Winston Smith’s role in 1984 might seem like a monotonous office job, but it is one of the most critical functions in maintaining the Party’s control over Oceania. In the Ministry of Truth, Winston is tasked with rewriting historical records to align with the ever-shifting needs of the government. This process involves altering past newspaper articles, speeches, books, and other documents to create a seamless narrative that supports the Party’s official stance. Suppose the Party’s predictions fail or a political figure falls out of favor. In that case, Winston’s job is to obliterate all traces of these discrepancies, replacing them with a new version of history that aligns with the present circumstances.
This act of historical revisionism is the cornerstone of the Party’s power. By controlling the past, the government can manipulate the present and future, ensuring its rule is always justified and inevitable. History records what happened and is a tool used to secure and solidify the Party’s control. The past must always be consistent with the Party’s narrative, meaning all contradictions must be erased. In Orwell’s world, this erasure is not a slow, gradual process but a continuous, relentless effort to maintain the illusion of perfection.
The terrifying part of Winston’s work is not just that it distorts the truth—it also makes the public believe that this distorted version of history is the only one that ever existed. This manipulation of history extends far beyond the confines of government documents. The people of Oceania cannot remember when the Party wasn’t in power, nor can they recall events that contradict the Party’s official story. In this world, truth is not a static entity; it is a commodity that is constantly redefined and repackaged to meet the needs of the ruling power. Winston’s job might seem small, but it is vital to the Party’s totalitarian grip on the population in the grand scheme of things.
This notion of historical falsification is not confined to Orwell’s fictional world. In modern times, political powers and institutions regularly engage in similar practices, subtly rewriting history to serve their purposes. Political leaders may manipulate past events to bolster their credibility or distract from present-day issues. In the media, the portrayal of past events is often shaped to fit specific ideological narratives. Like Winston, these systems of power rely on the subtle and continuous distortion of the past to maintain control. The problem is that these distortions are so seamlessly integrated into society that they often go unnoticed, leaving individuals to trust in versions of history that are more fiction than fact.
Self-Deception and Memory Revision
The tendency to revise our memories is a powerful psychological mechanism that operates just as effectively in our minds as Winston’s work does in Orwell’s world. As humans, we tend to view ourselves as rational and consistent thinkers, so when our current beliefs contradict past actions or opinions, it creates cognitive dissonance. This mental discomfort arises from holding two conflicting thoughts. In an effort to reduce this discomfort, our brains automatically adjust our memories to align with our present worldview, thus preserving our sense of internal consistency. This process happens unconsciously, and we rarely notice that it’s occurring. As a result, our past selves are molded to fit the image of who we are now.
One of the clearest demonstrations of this cognitive dissonance comes from Gregory Markus’s 1973 study, where he asked 3,000 participants about their views on controversial political issues such as drug legalization. Ten years later, he interviewed the same group and asked them not only to share their current views but also to recall their opinions from the original survey. The results were striking: most participants remembered their past views as being far more similar to their current beliefs than they had been. In some cases, the recalled responses bore no resemblance to the original answers. This phenomenon, often called “memory bias,” is a psychological coping strategy that helps maintain our sense of coherence and self-identity. By adjusting our memories, we avoid the painful realization that we have changed our opinions over time, especially on issues deeply tied to our sense of self.
This revisionist process is especially insidious because it occurs without our awareness. The memories of our past are not as fixed and unchanging as we would like to believe. Instead, they are fluid and malleable, shaped by our current emotions, beliefs, and desires. We often reflect on our past selves with nostalgia or pride, convincing ourselves that we have always been consistent in our values and actions. This creates a comforting illusion that our growth has been steady and rational, but our memories are being continuously rewritten to reflect the present moment. The danger is that we become less aware of our true selves and less capable of learning from past mistakes. Without a clear understanding of where we have been, we are less likely to make thoughtful choices in the future.
The Psychological Need for Certainty
The need for certainty is one of the most profound drivers behind our tendency to revise memories and beliefs. Certainty provides comfort, allowing us to feel grounded in an often unpredictable and chaotic world. When we confidently assert that we are right, we experience a sense of control. This need for certainty extends to our understanding of the present and our memories of the past. We want to believe that our beliefs have been consistent and logical, so when faced with the possibility that we were wrong, we are reluctant to accept it. Admitting that we were wrong feels threatening because it undermines our sense of self-assurance and disrupts the narrative we have built about our own identity.
This psychological need for certainty also helps explain why we resist changing our opinions, even in the face of new evidence. To change our beliefs requires not only an acknowledgment of error but also a reworking of our identity. Changing one’s mind is complex and emotionally taxing; most people instinctively avoid it. This is especially true when the issue is closely tied to our core values or worldview. The discomfort of accepting that we were wrong is often so great that we prefer to cling to our current beliefs, even if they are flawed or unsupported by facts. This emotional attachment to certainty explains why many people continue to hold on to outdated or incorrect views even when presented with compelling arguments.
When we engage in self-deception by revising our memories to align with our present views, we simply protect ourselves from the emotional cost of admitting we were wrong. This is not a conscious choice but an automatic response designed to shield us from psychological discomfort. However, this coping mechanism ultimately prevents us from growing. We cannot learn from our mistakes if we are unwilling to acknowledge them. In this way, the need for certainty becomes a barrier to personal growth and self-improvement.
