1984 Reflections

By Kaitlyn Dai ‘27, Maree Hawkins ‘28, Claire Tang ‘27, Rosita Power ‘26, Jae Wykoff ‘26, and Jen Won ‘26

Kaitlyn Dai ‘27

“Redefining” Truth: How Education Alters Perceptions

What do we define as the truth? 

I use my senses to examine and identify my surroundings. Through my eyes, I see the pink hue of my laptop and the colorful patterns on my AirPods. Through my ears, I hear the incessant clacking of the computer keyboards and murmurs in the stalls next to me. I feel the cool breeze of the AC and the hair tucked behind my ears. I allow my observations, thoughts, and inferences to define reality.

However, in a world where citizens are persistently under the surveillance of Big Brother, where people are arrested simply for thinking of going against totalitarian control, the senses are subdued, morphed by the will of the Party. Freedom is forbidden, and the power of the individual is forcibly stripped away to force conformity. The individual has no say on what is true and what is correct; their opinion is trashed and repressed. 

Throughout history, education has been used by various governments as a tool to dictate truth and mold the minds of the young, impressionable generation. From China’s Cultural Revolution to Nazi Germany’s altered curriculum to the Soviet Union’s Lysenkoism ideology, education has been recognized by those in power as a dominating force that can shift reality to align with their political ideals. 

In the United States, European colonizers had used education to oppress the Native Americans. The Native American boarding schools’ policy was to “Kill the Indian, Save the Man.” In 1925, over 60,000 indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and enrolled in these institutions. Their culture was erased, their names, their clothing, and their hairstyles all transformed into the typical depiction of a European child. Thousands of Native Americans died from intense physical labor, malnutrition, and disease. Yet through “re-educating” the indigenous people, omitting their voices and framing the forceful takeover of their land as embodying “Manifest Destiny,” education has long suppressed their truths. 

In 1984, the primary tactics the Party used to maintain control were twisting the events of the past and discrediting the public's awareness. By doing so, reality appears to exist only through the statements of the Party. The government’s erasure of the culture of the Native Americans and blatant disregard for their lives appear to mirror these tactics. However, history, lacking the perspective of different views, does not provide an all-encompassing view of the world's experiences.

Yet just as how education can be used to distort reality, it can also be used to restore factuality within our history. For example, the reintegration of Native American voices into our education curriculum has been gradual yet evident. The Indian Education Act of 1972, aimed to provide greater educational opportunities for American Indian and Alaska Native students, opened the gate for the inclusion of culturally relevant materials and the voices of the indigenous people. Publication of books like James Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me (1995) spearheaded the movement of critiquing heavily propagated Eurocentric views of history within education, discussing topics not limited to but including the discovery of the Americas, the relationship between the Europeans and the Natives, and the Atlantic Slave Trade. Most recently, in California, Assembly Bill 1821 took effect on January 1, 2025, which required public schools to teach about the mistreatment of Native Americans and include their perspectives within history classes. 

These changes are necessary to restore truth within our histories, resist those in power from manipulating the past to line up with their touted ideals, and protect their self-made reputations. Through Cate’s method of inquiry within the classrooms, fortified by Harkness discussions and a history curriculum aimed at supporting the once-subdued voices of Native Americans, students learn not only the hidden histories of indigenous people but also gain critical thinking skills surrounding the knowledge they’ve gathered. Alleged facts are not spoon-fed but inspected and evaluated through diverse perspectives.

Regarding the content of our education and the way it is taught today, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 29, 2025, aimed at “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” He wrote that schools have “[indoctrinated] their children in radical, anti-American ideologies” and “are forced to accept these ideologies without question or critical examination.” Such radical ideologies include “adopting identities as either victims or oppressors solely based on their skin color and other immutable characteristics” and “[questioning] whether they were born in the wrong body and whether to view their parents and their reality [are] enemies to be blamed.” 

Some have praised the order, with Corey DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Culture Project and executive director of the Educational Freedom Institute, reinforcing the fact that parents “need to be in charge of their children’s education, not the government,” and with editors from the National Review, an American conservative editorial magazine, stating that children should not be subjected to “outside-the-mainstream theories until they are old enough to learn to evaluate them critically,” but rather learning to “commemorate what makes this nation great and special.” Overall, many supporters of the order believe that truthful education is muddled by the “indoctrination” of concepts like critical race theory and transgenderism, and have stated that the past administration “put politics over students for the past four years.”

