IEET > Technopolitics > Philosophy > Rights > Political Empowerment & Participation > Affiliate Scholar > John G. Messerly
Major Ideas in Henry Giroux’s “Orwell, Huxley and America’s Plunge into Authoritar
John G. Messerly   Dec 29, 2016   Reason and Meaning  

Orwell, Huxley and America’s Plunge into Authoritarianism,” Counterpunch, June 19, 2015, by Henry Giroux, the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University.

This is a long, complex article—I’ve cut out more than 2/3 of it—yet these salient quotes hit on many of its major themes. The article concerns itself primarily about the means that technology provides authoritarian regimes in tracking and distracting their citizens into accepting a totalitarian state. I have a few disagreements with this piece, but it is a worthwhile read.

… George Orwell and Aldous Huxley shared a fundamental conviction … They both argued that the established democracies of the West were moving quickly toward an historical moment when they would willingly relinquish the noble promises and ideals of liberal democracy and enter that menacing space where totalitarianism perverts the modern ideals of justice, freedom, and political emancipation …

Orwell’s “Big Brother” found more recently a new incarnation in the revelations of government lawlessness and corporate spying by whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond, and Edward Snowden.[3] All of these individuals revealed a government that lied about its intelligence operations, illegally spied on millions of people who were not considered terrorists or had committed no crime, and collected data from every conceivable electronic source to be stored and potentially used to squelch dissent, blackmail people, or just intimidate those who fight to make corporate and state power accountable.[4] …

… Huxley shared Orwell’s concern about ignorance as a political tool of the elite, enforced through surveillance and the banning of books, dissent, and critical thought itself. But Huxley, believed that social control and the propagation of ignorance would be introduced by those in power through the political tools of pleasure and distraction … the real drugs and social planning of late modernity lies in the presence of an entertainment and public pedagogy industry that trades in pleasure and idiocy …

Keeping people out is the extended face of Big Brother who now patrols borders, hospitals, and other public spaces in order to “spot “the people who do not fit in the places they are in … or better still never allowing them to come anywhere near in the first place.”[6]

… This is the Big Brother that pushes youthful protests out of the public spaces they attempt to occupy. This is the hyper-nationalistic Big Brother clinging to notions of racial purity and American exceptionalism … in creating a country that has come to resemble an open air prison for the dispossessed. This is the Big Brother … of the 1 percent with their control over the economy and use of paramilitarised police forces … and … their retreat into gated communities manned by SWAT-like security forces.

… it is unfair to view the impact of the rapid militarization of local police on poor black communities as nothing short of terrifying and symptomatic of the violence that takes place in authoritarian societies … “There are more African-American adults under correctional control today—in prison or jail, on probation or parole—than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began.”[8]

… Orwell would be astonished by this contemporary, refashioned “Big Brother” given the threat the new surveillance state poses because of its reach and the alleged “advance” of technologies that far outstretch anything he could have imagined …

… “Orwell never could have imagined that the National Security Agency (NSA) would amass metadata on billions of our phone calls and 200 million of our text messages every day. Orwell could not have foreseen that our government would read the content of our emails, file transfers, and live chats from the social media we use.”[11]

… In Orwell’s world, individual freedom and privacy were under attack from outside forces. For Huxley, in contrast, freedom and privacy were willingly given up as part of the seductions of a soft authoritarianism, with its vast machinery of manufactured needs, desires, and identities. This new mode of persuasion seduced people into chasing commodities, and infantilized them through the mass production of easily digestible entertainment, disposable goods … The conditions for critical thought dissolved into the limited pleasures instant gratification wrought … that dampened, if not obliterated, the very possibility of thinking itself …

At the same time, Orwell’s warning about “Big Brother” applies not simply to an authoritarian-surveillance state but also to commanding financial institutions and corporations who have made diverse modes of surveillance a ubiquitous feature of daily life … the surveillance state is one that not only listens, watches, and gathers massive amounts of information through data mining …

