Orwellian Doublethink
Posted by Connor on November 12th, 2006
Those of you who read my blog are most likely aware that I recently finished the books 1984 and Animal Farm, both written by George Orwell.
One of the principles in 1984 that I found most interesting was ‘doublethink’.
The wikipedia page defines doublethink as “the act of holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, fervently believing both, and being unaware of their incompatibility.”
The wikipedia page elaborates:
Doublethink was a form of trained, willful blindness to contradictions in a system of beliefs. Doublethink differed from ordinary hypocrisy in that the person who was “doublethinking” had to deliberately forget the contradiction between his two opposing beliefs — and then deliberately forget the fact that he had forgotten it. He then had to forget the forgetting of the forgetting, and so on; this process of intentional forgetting, once begun, continued indefinitely. Orwell describes this endless process as a kind of “controlled insanity.”
Now, while I could make a case for certain politicians and media moguls subscribing to this philosophy, I’ll abstain and instead focus on the religious aspect. Today in Church while perusing the good word I came across the following verse:
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (James 1:8)
Following the footnote led to:
They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. (Psalms 12:2)
These two verses talk of people with a “double mind” and “double heart”. Such a principle, in my mind, relates in part (if not entirely) to the concept put forth by Orwell.
So, my question to all of you, is in what way can we as human beings, in relation to God’s commandments and revealed doctrine, have a “double mind/heart”?
Interesting question. I’ll have to think about this some.
One of the first things that comes to mind is what I have observed lately with part-member families that begin being tought by the missionaries. I have seen this happen in meaningful ways about a half dozen times in the last few years in our ward. A common thing is that as the non-member begins learning what the church is all about, they see the ‘deficiencies’ in their member spouse with respect to the gospel. The member may have ‘forgotten’ many of the things they should have been doing all along. Then the member ‘remembers’ why they were inactive in the first place.
A couple of divorces have resulted.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on November 12th, 2006
I personally think this principle is seen in those who profess to be members of the Church who also have a foot in Babylon, as it were, holding fast to precepts and ideologies contrary to the Gospel. This might be s self-proclaimed “active” member of the Church who thinks that pornography really “isn’t that bad”, one that sees no problem in gambling, or one who justifies any other large sin which would make them unworthy of full membership in the kingdom. Through rationalization and philisophical arguments they try to state their reasons for holding such beliefs, sometimes appealing to science (social or physical). But holding any views which are contrary to God’s commandments is ‘doublethink’, in my mind.
We are in a continuing battle that began before God’s throne in pre-mortality. We must choose which side we are on, and adamantly support and fight for that cause. Apathy and indifference, in my opinion, is tantamount to surrender. We must not surrender. We must not use doublethink in our own lives to justify anything contrary to the Gospel.
As Brother Joseph said:
Comment # 2 left by Connor Boyack on November 12th, 2006
Double heart/mind?
Believe “thou shalt not steal” and also believe it’s ok to vote for a bond issue that forcefully extracts money from your neighbor.
Believe “thou shalt not murder” and also support immoral ( non-God approved) wars.
Believe “thou shalt not covet” and vote to take away your neighbor’s right to XXX (which harms no one else).
Believe “that it is bad to offend little ones” and then force them to attend a mind-numbing atheist promoting Gov school.
Believe “that shalt not bear false witness” and support politicians who do
Comment # 3 left by ed42 on November 12th, 2006
Ed42,
Right on, man. I agree wholeheartedly, though I might take issue with you on the “thou shalt not covet” one, depending on how you meant it. Since I’m not sure what your ‘XXX’ might be referring to, perhaps you could offer a few examples so I can understand what you mean? I see some subjectivity in the neighbor’s “right” - which would depend entirely upon which “right” we’re discussing.
Other than that, you raise some excellent points.
Comment # 4 left by Connor Boyack on November 12th, 2006
This problem Orwell mentions is something that I put a lot of effort into guarding against. In spite of this I know that somewhere I still am thoroughly indoctrinated from birth to believe some things which are false, that I haven’t worked out yet. We all are. And a lot of this does occur in religious belief. Our whole concept of a loving God that brings condemnation to those who oppose him is a ridiculous contradiction. Yet being brought up with this idea it took a long time to see the flaws in it. We have ideas of commandments that conflict (to the Jew a stumbling block). This takes an awful lot of sifting out. We are just so “brainwashed” in irrational thinking. The only way out of it (generally speaking) is to use the Spirit, and let it teach us as we are ready.
Comment # 5 left by Doug Towers on November 13th, 2006
Coveting, to me, means either 1) I want what you have and instead of expending my resources to get it I’m going to use the law to steal it from you and/or 2) I don’t want you to have/do something you have/do, so I’m going to use the law to prevent you from having/doing it.
I enjoy (you might even say covet) a smoke-free eating establishment, in fact I won’t eat where there is smoke because it ruins it for me. However I reject no-smoking laws in private owned business because it is legalized coveteousness.
Absent a previous agreement (covenant) stating otherwise I think a homeowner should be able to do what we wants with his property (short of polluting his neighbors property - or withholding sunlight or natural water ways). Laws (grass height, parking strip regs, max # of cars in driveway, etc.) to the contrary, IMO, are just forms of coveteousness.
License laws (barbers, doctors, lawyers, etc.) are IMO another form of coveteousness. Why can’t I decide whose services to use? Why should the state limit me to a set of approved professionals? These laws are based on coveting.
I hope this explains what I was thinking.
Comment # 6 left by ed42 on November 13th, 2006
Another one :
Believe in “Don’t worship other Gods” & “make no idols” and then swear fidelity to a man-made piece of cloth…
Comment # 7 left by ed42 on November 13th, 2006
Ed42,
Thanks for some thought-provoking issues. I hadn’t thought of the detriment of professional licensing, but I certainly do see your point. The sad fact exists that the government wields an extraordinary amount of control in our personal and professional lives. ‘Twas not always so, nor should it be this way. Alas…
Comment # 8 left by Connor Boyack on November 13th, 2006
I totally agree with your thoughts, ED42, in regard the commandment of covetting. I believe the ten commandments are all outside action laws. Even the one of honouring parents. I also strongly oppose government control.
However the problem arises as to just where to draw the line. Gods laws to Moses made government control by individuals who were far from perfect. And while we may say that Christs gospel presents a freedom, just how Christ like is the community? It seems to present a question with no perfect answer because 1. Everybody is different, and 2. No 0ne is perfect to have a perfect law.
Comment # 9 left by Doug Towers on November 14th, 2006