Literature in Politics: The Appropriation of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four in contemporary British parliamentary debate

1-47


Introduction
There is a significant amount of literature about the importance of rhetoric in politics (e.g., Atkins, 2010; Finlayson, 2004;Ilie, 2013).Prominent scholars who view political rhetoric as argumentation stress the importance of studying political rhetoric through an interdisciplinary lens with discourse analysts (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012).Yet, for a field of thought which is rooted in the interdisciplinary, few have explored in depth the effect of literature in advancing political speech.As US theorist Murray Edelman (1995: 2) argued nearly three decades ago art, particularly literature, 'is the fountainhead from which political discourse, belief about politics and consequent actions ultimately spring'.However, in Britain, the study of the relationship between politics and fiction has rather trailed behind even the modest progress in the USA (Fielding, 2011).Fielding is one of few scholars who make progress in discussing this relationship (see also Bailey, 2011), but there still remains a lack of studies that observe the relationship in British politics.This article makes a distinctive contribution through research which looks at the use of one of the most famous and influential pieces of British fiction, George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, in contemporary British parliamentary debate.In doing so, it demonstrates how undertaking interdisciplinary research is key to unlocking new insights about our culture and politics, while helping to shine a light on the appropriation of a novel and its author who continue to be so commonly quoted in modern day.
The lack of research into the relationship between literature and politics is puzzling.A great deal of existing literature in the academic field discusses the prevalence of Aristotelian deliberative rhetoric, a strategy which politicians employ to encourage, or deter from, a course of action to show its potential advantage or harm (Finlayson, 2007).As Finlayson articulates, it is concerned with things that could happen and that we could make happen (Ibid: 556) [own emphasis added].Literature, especially fiction, has the special ability to provide a means for politicians to show what could happen, for fiction offers a 'pre-packaged' vision of an alternative reality.This is true of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, a dystopian reality which portrays multiple methods of government totalitarian control set in a future London.Politicians across the political spectrum will attempt to accuse the policy of their opponents to bringing us closer to Nineteen Eighty-Four, whilst strongly striving away from accusations in their own actions.
Since Finlayson originally conjectured Rhetorical Political Analysis (RPA) as an approach to politicians' rhetoric in 2007, it has become a lively field of inquiry (Casiraghi & Testini, 2021).RPA observes the dissemination of concepts, words and ideas showing how they pass through institutions,

The Relationship between Literature and Politics
Scholars of both English Literature and Political Science touch upon the relationship between literature and politics, regardless of whether it is explicitly acknowledged.Political themes pervade the great novels, whilst in politics some such as Edelman (1995: 3) even go as far as stating 'art shapes, displaces, and sometimes supersedes cherished influences upon public policy like voting and lobbying'.Such a statement requires justification, which Edelman provides, that literature contributes to the 'confidence that the political scene is understandable, as opposed to the disorder, murkiness, and contradictions that characterise much of everyday experience' (Edelman, 1995: 4).Harvie (1991) supports Edelman's assertion in identifying that the political novel played a significant role in incorporating newly enfranchised voters into the existing political system.In acknowledging literature as a form of entertainment, they identify how the influence of the political novel may be due to accessibility, but the question remains -why literature?