The state and corporate cultural apparatuses now collude to socialize everyone—especially young people—into a regime of security and commodification in which their identities, values, and desires are inextricably tied to a culture of commodified addictions, self-help, therapy, and social indifference …

… the right to privacy and freedom have been usurped by the seductions of a narcissistic culture and casino capitalism’s unending desire to turn every relationship into an act of commerce … In a world devoid of care, compassion, and protection, personal privacy and freedom are no longer connected and resuscitated through its connection to public life, the common good, or a vulnerability born of the recognition of the frailty of human life …

Underlying these everyday conveniences of modern life … is the growing Orwellian partnership between the militarized state and private security companies in the United States. Each day, new evidence surfaces pointing to the emergence of a police state that has produced ever more sophisticated methods for surveillance in order to enforce a mass suppression of the most essential tools for democratic dissent: “the press, political activists, civil rights advocates and conscientious insiders who blow the whistle on corporate malfeasance and government abuse.”[21] …

… Aided by a public pedagogy, produced and circulated through a machinery of consumption and public relations tactics, a growing regime of repression works through the homogenizing forces of the market to support the widespread embrace of an authoritarian culture and police state.

Relentlessly entertained by spectacles, people become not only numb to violence and cruelty but begin to identify with an authoritarian worldview … the police “become … obsessive objects of imaginative identification in popular culture… watching movies, or … TV shows that … look at the world from a police point of view.”[25]

… Americans vicariously participate in the toxic pleasures of the authoritarian state. Violence has become the organizing force of a society driven by a noxious notion of privatization … This violence … mimics not just the death of the radical imagination, but also a notion of banality made famous by Hannah Arendt who argued that at the root of totalitarianism was a kind of thoughtlessness, an inability to think, and a type of outrageous indifference in which “There’s simply the reluctance ever to imagine what the other person is experiencing.” [26]

… political rule has been replaced by corporate sovereignty, consumerism becomes the only obligation of citizenship, and the only value that matters is exchange value. Precarity has replaced social protections provided by the state, just as the state cares more about building prisons and infantilizing the American public than it does about providing all of its citizens with quality educational institutions and health care …

The authoritarian nature of the corporate-state surveillance apparatus and security system … can only be fully understood when its ubiquitous tentacles are connected to … security-patrolled corridors of public schools, the rise in super-max prisons, the hyper-militarization of local police forces, the justification of secret prisons and state-sanctioned torture abroad, and the increasing labeling of dissent as an act of terrorism in the United States. [29] … Alongside efforts to defund public and higher education and to attack the welfare state, a wide-ranging assault is being waged across the culture on all spheres that encourage the public to hold power accountable

Nothing will change unless people begin to take seriously the subjective underpinnings of oppression in the United States … The current regime of authoritarianism is reinforced through a new and pervasive sensibility in which people surrender themselves to the both the capitalist system and a general belief in its call for security …

I want to conclude by recommending five initiatives, though incomplete, that might help young people and others challenge the current oppressive historical conjuncture in which they along with other oppressed groups now find themselves. My focus is on higher education because that is the one institution that is under intense assault at the moment because it has not completely surrendered to the Orwellian state.[32]

First, there is a need for what can be called a revival of the radical imagination. This call would be part of a larger project “to reinvent democracy … if by ‘democracy’ we mean effective popular participation in the crucial decisions affecting the community.”[33] … a challenge to the power of those individuals, financial elite, ruling groups, and large-scale enterprises that have hijacked democracy …

One step in this direction would be to for young people, intellectuals, scholars and other to go on the offensive in defending higher education as a public good, resisting as much as possible the ongoing attempt by financial elites to view its mission in instrumental terms as a workstation for capital. This means fighting back against a conservative led campaign to end tenure, define students as consumers, defund higher education, and destroy any possibility of faculty governance by transforming most faculty into adjuncts or what be called Walmart workers. Higher education … should be a viewed as a right rather than as an entitlement …

… Second, young people and progressives need create the institutions and public spaces in which education becomes central as a counter-narrative that serves to both reveal, interrogate, and overcome the common sense assumptions that provide the ideological and affective webs that tie many people to forms of oppression …