However, many have also disputed the order, one concern being the defunding of schools, as the order encourages the Education, Defense, and Health and Human Services departments to develop a plan to “eliminate federal funding” from schools propagating “discriminatory” ideology. Regarding the debate concerning critical race theory, Trey Walk, a researcher and advocate with Human Rights Watch, states that students have a right to learn about how discrimination is embedded within the systems of society; stripping students of that knowledge will only continue to perpetuate racism in the nation. Some have also stated that there is little evidence supporting the indoctrination of such “radical ideologies” within school systems, with a 2021 Education Week Research Center Survey finding that only 8% of teachers have discussed critical race theory with their students. Ultimately, many have argued that this order diminishes the complexity and validity of American history, “undermines [America’s] own goals of a rigorous education,” and demeans American students by suggesting that patriotism can only be sparked through “triumphal stories.”

The way American history is presented is a point of great contention among both sides of the political spectrum, with both parties using the principle of truth to guide their respective arguments. But as stated in the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal,” thus, all of our voices matter. Truth is a compilation; it cannot be derived from one Party, one source, one perspective. By exercising the freedom of speech and sharing our unique viewpoints, we form the truth of our history.

As seen in 1984, Winston reestablishes power in his voice when he identifies the discrepancies within the fabricated stories of the Party, repudiating the control Big Brother has over his mind and his life. He recognizes that the “solid world exists” and that “its laws do not change,” that “truisms are true” no matter what the Party says. In the end, he concludes that freedom involves restoring power to his senses and entrusting his thoughts to be reality. Fundamental freedom stems from the ability to think critically about the surrounding world; granting individuals the power to define truth based on their senses liberates them from the oppressive ideologies of dominating forces, empowering their role in society. 

Maree Hawkins ‘28

What’s the Difference?

Like fire, hate is contagious, and in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother creates a World where hate is the norm. He offers the citizens of Oceania the freedom to hate in exchange for their humanity. Big Brother provokes his citizens’ fears through Hate rallies, the two-minute mandated assemblies where everyone is free to unleash their detest for Goldstein. During the Hate rally, Winston experiences the exacting essence of hate when it involuntarily takes control of him. He describes it as “a hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, as desire to kill, to torture” (Orwell 14). Winston surrenders to animosity, evoking an erratic desire to kill within him, but even worse: he loves it. Winston’s soul is being broken into; the abhorrence hiding within him is brought to the surface, virtually turning him into a soulless animal. Winston’s capricious behavior stems from fear – a fear that Goldstein puts his life in jeopardy. Almost 80 years later, the themes of 1984 are more relevant than ever: the government is still using fear and hate to push its agenda. Children are being stripped from their homes, there are constant wars and shootings, the quality of education is declining rapidly with the rise of AI, citizens are being watched and monitored, and there is a seemingly perpetual cycle of hate. Wow, nothing has changed.

So, how is hate so commanding? How can it fuel the citizens of Oceania so fiercely? Whenever I express my loathing for something, I feel free. When someone mentions their deep hatred for anything, the floodgates open: “Wait, I hate that too; let me share more about what and why I hate.” Hate is contagious in this way. It commands ownership of your soul without you ever knowing. Hate is sneaky in that way. Hate alters your brain; it leads you to believe in your own self-righteousness and let your pride grab hold of you: “Why would she do that?” Hate is like a drug in that way; it will always leave you wanting more. While reflecting on 1984 and Winston’s journey, I realize that hate is timeless. It has no end.

While malevolence is addictive, it is also exhausting and terrifying. Big Brother controls his actions, meals, conversations, feelings, and thoughts – but what if he doesn’t love Big Brother anymore? What if he’s tired of spewing out hate at rallies and rectifying documents to deceive other citizens into believing the government has exceeded its quota? Winston’s thoughts mirror mine. I am tired of hearing hate from all sides of the globe. I am exhausted with all the misinformation and propaganda spread in the media meant to influence my thoughts. 

Orwell wrote 1984 in 1949, fearing a possible future where dictators use hate and fear to rule absolutely. Today, Orwell and I share that fear. Freedom of speech is under threat from the new American administration. Every day brings a new headline of devastating news: children dying in school shootings, famine claiming lives in Gaza, new outbreaks of deadly diseases, and the escalating effects of climate change. Much like Winston, at times, I feel hopeless – like this could very well be the end of my World. There have been changes to names, titles, and processes, but at its core, 2025 is still fighting exactly what 1949 was fighting: regimes that are only seeking power and are intentionally brainwashing their citizens in order to reach absolution. 