A key reason this article identifies why literature so permeates politics, is that literature is an adaptable and mouldable art form.Richards (1998) expresses how fiction is given meaning by the contexts of the reader, consisting of their interrelated background knowledge, beliefs and culture.Edelman (1995: 5) also recognises this, expressing that 'works of art and literature offer conceptions and perceptions that can be adopted or changed to fit needs, fears, interests or aspirations'.The individual can take the warnings and moral messages present in the great works of fiction and choose where the lessons should be applied in reality.In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell's key concept lends itself to a clear warning, as articulated by Posner (1999: 200): 'The political significance of Nineteen Eighty-Four… is to depict with riveting clarity the logic of totalitarianism'.An opinion of popular consensus, Mann (2006: 286) echoes this, concluding that 'Orwell's only theme is the totalitarian danger that lies within ourselves and in all the political systems of our time'.Orwell's Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp.1-47 depiction of totalitarianism is a clear warning capable of reaching almost all across the mainstream political spectrum because he captures the overarching, shared, and powerful fear of democratic society -the alternative: totalitarianism.Where interpretation hence varies is where those of different political orientation identify totalitarian behaviour at large.The logic of totalitarianism can be expressed so well in Nineteen Eighty-Four as it is a dystopian novel, which permits Orwell creative license to produce an alternate fictive society.Yet through maintaining eerie similarities in his future vision of London, Orwell's novel can align with deliberative rhetoric in showing what could happen.As Pfeiffer (1994: 237) stated of the novel, 'it is not about future actual, but about future potential'.This potential is compelling: studies such as Jones and Paris' (2018) have already demonstrated that the totalitarian-dystopian genre can affect real-world political attitudes with the fear it produces.
What is more is that Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four has been granted a rather unique ability to reach and affect the political attitudes of numerous generations.As Rodden (1991: 221) articulates, Orwell has an important place in the school curricula, with the novel 'fairly widely taught in Anglo-American schools'.This prevalence continues into present day, with the novel still featuring in the further education curriculum (Kronbergs, 2017).Due to this, Orwell's 'elite' literature is more accessible and relatable to a notable portion of the public, who are exposed to Orwell's warnings of totalitarianism from a young age.Further research which would supplement this piece would be an exploration into how a key figure in Orwell's novel, Big Brother, has been appropriated by the popular British reality television show of the same name, and if this has exposed a greater amount of the public to Orwell's work and messages.ii   Whilst this article seeks to distinguish literature, specifically fiction, in its own right, many who view literature as part of our wider culture have made important contributions to the relationship on this basis.Phenomena often occur first in culture, before transitioning into politics.As Somers (1999: 125)  Orwellian to appropriate Orwell's name took place in twentieth-century society.Orwellian is defined by dictionaries in present day as synonymous with his novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four (see Merriam Webster, 2022; Cambridge Dictionary, 2022), and is used in parliamentary debate accordingly.
Finlayson himself explores the relationship between literature and politics in his work with Frazer on the plays of Shakespeare (2011), though they focus primarily on the politics of the theatre.Their contextualisation of the relationship is useful, emphasising how historically it goes back to Plato, and since 'arguments about the moral and political qualities and effects of fiction and drama have ebbed and flowed' (Finlayson & Frazer, 2011: 236).Since Kant, the argumentative capacity of literature has been realised, having been used in various political causes throughout time (Finlayson & Frazer, 2011).Finlayson does not explicitly articulate it, but this context sets up the premise for how literature can be viewed as a style and strategy of argument.However, like many of the voices leading the way in discussing the relationship, as seen with Edelman and Harvie too, they have a tendency to centre the fictional representation of politics to explore how literature can mobilise political participation.Whilst this is an important line of enquiry, it has meant discussion often stops right before we see how literature truly integrates into the political arena.This article readdresses this balance to see how literature is used as a strategy by the existing political elites in parliament.Further, through focusing on the moral, Finlayson and Frazer can overlook how literature can be appropriated, in a rather exploitative way, by politicians as part of strategy.In his seminal paper on RPA (2007: 552-553), Finlayson situates himself apart from scholars like Fairclough, who he states that, in their studies of political oratory are 'fixated on exposing evasions and occlusions rather than attending to argumentative content'.Whilst this article attends to the argumentative content in line with RPA, it will develop to have an element of 'exposure' in being critical of the current appropriation of Nineteen Eighty-Four due to the research results.

Entering into the Political Arena
The UK House of Commons is often criticised 'as a place of theatre rather than a serious working body' where rhetorical abilities may be valued over real substance or policy knowledge (Gallagher, Laver, & Mair, 2006: 63; cited in Proksch & Slapin, 2014).Whilst this is a valid and important criticism, for the purpose of this article, it demonstrates how effective rhetoric is vital for politicians to advance their arguments.As expected, parliament's own website has a more honourable view of parliamentary debate, stating its purpose is 'to assist MPs and Lords to reach an informed decision on a subject' (UK Parliament, 2022).In this process, politicians Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp.1-47 will listen to the opinion of their peers, some who may use facts, some who may use rhetorical strategies (for example, as seen, metaphors), but all of them unified in their aim to persuade their audience of their cause.It is difficult to see how political rhetoric in this setting may be viewed as anything other than argumentation.