Third, America has become a society in which the power at the state and national levels has become punitive for most Americans and beneficial for the financial and corporate elite. Punishment … now reaches into almost every commanding institution that holds sway over the American public and its effects are especially felt by the poor, blacks, young people, and the elderly … millions of young men are held in prisons and jails across the United States, and most of them for nonviolent crimes. Working people are punished for a lifetime of work by having their pensions either reduced or taken away. Poor people are denied Medicaid because right-wing politicians believe the poor should be financially responsible for their health care … The United States is one of the few countries that allow teenagers to be tried as adults …

… an increasing numbers of youth suffer mental anguish and overt distress even … among the college bound, debt-ridden, and unemployed … Many reports claim that “young Americans are suffering from rising levels of anxiety, stress, depression and even suicide … “One out of every five young people and one out of every four college students … suffers from some form of diagnosable mental illness.”[40] According to one survey, “44 percent of young aged 18 to 24 say they are excessively stressed.”[41] … The war on youth has to be seen as a central element of state terrorism and crucial to critically engaging the current regime of neoliberalism.

Fourth, as the claims and promises of a neoliberal utopia have been transformed into an Orwellian and Dickensian nightmare, the United States continues to succumb to the pathologies of political corruption, the redistribution of wealth upward into the hands of the 1 percent, the rise of the surveillance state, and the use of the criminal justice system as a way of dealing with social problems …

Under the star of Orwell, morality loses its emancipatory possibilities … misery is denounced as a moral failing … the ultimate form of entertainment becomes the pain and humiliation of others, especially those considered disposable and powerless, who are no longer an object of compassion, but of ridicule and amusement. This becomes clear in the endless stories … from U.S. politicians disdaining the poor as moochers who don’t need welfare but stronger morals … In this discourse soaring inequality in wealth and income … and low wages for millions of working Americans are ignored …

So it is…disheartening still to see commentators suggesting that the poor are causing their own poverty, and could easily escape if only they acted like members of the upper middle class….Shrugging your shoulders as you attribute it all to values is an act of malign neglect. The poor don’t need lectures on morality, they need more resources—which we can afford to provide—and better economic opportunities, which we can also afford to provide through everything from training and subsidies to higher minimum wages.[46]

Lastly, any attempt to make clear the massive misery, exploitation, corruption, and suffering produced under casino capitalism must develop both a language of critique and possibility. It is not enough to simply register what is wrong with American society, it is also crucial to do so in a way that enables people to recognize themselves in such discourses in a way that both inspires them to be more critical and energizes them to do something about it …

This is a particularly important goal given that the fragmentation of the left has been partly responsible for its inability to develop a wide political and ideological umbrella to address a range of problems extending from extreme poverty, the assault on the environment, the emergence of the permanent warfare state, the roll back of voting rights, and the assault on public servants, women’s rights, and social provisions …

The darkest side of the authoritarian state feeds and legitimizes not only state violence, the violation of civil liberties, a punishing state, and a culture of cruelty, but also a culture for which violence becomes the only mediating force available to address major social problems. Under such circumstances, a culture of violence erupts and punishes the innocent, the marginalized, and those everyday people who become victims of both hate crimes and state terrorism …

What will American society look like in the future? For Huxley, it may well mimic a nightmarish image of a world in which ignorance is a political weapon and pleasure as a form of control … Orwell … might see a more open future and history disinclined to fulfill itself in the image of the dystopian society … He believed in the power of those living under such oppression to imagine otherwise, to think beyond the dictates of the authoritarian state and to offer up spirited forms of collective resistance … Only time will tell us whether either Orwell or Huxley was right. But … history is open and the space of the possible is always larger than the one currently on display.

This is truly a chilling view of our near future.

