turns the destruction of self into a moral duty. Individual worth, once derived from moral integrity, is now replaced by conformity and obedience. By forcing individuals to internalize this logic, the destruction of dignity does not require external forces. Instead, individuals humble themselves willingly, aligning obedience to sanity and moral worth. In doing so, individuals lose their capacity for inner resistance, strengthening Party control.
As if Winston uttered the thought allowed, O’Brien repeated his thought, drawing his face uncomfortably near. It is unacceptable to die resisting party ideology. One must first, out of free will, ideologically align themselves as not so much to be destroyed, but rather converted. In transforming human nature itself, it becomes human nature to be an active instrument in one’s own oppression. The Party doesn’t simply want to reform society but “transform human nature itself” (601). This transformation replaces the capacity for independent thought with instinctive loyalty, ensuring that domination no longer requires visible or external pressure. It isn’t enough to simply coerce Winston into agreement. Instead, the Party must “bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul”(255). O’Brien’s chilling declaration reveals how repression no longer relies on terror alone. In this stage, conviction replaces force. Their changed human nature implies that the Party’s logic now defines their emotional and moral reality. Thus, citizens now monitor themselves, making individuals complicit in their own subjugation and, furthermore, feeling secure in the very system that seeks to oppress them. What remains of human nature after this transformation is simply a hollow shell infused with party ideology.
What oppressed Winston the most was how conscious he was of his own intellectual inferiority. The final stage of totalitarian control exposes the creation of hollow, self-enforcing subjects who no longer possess the capacity for dignity, moral conscience, or independent thought. O’Brien’s frightening promise: “You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves”(256) outlines the pinnacle of physiological domination. The imagery of being “squeezed empty” represents the erasure of his inner self, most importantly, his capacity for resistance. Winston is reduced to merely a vessel of ideology rather than a true individual. “Filling” Winston with itself allows the ideology to be enforced from within. Courtois’ observation of “a profoundly amoral doctrine that seeks to stamp out every last trace of civic-mindedness in men’s souls, and damn the consequences?”(11) echoes the Party’s hollowing. Both portray a system that destroys conscience itself, leaving people so metaphysically vacant that they enforce oppression from within. Totalitarian seeks not just obedience but moral extinction. The cycle of annihilating dignity and transforming human nature completes itself through the complete obliteration of moral selfhood. Totalitarian power is victorious not by force alone but by surrendering the human soul.
George Orwell reveals that the strength of totalitarian regimes lies not only in force but in the deepest transformation of human nature. The Party’s concept of manipulated truth compels individuals to rewrite their own perception so that submission feels like sanity. The Party distorts every facet of life from truth, love, and even independent thought, dismantling the line between true and fictitious reality. These conditions require Citizens to discipline their own minds, without external coercion. In doing so, individuals strengthen party control while they themselves become their own oppressors. This presents a parallel to Arent’s warnings of isolated individuals living in a manufactured reality in which the destruction of shared truth renders resistance impossible. All three authors agree that totalitarianism’s greatest danger lies in its ability to invade inner life, turning human consciousness into its strongest and most loyal weapon. In exposing this psychological terror, Orwell and Arendt remind us that freedom begins in perception itself. Even when truth becomes a liability, it is imperative that we remain human and keep with us the courage to see reality even when obscured. Especially now, in the presence of digital echo chambers, political polarization, and curated realities, truth and the human mind’s ability to think freely, judge clearly, and remain independent is constantly at risk. In fighting for truth, we are fighting for the integrity of our own minds.
Works Cited
Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Penguin Classics, 2017.
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 1949. Penguin Classics, 2021.
Courtois, Stéphane, et al. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Edited by Mark Kramer, translated by Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer, Harvard University Press, 1999.
Leave a Reply