When parliamentary debate is about policy, to reach the outcome, there are contests over meaning, struggles between different ways of tactically framing the interpretation of an issue (Alonso-Curbelo, 2022; Loizides, 2009).To get your perception heard, understood, and acted upon is a relatively difficult task.In developing RPA, Finlayson and Atkins (2014) have already established the appeal of using the words or work of somebody else in exploring the use of quotation in political rhetoric.Applicable to this research, they state that 'in citing particular forms of culture we assume that our audience will be moved and affected in the way we hope' (Atkins and Finlayson, 2014: 171).As this article has established through Posner's insight, Nineteen Eighty-Four evokes fear, an emotional response which certainly has the ability to move and affect an audience.This capability of literature will be discussed in relation to the results, just one aspect of many identified that makes literature an effective strategy to use in parliamentary debate.
Of note, as Ilie (2017) highlights, the audience of parliamentary debate also comprises of the public and the media.If politicians can widen their audience beyond the walls of parliament and reach the public through the media, they can gain extra support for their argument and have a means to put extra pressure on policy makers.Perhaps for their own self-gain, they can also raise their public profile.In a setting of constant argumentation, standing out is incredibly difficult, and Orwell's novel can provide an ideal soundbite to be picked up by mainstream news.For example, one MP made the headlines for calling gay marriage 'Orwellian' during a debate, with BBC News (2013) including a clip of their speech, helping to publicise the politician's argument.Though in-depth exploration is beyond the scope of this research which focuses on literature in the political arena, it will take into account that the persuasion in political rhetoric in parliament can extend to the public audience.

Methodology
The data for this research has been extracted from online archive Hansard, the official report of all UK parliamentary debates.Searching the keywords 'Orwellian' and 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' in Hansard allowed for every direct reference and its surrounding context to be extrapolated.iii In addition, the political party of the speaker and the topic of the debate in which they made the reference was recorded.Owing in part to the originality of this research, it was necessary to deduce quantitative facts to build a Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp.1-47 foundation of the current dynamics of usage of Nineteen Eighty-Four by politicians.If it was found that one political party dominated references, or they predominately occurred in certain topics, this would change the assertions made about the place of literature in parliamentary debate.From identifying patterns in the data during the analysis process, such as a tendency for some politicians to add a caveat to lessen the impact of Orwellian, the research also determined quantitative facts about these to ensure an accurate overall picture of the place and nature of literature in politics.