Claire Tang ‘27

The Psychology of the Hive Mind

Why are people so inclined to follow trending topics? When a trend or meme becomes popular, people repeat it regardless of whether they know what it means. The phrase 6-7 has recently exploded among my teenage peers. Although there isn’t much meaning behind it, the phrase became highly popular on TikTok due to combining a basketball player’s height (6-7) with a song with 6-7 as a prominent lyric. When you’re surrounded by people who keep saying 6-7, although you are not forced to, you feel obliged to join in. In part, this compulsion is due to human nature. People want to feel like they belong, and doing what everyone around them is doing becomes a way to fit in. 

George Orwell captures this perfectly in his novel, 1984, by showing how people who don’t fully support the Party still join in on the Two Minutes of Hate. Like the compulsion people feel to join in the meme-ification of 6-7, Orwell notes, “The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in” (12). Orwell characterizes the Two Minutes Hate as a “horrible thing” because people may not necessarily agree with what’s being presented, but they still can’t avoid joining in. In those two minutes, everyone loses their individuality and is caught in a frenzy of rage and fear, which is precisely what Big Brother wants: psychological control.

In both Orwell’s dystopia and the contemporary world of social media trends, conformity is essential for survival. Although one depiction is obviously more dangerous, both examples show how powerful and “horrible” mob mentality can be, and how individuals can easily lose their sense of self when encompassed by a crowd. In 1984, doing what others are doing, or what Big Brother wants, is a matter of living. If citizens of Oceania don’t conform, like Winston learned the hard way, they will be tortured until they come to believe what the government tells them is true. On social media and in real life, going along with trends is a different type of survival: ‘Social Survival.’ Teens today consider their social acceptance as crucial as literal survival. With social media becoming a blue, glowing screen in everyone’s world, the pressure of constant conformity with influencers and trends online continues to increase. As people change to fit these standards, others adjust themselves in turn because the feeling that teens fear the most is rejection. Adolescence is when individuals begin to find their identity and social circles, and when the brain is most sensitive to peer approval or rejection. So when teens get rejected from these friend groups, they don’t get validation from their peers that they are “good” or “cool” enough for them, making social survival feel like a matter of actual life and death. Every message left on read, unopened snap, or empty seats at a lunch table reinforces this fear, which turns regular interactions into tests of belonging. From there, the cycle continues: one person laughs, another posts, another comments, and another imitates, causing an unstoppable chain of reactions. What makes the idea of herd mentality so “horrible” today is that, much like the Oceanians in 1984, teens give up their individuality to fit into social media trends. They are being “controlled” by influencers. Unlike Big Brother, who aims for total political control, the ultimate goal of these creators is economic control by keeping their viewers hooked on their content, liking their videos, subscribing to them, and watching the rest of their videos. The ironic thing about influencers is that they are also subject to the hive mind. The individuals who didn’t set the trends are forced to join in on these trends to continue making a life for themselves. However, the people who make these trends so popular are the viewers. So, who is truly controlling whom?

Humans are innately programmed to fit in. Since the Stone Age, humans have relied on each other to protect themselves from predators. Integrating oneself with a group of people creates an effect of safety, support, and connection, which is crucial for physical and mental health, purpose, and overall quality of life. George Orwell warned us of the hold that mob mentality would have on the people in a totalitarian government. However, today, even without such an authoritarian regime, people still fall victim to losing themselves when encompassed by a crowd. The fact that this phenomenon has lasted for centuries shows that the government does not cause it, but it is a human tendency.

Rosita Power ‘26

Wonder

In the Spanish language, there is no word that captures “wonder” in the same way the English word does. There is no direct translation. Preguntarse is close, but can come off as more formal than the simple “I wonder where he went?” Maravillarse only captures the “wonderful” side of “wonder,” still missing the casual use of it. Across all languages, there are examples like this one. One word could exist in one language but not in another. I imagine this is what it would feel like to live in 1984. I would search to express my “wonder” of, for example, “where he went,” but would have to settle for “I ask myself…” Or I would search to express my enthusiasm and joy, but would only be able to say it was “doubleplusgood.” When it comes to Spanish, my ideas often outpace my vocabulary and grammar. I wrote about feminist poetry, a good life, and the art of narration while still learning the difference between “I used to” (imperfect) and “I did” (preterite). If I weren’t limited by my thoughts, I would be limited by my ability to express them. While my Spanish-speaking level may not compare to a dystopian society, it does give me a glimpse into what it's like to be trapped by a language. I want to learn more and improve my speaking skills so I can fully express myself. If I were living in 1984, Big Brother would want the opposite. I initially thought that Big Brother and The Party were building a society based on convenience. Everything must be simplified and dumbed down. While I don’t think this is entirely untrue, I believe there is more to it. This simplification also strips away individualism. People must be trapped. They must not have the ability to think and express thoughts. The world that Winston lives in has already managed to simplify and unite the thoughts of many individuals, eventually including Winston himself. However, as Syme expresses, that world will soon simplify language, too. This is where parallels can begin to be drawn between 1984 and the present. With the rise of smartphones, communication has gotten less expressive and simpler. Additionally, the entire pit of doomscrolling can take away individuality and creativity in a whole different way. However, similar to 1984, text messages can’t completely convey emotions. There are definitely benefits to texting, but there are also downsides. They are short, abbreviated expressions that are read mostly in a monotone voice in someone else’s head. They rely solely on words, not body language, and block opportunities for face-to-face, human connection. Similar to 1984, the habit of texting could lead to the simplification and limiting of language. Communication could slowly drift away from being emotional and thoughtful and into something lazier: convenience. I don’t believe our brains and thoughts are as manipulable as those in 1984, but our language is. If that deteriorates, our thoughts could follow. We would be trapped by nonexistent words and eventually not be able to wonder.