Flashbulb Memories: The Illusion of Infallibility
Flashbulb memories—those vivid, emotionally intense recollections of major events—are often considered more reliable than ordinary memories. People often describe their recollection of significant moments, such as where they were when they learned about the 9/11 attacks, in extraordinarily detailed and confident terms. These memories feel like they are frozen in time, impervious to change. Because they are tied to high emotional significance, flashbulb memories are thought to be etched in our minds with photographic precision. Yet, research has shown that these memories are less reliable than we think.
Ulrich Neisser’s 1986 study on the Challenger space shuttle disaster revealed how prone flashbulb memories are to distortion. After the disaster, Neisser asked participants to write down their memories of the event. Three years later, he interviewed them again. The results were startling—nearly 50% of the participants had incorrect details, and only a small fraction of their memories matched their original accounts. Despite the obvious evidence, one participant even refused to accept that the handwriting on their original response was theirs. This study exposed the fallibility of even the most emotionally charged memories, suggesting that our recollections of significant events are just as subject to the reconstructive processes of memory as any other.
Flashbulb memories feel real because they are linked to strong emotions, but this emotional intensity doesn’t guarantee accuracy. The emotional impact of an event can create a false sense of certainty about the details, making them seem more vivid and accurate than they are. This creates a paradox: while flashbulb memories feel like concrete, unchanging facts, they are just as malleable as any other recollection. Our confidence in these memories can be misleading, especially when the stakes are high. This is why people can confidently recount where they were during major events, only to later discover that their details were inaccurate or embellished.
The Dangers of False Memory in the Justice System
The fallibility of memory is particularly concerning in the criminal justice system. Eyewitness testimony has long been regarded as a cornerstone of criminal trials, but research has shown that eyewitnesses can be deeply mistaken about what they saw. The confidence that witnesses express in their recollections is no guarantee of accuracy. Eyewitness misidentification is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions. Studies have shown that people can mistakenly identify a perpetrator even when certain about their memory. This phenomenon is particularly problematic because it relies on the flawed assumption that memory perfectly records events.
The Innocence Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals, has uncovered numerous cases where eyewitness testimony was the primary evidence leading to a conviction. In many of these cases, DNA evidence later proved that the person identified by the witness was not the perpetrator. These wrongful convictions highlight the dangers of relying solely on memory to make life-altering decisions. The fallibility of eyewitness testimony can lead to grave miscarriages of justice, where innocent people are incarcerated based on inaccurate recollections.
One of the key reasons for these mistakes is how memories can be influenced. External factors, such as leading questions from law enforcement or the stress of the situation, can distort what a witness remembers. In some cases, witnesses may fill in gaps in their memories with details they believe to be true but are not. This creates a false sense of certainty about the accuracy of the testimony. For this reason, it is crucial to corroborate eyewitness accounts with physical evidence whenever possible. The overreliance on memory in the absence of other supporting evidence is a significant flaw in the criminal justice system that can lead to serious consequences.
The Fluidity of History: Personal and Collective Narratives
History, both personal and collective, is shaped by the same processes of memory revision and manipulation. Just as individuals revise their own memories to align with their current beliefs, societies engage in collective revisionism to construct narratives that serve their political, cultural, or ideological goals. Historical events are often remembered not for their factual accuracy but for their symbolic meaning. This selective memory allows societies to perpetuate certain myths or stories that align with the values of the present. National identities are frequently built on these constructed narratives, which often gloss over uncomfortable truths or present events in a way that supports a particular political agenda.
In the case of personal history, people often reshape their own past to maintain a coherent sense of identity. We look back on our lives and reinterpret events in a way that fits with the person we have become. This process is natural—it helps us make sense of our experiences and gives us a sense of continuity. However, this reconstruction can also lead to distortion, as we selectively remember certain events and forget others that might contradict our current beliefs or self-image. The result is a personal narrative that is not entirely faithful to the past but is instead shaped to support our present identity.
Similarly, collective history is often constructed through the lens of power. Political leaders and institutions shape historical narratives to suit their needs. They may promote certain events or figures to solidify their legitimacy while downplaying or erasing others who might challenge their authority. This manipulation of collective memory is a powerful tool in maintaining control over a population. By shaping the way people understand their past, those in power can influence how they view the present and future.
The fluidity of history is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is important to recognize that the stories we tell ourselves—whether on a personal level or as a society—are not always objective truths. They are narratives shaped by memory, emotion, and context. Understanding the forces that shape these narratives allows us to approach both our personal histories and the collective history of our societies with a critical eye. In this way, we can better understand how history is used to construct meaning and justify power.
Conclusion: Rethinking Memory and History
The idea that history—whether personal or collective—can be revised is not merely a dystopian fiction. It is a reality that plays out in the minds of individuals every day. We adjust our memories to fit our current understanding of the world, erasing past mistakes to protect our egos. In doing so, we overlook the value of learning from our errors and stunt our ability to grow.
The same tendencies that shape our individual histories also influence the larger narratives we construct about the world around us. Whether it’s the revision of a personal memory or the rewriting of historical events, the manipulation of history is an ever-present force in shaping our perceptions and beliefs. And while such distortions may offer comfort in the short term, they ultimately rob us of the opportunity to confront our flaws and learn from the past.
This article is part of The Art of Thinking Clearly Series based on Rolf Dobelli’s book.