I have worked through a large number of student essays on 1984 over the years, and one thing I have observed is that strong responses tend to share a particular quality: they commit to a specific reading of the text and build that reading consistently across every paragraph. The essay I am discussing in this post does exactly that. It takes a clear position: that Orwell exposes the suppression of individual identity and human connection under totalitarianism, and that what little complexity of human behaviour exists is gradually eroded. It pursues that argument with genuine engagement throughout.
My aim here is not to offer this essay as a script. Every student brings a different reading to 1984, and there is more than one way to write well about Orwell’s novel. What I want to examine is how the thinking in this response is structured: where it earns its marks, where it could go further, and what small adjustments would sharpen what is already a very pleasing piece of writing.
The Introduction
George Orwell, within his 1948 dystopian text, Nineteen Eighty-four, constructs a heavily monitored and repressed world, offering insights into the complexity of human behaviour. Orwell condemns collective conformity to totalitarian regimes, a catalyst for the suppression of individuality and connection, and beneath this exposes the multifaceted nature of human behaviour through the anomalous rebellion of Winston Smith. Orwell echoes the tensions of his contextual world with an escalating Cold War and rising ideologies of authoritarians Hitler, Stalin and Mao, highlighting the ultimate goal of repressive regimes to limit the complexity of human behaviour through the enforcement of a conformed collective.
What works well:
- The framing of Winston’s rebellion as anomalous is a strong interpretive choice. It immediately positions human complexity as the exception rather than the rule in Oceania, which gives the essay a clear and defensible argument from the outset.
- The contextual reference to Hitler, Stalin and Mao is well placed. Orwell’s novel was not written in a vacuum, and grounding the text in its political moment is appropriate here.
- The introduction builds genuine momentum and demonstrates close engagement with the question.
What could be pushed further:
- The introduction could be more specific about what we learn about human behaviour and why its complexity matters. Phrases like “multifaceted nature of human behaviour” carry weight only when attached to something concrete. A reader finishing this introduction should have a clearer sense of the specific insight Orwell is offering, not just the general territory the essay will cover.
- Ask yourself: what does the suppression of individuality reveal about what it means to be human? Even a brief answer to that question in the introduction would sharpen the argument considerably.
Paragraph One: The Eradication of Individual Identity
Through 1984, Orwell exposes the eradication of individual identity as a result of conformity to totalitarian regimes. The Party pursues a collective elimination of individual identity, thus limiting the complexity of human behaviour, in order to strengthen conformity to their regimes. ‘Newspeak’ manifests the Party’s goal of “cutting language down to the bones”, reducing individual thought, and thus, the comprehensibility of rebellion. Conformity for Oceania becomes “an instinctive reaction”, “impossible to avoid”, as a result of repressive mechanisms to limit rebellious behaviour. The similes of “mouths opening and closing like that of a landed fish” and “chests swelling and quivering as though they were standing up to the assault of a wave” express these abiding actions, and thus the collective’s unknowing surrender of genuine emotion, and thus internal complexities, to the Party’s construct of ‘hate’. Orwell exposes the possibility our minds can become disrupted and actions so controlled, we are unable to generate or share thought, provoking us to question whether humanity can genuinely exist in the void of individual identity and internal complexities. His allusion to Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am”, which defines one’s existence as having the ability to think for themselves, in Winston’s consideration of his own identity, “I think I exist… I am conscious of my own identity”, validates this notion. Thus, through the enforcement of conformity, Oceania holds limited individual identity, minimising complex human behaviour.
What works well:
- The focus on Newspeak is a strong choice for the opening body paragraph. The quotation “cutting language down to the bones” is precise and well selected, and the connection drawn between the reduction of language and the reduction of individual thought is exactly the kind of analytical link that lifts a paragraph above description.
- The reading of the similes as the collective’s “unknowing surrender of genuine emotion” is perceptive. Identifying the loss as not fully conscious deepens the argument about how conformity operates.
- The Descartes allusion is a sophisticated reference and deserves credit. Including it demonstrates awareness of how Orwell layers his literary and philosophical context into the novel.
- Pleasing engagement with the human behaviour aspect of the question, with some good links to insights.
What could be pushed further:
- The Descartes moment is where the analysis could go further. Winston’s version, “I think I exist… I am conscious of my own identity”, is not simply an allusion to Descartes; it is a diminished version of it. Where Descartes begins with the certainty of thought as proof of existence, Winston begins with uncertainty. That weakening of the phrase is itself a comment on what the Party has done to individual consciousness. Pressing on that detail would add another layer to the human behaviour argument the paragraph is building.