John G. Messerly is an Affiliate Scholar of the IEET. He received his PhD in philosophy from St. Louis University in 1992. His most recent book is The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Scientific, and Transhumanist Perspectives. He blogs daily on issues of philosophy, evolution, futurism and the meaning of life at his website:



I don’t think it’s possible to build a “genuine civilization”.  At least not in a finite system.  The Pie you speak of is the availability of exploitable resources, I’m sure.  And yet if everything within the observable universe was exploitable, we couldn’t use it all.  There are “sacred” objects that exist that can’t be abused.  Namely it boils down to “ourselves”.  We can’t tolerate the notion that we would be expendable, or used in a way that doesn’t confirm our beliefs.

To draw upon a possibly poor analogy.  Consider a bucket of Lego with a couple of children playing with said toys.  Lego in this context being the finite/exploitable resource.  As a child, one is generally/potentially indifferent to the plights of others.  A little more selfish perhaps than an “adult”.  As odd as it may seem (not really), the children are made of “Lego” too (say both kids, and Lego are forms of a certain element…like Carbon).

Well, if each kid has their idealized “utopia”/perfect project they wish to construct (eg a “Genuine Civilization”).  That draws upon the entire pool of available resources (the Lego Bucket), but can’t be finished until the “Other Lego Child” is consumed too.  How does the project ever get finished/resolved?

Ignorance/self-absorption would imply that we wouldn’t care about the other Lego child, and that we’d consume them in some sort of way (forcibly, or voluntarily).

This is what happens when one has a “Infinite Probability/Possibility Space”, and a “Finite Resource Space”

Instamatic, perhaps.

In regards to the article, my thoughts are that how is one supposed to tell/discern between one type of “justice”, and another type of “justice”?  This probably ties in with Instamatic’s remark about adult’s being more selfish in that it’s the central conceit of society.  Liberals/Progressives are seeking a form of “justice”, and so are the Conservatives.  The form of “justice” both parties seek are apparently at odds with each other, or is it just the means of implementing said justice?

Consider for a moment, the origins of justice/law.  The Hammurabi Code:  Law #196: “If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man’s bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one gold mina. If one destroy the eye of a man’s slave or break a bone of a man’s slave he shall pay one-half his price.” - via Wikipedia ( ).

Notice that if taken at a certain value, it is more costly to be the offender than the “victim”.  The offender loses both their eye, and has to pay a mina.  To pervert this Law as written a little bit, it doesn’t imply that the “victim” is the one to return the loss of limb (eye), and being that I don’t know how this Law was practiced.  It is clearly more “expensive” to injure a freeman for one eye/bone is worth 1 mina whereas a slave’s is 1/2 a mina (*provided they aren’t referring to the price of the slave).

To apply some cruel math/logic to this situation.  If a freeman blinded a slave (both eyes) it’d be worth at least one of his eyes…maybe both, depending if the slave can identify him.  At a level, a freeman could blind two slaves completely (2 mina’s worth).  And maybe more if he was never caught. Say those that witnessed the act of blinding was in favor of the freeman up to a point.  Thus they wouldn’t turn him in (he’s a friend…., a “good man”, and the slave did something stupid/offensive to the freeman).  If said freeman kept blinding slaves, and was eventually turned in.  It’d be up to the king/ruler to finally decide his justice.  Is the King exempt from his own laws?  If he were to take the final eye of the offender.  He’d have to lose one of his own in return.

This is justice, a king/ruler isn’t above the laws/rules they codify/enforce.  Is the king able to foot the costs of losing an eye?  I’d assume so being that they’d have the entire royal treasury to pay off the 1 mina.

According to my brother, a civil servant, Hillary had a tendency to see herself as above the state/law (opinion based upon email scandal, and stories from other civil servants).  Trump, may or may not be brought to heel.  And if he’s as vindictive as portrayed, he’ll hemorrhage himself fairly quickly I’d assume.

Also, one question/thought.  If Trump’s as narcissistic, as again portrayed, you’d think he’d distance himself as much as possible from Hitler’s sort of leadership/ideology when the time is right.  It’s not possible to be “loved/admired” (whatever narcissists crave…recognition) when one is being compared to one of history’s most vilified humans.

