Orwell’s text ‘1984’ demonstrates the social consequences of mass surveillance. To what extent are these ideas still prevalent in the world today?
The extensive monitoring of a nation’s citizens has subsequently led to the development of social consequences throughout the history of civilisation. George Orwell’s 1984 depicts the loss of anonymity through the establishment of a totalitarian society in a bleak dystopia. Although the blatantly oppressive and intrusive consequences of mass surveillance is apparent in contemporary societies, its methods are unprecedented. To demonstrate the nuances implied by such a concept, this essay analyses the various forms and uses of surveillance in today’s world. While much of 1984’s portrayal is distinguished by the methodology embodying communist and fascist regimes of the 20th century, these same core principles are also reflected in the governments of the present era through the plight of the Uighur Muslims imposed by the Chinese government and their endeavour towards the potential establishment of a social credit system for ordinary Chinese citizens. In contrast, private corporations in democratic and liberal societies are also demonstrating a similar assertion of power through their claim for big data and user-specific data. Thus, Orwell’s ideas are not only affirmed in today’s communist east but also in a postmodern, neoliberal and democratic west.
In a similar totalitarian context to 1984, we are currently witnessing the oppression of the Uighur people by the Chinese state through the utilisation of mass surveillance. The same principles that existed in ‘Room 101’ are also observed in the detention camps holding the Uighur Muslims of China. Identified publicly as ‘re-education camps’ by the Chinese government (BBC, 2019), this instantly creates a stark connection to the methods of mass surveillance implemented in 1984. For instance, the detained Muslims are ‘monitored and controlled’ in all aspects of life (BBC, 2019), similar to Orwell’s fictional ‘Airstrip One’, where telescreens ensure the subordination of its citizens. Additionally, the term ‘re-education’ itself denotes that the Chinese state identifies the beliefs and traditions of Muslim Uighurs to be a threat to their society; thus, supposedly justifying the need for “education transformation”, according to Sophie Richardson (BBC, 2019). Consequently, a clear parallel can be drawn between this euphemism for the oppression of the Uighur Muslims by eradicating their inherited identity and Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’s’ use of mass surveillance to promote the ‘denial of objective reality’ (1949, 179).
Furthermore, the social credit system presents itself as a new form of mass surveillance that requires extensive documentation on Chinese citizens. This modern hierarchical system, currently under trials in China, threatens to broaden Orwell’s fears of one’s loss of liberty through the introduction of external judgement. In this context, the state disregards the privacy of an individual’s personal life, not just through surveillance, but also by the accumulation of data. The social credit system collates individual data ranging from online behaviour, educational, medical and other records to determine a ‘national citizen score’ (Carney, 2018). This score dictates whether a citizen has accumulated enough points to be eligible for ‘special privileges’ (Carney, 2018) that are basic amenities in other democratic nations, like the use of public transport, financing and renting. Similar to the principles of the Uighur concentration camps, ordinary Chinese must refrain from committing any act deemed to be ‘untrustworthy’ (Zhou & Xiao, 2020); resulting in the creation of a social order that is at its rulers’ behest. Thus, reinforcing Orwell’s critical view on a society where ‘every movement [is] scrutinised’ (1949, 5). The modern innovation of this social credit system distinguishes itself from the technology of ‘Airstrip One’ yet being designed for the same purpose.
While raising a hysteria about government control, Orwell, just like modern citizens, was unaware of a new form of oppression which would have the illusion of being consensual. Through the expansion of social media networks, traditional surveillance footage has been overtaken by the collection of digital footprints, known as data storage, allowing corporations to take ownership and exploit the information of individuals and groups. The extent to which this information can be used for control was exemplified when Facebook allowed third parties to ‘tap into users’ data’ (BBC, 2018) to customise their advertising material. Facebook shared sensitive information to Cambridge Analytica for the creation of political advertising. Subsequently, by matching online behaviour with political inclination, potential supporters were targeted to vote for the American Republican party, the paying clients of Cambridge Analytica (Granville, 2018). Thus, undermining America’s democratic identity while shedding a new light on the consequences of neoliberalism, as its rise offers companies a restraint-free power that parallels government jurisdiction. Neoliberalism can deceive consumers by promising greater freedom through postmodern principles while giving greater power to those who can afford it (Monbiot, 2016). Moreover, the postmodernist American society, that is so focussed on avoiding the obvious forms of government oppression, welcomed the internet as an expression of freedom while it incorporated into their daily lifestyle. The countless personal devices and online user profiles are now real life ‘telescreens’ that are monitored by network giants, like Facebook and Google, who record and use this information for corporate agendas. Ultimately, leading to a ‘rampant and systemic’ (BBC, 2018) exploitation of data by the belief that these services are for the users’ benefit, which is ‘the ultimate subtlety’, as Orwell describes (1949, 41). Hence, his paranoia of oppressive regimes may have resulted in postmodernism which failed to heed modern citizens to suspect the rise of oppressive corporate power in a neoliberal society.
Therefore, in today’s world, power is maintained through the use of mass surveillance. Its social consequences described in George Orwell’s 1984 continue to provide insight, even over seventy years later, into how large populations are stripped of their freedom through the monitoring of its individuals. ‘The Party’s’ regime is clearly mirrored in the concentration camps for Uighur Muslims in China, giving rise to the same implications for these inmates that parallel the citizens of ‘Airstrip One’, who are found powerless against an authority that dictates their beliefs, action and identity. Furthermore, technological development has resulted in new methods of surveillance that Orwell could not foresee, in the form of data collection that the Chinese government is utilising to establish the social credit system to monitor its citizens as a means of assessing their eligibility for certain liberties. However, as the postmodern democratic societies progressively adopts neoliberalism while choosing the identity of consumers, we are witnessing a new power, in the form of large corporations, like Facebook, that are capable of destabilising our democratic rights while appearing to serve its consumers. Such a deceptive use of mass surveillance could not have been foreseen by Orwell, yet its implications may prove to be similar to what he feared for the future.
Bibliography
BBC News 2019, Data leak reveals how China ‘brainwashes’ Uighurs in prison camps, 24 Nov, viewed 1st June 2020, <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063>
Carney, M 2018, China Social Credit a model citizen in a digital dictatorship, ABC News, 19 Sep, viewed 1st July 2020, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/china-social-credit-a-model-citizen-in-a-digital-dictatorship/10200278?nw=0>
Zhou, C & Xiao, B 2020, China’s Social Credit System is pegged to be fully operational by 2020 — but what will it look like?, ABC News, 2 Jan, viewed 10th June 2020, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-02/china-social-credit-system-operational-by-2020/11764740>
BBC News 2018, Facebook’s data-sharing deals exposed, viewed 7th July 2020, 19 Dec, <https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582>
Granville, K 2018, Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: What You Need To Know as Fallout Widens, The New York Times, 19 Mar, viewed 9th July 2020, <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambridge-analytica-explained.html>
Monbiot, G 2016, Neoliberalism — the ideology at the root of all our problems, The Guardian, 15 Apr, viewed 8th July 2020, <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot>