Jae Wykoff ‘26

Harvesting Ad Revenue

Humans are encoded into dense numerical values. A point floating in this high-dimensional space that captures meaning and relationships. Billions of pieces of behavioral data, accounts followed, posts liked, and comments written form the geometric structure that powers Instagram's algorithm. Next, the content itself is sorted. Visual features are extracted into objects, styles, and colors; captions, hashtags, and comments are run through language models and plotted into this same coordinate system. Once the user and content embeddings exist, the cosine similarity is computed between them. This reduced list of thousands of relevant posts is fed into deeper neural networks, and a final short thirty-second reel bubbles up out of the thick vector field. Today, it decides to show a low-quality CCTV footage clip of a man shooting a cashier at point-blank range from an account called PeopleDeadDaily. The reel is shared out of horror, and the map of the space warps as the user vector is tugged slightly closer to this homicidal cluster. The clip blooms virally, pulling millions of accounts and content vectors closer. February 2025. Perhaps Instagram’s moderation system had an inverted value that caused these graphic videos to be promoted. Or maybe the high-dimensional space formed a gravitational well around this violence, as the algorithm farmed this shock value engagement. Dismemberment, visible organs, charred bodies, posts that should have been caught and quarantined on the edge of these spatial bunches, instead, explode in an infectious mess. “A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic” (14). Shootings, corpses, blood pooling across the pavement, car crashes ending in sudden stillness, are populated to the tops of feeds. A machine harvests interactions, attention, and ad revenue from the gore. The algorithm is mistaken; the vectors don't grow from meaning, but emotional control. The structure bends toward psychological dependence as the algorithm learns how to best profit.

Jen Won ‘26

A Play on Words

Over time, freedom of speech has become something people believe to be a human right. Although the laws around freedom of speech vary depending on different countries and governments, these days, most people do not have to think twice about the language they use, especially behind closed doors. In this way, in the novel 1984 by George Orwell, Orwell’s imagined world seems pretty different from the one we live in today.

For starters, Orwell writes, “What justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other words? A word contains its opposite in itself” (51). This sentence describes how, in that totalitarian society, the system tries to reduce any chances of people developing their vocabulary enough to truly express themselves. When comparing this to the America we live in today, people learn to use so many various words, slang, and phrases to accurately describe how they feel. There are so many antonyms and synonyms for “good” and “bad” that may change the degree or weight of the meaning. However, in the main character Winston’s world, the vocabulary is blunt and basic.

Another way these two worlds contrast is the weight the society places on words compared to the world today. For example, in the novel, it states, “In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words--in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston” (51)? Orwell describes the beauty in the simplicity of using fewer words. This goes against the way most people think in America today. Oftentimes, people try to learn new vocabulary in order to have the power to choose their language and the way they express themselves. These days, the beauty of words is about the in-depth descriptions and unique word choices. Even with everyday language use, people who are more articulate with their word choices often get their feelings across more easily.

However, there are definitely still some governments that have similar restrictions when it comes to people’s freedom of speech. For example, in China, many people fear using language that may sound anti-communist or disagreeing with the government. China also filters out a lot of its media, which also plays a big role in the manipulation and control of the people. These restrictions act as a way of brainwashing people, similarly to the world Orwell has created.

Still, for the most part, the development of languages and vocabularies in society overall has increased, and for the better. Therefore, when examining Orwell’s world and the world we live in today, it is safe to say that, for most places around the globe, when it comes to freedom of speech and the usage of words, the two places are not very similar.