36,340
edits
Doublethink: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Doublethink]] is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and [[Neutrality]]. Also related is | [[Doublethink]] is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and [[Neutrality]]. Also related is [[Cognitive Dissonance]], in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction. | ||
George Orwell created the word doublethink in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1948); doublethink is part of newspeak. In the novel, its origin within the typical citizen is unclear; while it could be partly a product of Big Brother's formal brainwashing programmes, the novel explicitly shows people learning doublethink and newspeak due to peer pressure and a desire to "fit in", or gain status within the Party — to be seen as a loyal Party Member. In the novel, for someone to even recognize — let alone mention — any contradiction within the context of the Party line was akin to blasphemy, and could subject that someone to disciplinary action and to the instant social disapproval of fellow Party Members. | George Orwell created the word doublethink in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1948); doublethink is part of newspeak. In the novel, its origin within the typical citizen is unclear; while it could be partly a product of Big Brother's formal brainwashing programmes, the novel explicitly shows people learning doublethink and newspeak due to peer pressure and a desire to "fit in", or gain status within the Party — to be seen as a loyal Party Member. In the novel, for someone to even recognize — let alone mention — any contradiction within the context of the Party line was akin to blasphemy, and could subject that someone to disciplinary action and to the instant social disapproval of fellow Party Members. | ||