I don’t fully have an informed opinion on said “X”.  Mainly because as I’m in my late 20’s I know I don’t have quite the political/social experience that elders would have.  As a plus, I also don’t hold as many “prejudices” because of said limited experience.

Personally though, I think the World/Era one is a part of is as Just as they make it, or it is allowed to be.  Shining a historical light upon justice, and morality.  It can be said that it is always increasing, but the drastic changes that could happen won’t happen in our lifetimes.  Either because they’ve already been established conceptually, or because of the slowness of mainstream culture.

Considering that Universal Male Suffrage (in the U.S.A) was established 1870, Woman’s Suffrage (still U.S.A) was 1920.  Sure the numbers seem like it happened ages ago, but to put generational perspective into play.  My Grandparents, who are approaching their 90’s, are effectively the “first/2nd” generation born where both genders were allowed to vote.  The Civil Rights Movement was in the 50’s-60’s which is around when my parents where born.

Taking those dates into a different perspective.  It’d deeply imply that Universal Suffrage of any sort was not a agreed upon thing.  1870? That’d imply that there was at least 1870 years of repressed rights to some groups (if one count’s down to 1 A.D., and the Calendar used).  Does anyone honestly think that hatreds/prejudices die out in a generation or two?

I guess, at some level I feel “safer” with the “X” over the status quo because it implies (good, or bad) things are changing.  Trump’s bringing to bear all the old/repressed hatreds of past generations.  Sure there’s some in the “New Generation” agreeing with it, but overall?  I don’t think so.  And it may catalyze further developments of Justice/Morality down the line because of the “atrocities” that are played out.  Think of how the German’s reacted the years after Hitler’s fall.

Your anecdote about war-children points to the notion that prejudice, and fear are learned.  Doesn’t this imply that they could be unlearned, or simply not “taught”?

Biases, for all they’re worth, are neutral.  You can’t discern between a good, or a bad thing if you weren’t biased towards a certain outcome.  Having said such, I realize I’m biased in favor of the “Unknown”, and “Uncertainty”.  Mainly because I’ve aligned myself into that axis, and in part because I was pushed into it.

I’m being treated for schizophrenia, but the doctors really don’t have solid proof/evidence for it.  It’s based upon their “judgement/biases”. As is my resistance to said diagnosis.  Is either side 100% right?  Probably not, so in effect we keep resisting each others efforts.  Every time I’ve been in the clinic due to stress/complications with living conditions.  They’ve wanted to commit me.

Clearly from our numerous conversations, I generally don’t exhibit characteristics such as “word salad”, or whatever.  I think the biggest issue they have is that I stand for the “Unknown”.  I don’t fit their models of how I’m supposed to be.

In essence, they don’t know how to understand my worldview which is understandable because I don’t get it all the time either.  I mean is it “normal” based upon “social norms” to do this over this (in an abstract sense).  And yet, aren’t social norms conditioned into a person?  The language we’re using, the mental models we develop, the methods of meaning making…all are conditioned into us via “socially acceptable” means.

Going back to the war-children, if they didn’t have a conditioning force from above (parents/grandparents…Death/Shame/Guilt pressures).  How would they develop?  They’d develop however they needed to in order to survive.  They’d come to a choice though, would they “plateau”, or continue striving to become better at living?  (Tie in thoughts from this article: ).

Thus in response to Churchill, and you.  I’d say with every new thing therin lies the potential for good, evil, and whatever depending upon what is brought to the table.

I’ve rationally tilted at that concept of Nothing that you referred to in the last paragraph ( &  In essence it is Nihilism which was seen coming by Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard (19th century philosophers).  Nietzsche referred to it as the great “revaluation of values/Gott is Tot” (or something like that), and Kierkegaard called it the “Great Leveling”.  Both probably stem from “too much Democracy” as Plato would put it.  We’re slipping into decadence which is sort of why I feel Islam is so hostile towards us lately.  We’ve lost our “moral core”, but being that we’re aware of said loss.  We can do something about it.  It is a moral challenge to either recuperate, or live in ethical squalor.