Paragraph Two: The Destruction of Human Connection
As a result, the world of Oceania is eradicated of human connection, characterised by the individual lack and subsequent yearning for a relationship. The Party eliminates private loyalties, the greatest threat to conformity, and thus further enforces a uniform human behaviour. By “mixing (love) up with fear and hatred”, the Party is able to divert this fundamental aspect of human nature, enforced through the ‘telescreens’, described imperatively as having “no way of shutting off completely”. The destruction of connection which binds humanity is furthered through O’Brien’s disheartening dialogue “we have cut the links between child and parent, between man and man, between man and woman.” The visceral clinical diction “cut” represents the sterilisation of relationships, and thus, the enforcement of conformity to repressive regimes. Ultimately, by eradicating the experience of connection, Orwell offers insights into the lack of complexity in human behaviour, as the collective is forced to conform to a vicious regime.
What works well:
- The argument is well conceived. Positioning private loyalty as “the greatest threat to conformity” is a strong and specific reading that keeps the paragraph tied to the question.
- O’Brien’s dialogue is very well chosen. The clinical precision of “cut” is noted and the analysis of it as representing the sterilisation of relationships is effective.
- The inclusion of the telescreen as a mechanism through which the Party mixes love with fear and hatred shows understanding of how surveillance in the novel functions as emotional manipulation, not just physical control.
- Good to show this aspect of the question.
What could be pushed further:
- The topic sentence would benefit from greater specificity. “Yearning for a relationship” invites the question: a relationship of what kind? A topic sentence that commits to a precise claim about human behaviour gives the paragraph a clearer target to hit. Consider naming what kind of connection is being lost and why that loss matters for understanding human experience.
Paragraph Three: Winston’s Rebellion and Its Limits
Contrastingly, Orwell expresses limited hope for humanity’s complexities through the anomalous rebellion of protagonist Winston Smith. Winston possesses the unique ability to maintain fractions of individual identity and connection, highlighting the multifaceted nature of human behaviour through his rebellion. His diary writing, “an act reasonably certain to be punished by death”, can be described as paradoxical for Winston in that it is “full of lust and horror”, “a feeling of positive dread”. The relief of momentarily discharging forbidden thought is contaminated by the fear of expressing a complex individuality within a conformed collective. This is heightened through Winston’s clandestine affair with Julia, possibly the “biggest blow struck against the Party”, resulting in his demise. His hyperbolic emotion in “she had become a physical necessity” initiates a sympathetic tone, enhancing the responder’s understanding of the dire emotional consequences that result from the constriction of individual experience. Thus, through Winston’s rebellion, Orwell expresses limited complexity in human behaviour, however through Winston’s degradation in the Ministry of Love, “Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia!”, Orwell extends the Party’s absolute control. Conformity enforced by the Party is strong enough to deteriorate those who begin anomalous, ultimately exposing the lack of complex human behaviour in the world of Oceania.
What works well:
- This is the strongest paragraph in the essay. The reading of Winston’s diary writing as paradoxical, simultaneously driven by relief and contaminated by dread, is genuinely insightful. It captures something precise about what it means to be someone who cannot fully suppress their own complexity even when doing so would be safer.
- The analysis of “she had become a physical necessity” is handled well. Reading it through the lens of emotional consequences rather than just the language keeps the analysis connected to the question.
- The final move to Winston’s betrayal of Julia in Room 101 is the right choice to end on. “Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia!” is the moment the essay’s central argument reaches its conclusion: even the most anomalous individual is ultimately broken.
- Very good engagement with the question throughout.
What could be pushed further:
- The Room 101 moment deserves a little more close reading. What does the fragmented syntax of that outburst reveal? What does it tell us about what the Party has done not just to Winston’s loyalty but to his capacity for genuine human attachment? There is more to say here, and the paragraph would benefit from staying with that evidence a moment longer before closing.
The Conclusion
Through the exploration of the exploitation of power, enforcing conformity, Orwell exposes limited humanity within collective conformity. While complexities of human behaviour exist within Winston’s anomalous rebellion, this is eroded by the Party’s manipulation. Thus, Orwell extends very little complexity in human behaviour within the highly monitored and repressed world of Oceania.
What works well:
- The conclusion is clean and consistent with the argument the essay has built. It restates the position without introducing new material and holds the line of the central argument to the end.
- Recognising that complexity exists in Winston but is ultimately eroded is the essay’s most original contribution, and the conclusion frames it well.
What could be pushed further:
- The word insights is worth returning to here. The Common Module question asks not just about human behaviour but about insights into human experience. What does the erosion of Winston’s rebellion tell us about the conditions under which individuality can and cannot survive? Answering that question directly in the final sentence would give the conclusion a stronger landing.
Overall
A very pleasing response with a unique and perceptive take on the question. The argument is consistent, the textual evidence is generally well selected, and the essay demonstrates genuine understanding of both the text and the module.
The main suggestions are small ones:
- Add a little more specificity in the introduction about what the insights actually are
- Tighten the topic sentence in paragraph two to name the precise kind of connection being lost
- Stay with the Room 101 evidence in paragraph three a moment longer
- Return to the word insights explicitly in the conclusion
These are refinements, not corrections. The thinking in this essay is strong, and the approach it takes to 1984 is worth developing further.
Looking for support with HSC English essay writing? Book a session with Boldtutor face-to-face in Sydney or online.