This isn’t a “conservative, or progressive” challenge. It is a HUMAN challenge.  Oddly I want to say I have “Faith” in the Human Spirit though.  Not because it is blindly placed, but because, as a species, we’ve fought/struggled for so much.  We are left to devise a “Human Morality”.  Not a Universal one, for everything (sentient/aware species) goes through their own environmental/social history.

If there is a God, it is through with the days of “Mass judgement”, and is now on to the days of “Personal Judgement”.  Essentially, I think it boils down to the notion(s) of Suicide, Y/N?  Existence, Y/N?

Practically, can you as a person live with yourself?  And can/could you live in a community of your peers?  That I think is the beginnings of a “New Morality”.  Assume that you are “Nothing” (cause you’re stardust), and what do you do?  Every act you take, every belief you hold will set you apart from others, but also bring you towards others.  We are a species divided against itself, but we’ve almost always been that way.

“War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means.” - Carl von Clausewitz, On War

This applies to both cultural, and physical wars, I think.

This may be a moment of ignorance, but what’s the difference between “Justice”, and “Morality”?  Isn’t justice applied morality, or am I thinking about it differently?  A person has to have some sort of moral foundation upon which to judge.  Otherwise they’d be considered unjust.

I can see a slight difference in that Progressives want those who are “downtrodden” to be brought-up through statist intervention.  Whereas Conservatives would prefer personal-accountability/responsibility.  They are both addressing the same problem, but from different angles.  The problem, as I see it, is how to have a “better life” for more people (at least one of the issues), and how to secure said “rights” for oneself.

I generally identify myself as “pseudo-anarchist”.  If solely because I have a hard time affiliating with groups.  Even if it’s in my “Best Interest”.  I’ve seen too much of the “mob mentality”, “mob justice”, or “mob morality”.  It just seems to be when more than two people gather, there’s an “offshoring” of intellectual rigor, and responsibility.  It either goes to the “top”, or gets dispersed amongst the “bottom”.

The Two person “psychopath”.  One says shoot, the other shoots.  Both deny culpability.  One says, I was just following orders.  The other, I didn’t pull the trigger.  And yet, someone ends up “dead”.

whelp, according to psychology, progress is an illusion (I think).  It is what it is which is my take on what it is.  I figure from the “Science” I know, and realizing that no one has an “Absolute understanding” of Reality.  It’s just as easy to say I’m fully incarnate in who/what I am.  Humans create God, God creates Humans.  It’s a tidy little narrative, but in reality I don’t see a difference other than the label upon the box.  We’re both incarnate in a Universe, Western thought holds humanity as external/above to their environment.  Not true, otherwise there’d be no “environmental disasters”.  Now replace “humanity” with “Deity” in the prior sentence.  What are the implications?

It is as it almost always seemed to have been is us working against ourselves.  There is no need to “learn the hard way”, just as there is no “need to learn the easy way”.  It being It.  No grandiose meaning, no secret agendas,....all of it is based upon what you see in yourself/others.  Not solipsism, but an entity gazing into a Mirror.

As you said, “Does America deserve Trump?”, and “Don’t we have to learn the hard lessons?”?  What do you think?

In a certain sense, the celebritization of politics goes back to Washington…  I think with democracy it’s more about being known as a figurehead, and the spirit of the times over a rational choice in some sense.

Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush senior…Eisenhower…Lincoln…et al.  I’d bet almost all of them ended up in the White House because of said spirit.  This is contrary to Monarchies, and Oligarchies because the zeitgeist of the People isn’t involved in those.’s easy to learn the hard way, but hard to learn the easy way, I suppose.  The trick I think is knowing when to stop, and ask over pushing ahead alone.  Although in the end, a person has to make their own mistakes in entirely their own way.

Anyways, I think we’ve hijacked the comment section of Messerly’s post long enough…

YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Why curiosity is the key to science and medicine

Previous entry: Anders Sandberg on the Ethics of Time Compression in Computing