In the 'Symbolic Uses of Politics', Edelman (1964: 130) asserted that the meanings of language are 'always a function of the context from which it issues'.In developing RPA, Finlayson echoed this sentiment, highlighting that for an approach to be capable of analysing the meanings of actions, we need an interpretivist approach (Finlayson, 2007).This justified the main body of data of this research, a rigorous discourse analysis which prioritised the meaning and intention in the sentence of a reference to Nineteen Eighty-Four.Casiraghi and Testini's (2021) study on politicians' use of Machiavelli in the Italian Parliament, as the most similar research and method located, supported this approach.The authors coded direct references to the political thinker into positive, neutral, and negative categories.They divided the references into 'republican', 'revolutionary' and, 'realist' variables depending on how Machiavelli was used, using their background knowledge of Machiavelli and the Italian political landscape.They further coded individual variables into additional categories dependent on the speaker's rhetorical purpose, helping to fulfil their goal in exploring how appeals to authority are met in parliamentary debate.This similar approach to studying political speeches provided validity and a foundation for this research, however while the authors focused on Machiavelli as a political thinker, this research needed to be designed in a way which appreciated literature and its qualities, and the unique plot of Orwell's novel.For example, as Orwell's and his novel's authority as a respected author and piece of elite literature are generally not contested in Britain, such positive and negative characterisation was not required.iv Yet as the warnings and moral messages of literature are more open to interpretation, a greater number of primary categories and a further interpretivist approach in determining the categories was needed.This research's approach thus centred the literary, breaking down references to determine which aspect of totalitarian control portrayed in the novel the reference related to.Categories were established after repeated close examination of all references, using primary and secondary knowledge of the novel.These categories can be seen in Table 2 and Table 3 in the following results section.v Whilst the approach of this research could be criticised as more subjective, supported by literature which views political rhetoric as argumentation, a speaker's use was quite obvious when in context of speech.Politicians are aiming to advance their argument so tend to be focused and clear in their reasoning.An issue in more complex coding categories can be overlap (see Bryman, 2016).To prevent overlap, I formed a clear criterion in coding, focusing on what aspect of totalitarian control in the novel inclined the speaker to use 'Orwellian' or 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' specifically in the sentence.These cases were relatively rare, but to show one example, a reference in a debate on Human Rights (North Korea) to the 'the regime's rather Orwellian-sounding Organisation and Guidance Department' could be seen to be coded into a 'Display of totalitarian control by a foreign power' if judging from the title alone (UK Parliament, 2014a).However, the reference was coded into the category 'Spin and propaganda in naming/ phrasing/language/narrative' as the speaker used 'Orwellian' to describe the paradoxical name of the department.Using this method, references were double-checked, and ultimately, I ensured the categorisation was correct through illuminating with the context of the reference in speech.For an accurate and transparent portrayal, an expanded results table in Appendix 1 and 2 provide another column contextualising the use in debate.
As this research focuses on contemporary UK politics to provide a foundation for looking to the future, the time frame for the references was from 10/01/2012 to 16/12/21, approximately a ten-year period, based on when the two houses rose for recess and returned.I discarded any references that were irrelevant as they did not relate to Nineteen Eighty-Four directly.Out of 167 references, 14 references to 'Orwellian' were excluded from the sample, 12 as they referred to Orwell's other work (such as a play on the infamous Animal Farm quote, 'four legs good, two legs bad') and two as they were a repeated reference in error.All 32 references to 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' were relevant.Thus, there were a total of 185 references in the sample.
Contextualising within the framework of RPA, and wider theory which views political speech as argumentation, reveals why politicians appropriate Nineteen Eighty-Four, as literature has become a strategy of political argument.I use a non-probability sample of references to support the research findings, aiming to be representative of the wider trends determined through discourse analysis.While further research could be conducted on the data from this project, the most significant findings are Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp. 1-47 discussed in relation to literature as a strategy, and the specific power of Nineteen Eighty-Four as a novel.vi

Results and Discussion
Exploring the appropriation of Nineteen Eighty-Four in political debate has provided insight on two key elements needed to help identify literature as part of political argumentation: the current place of literature in politics, including its prevalence and versatile use in debate, and the nature of literature in politics, specifically how the novel is used when referenced.The findings of this research also shaped a third section on the future of literature in politics, from identifying a trend for politicians to be critical of the use of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The Place of Literature in Politics
The number of references to Nineteen Eighty-Four proves that literature is prevalent in political debate.There is a lack of consensus among political scholars of what constitutes a significant sample size, yet 185 references in a decade stemming from one novel shows a clear presence of the literary.vii Casiraghi and Testini's similar study (2021) based the prevalence of Machiavelli on 241 references over a period of roughly fifty years, only 56 more references than those to Nineteen Eighty-Four despite a time frame five times as long.
Yet how Nineteen Eighty-Four most significantly demonstrates the place of literature in politics, as a common strategy and style of argument, is in the versatility of its use.This research has identified three separate areas where versatility is demonstrated: its use by politicians across the political spectrum, its use across varying topics of debate, and its use in the different argumentative contexts of political debate.Each reinforces literature as a strategy of political argument, not to be dismissed as a partisan argument, or as limited in its scope.
A multitude of politicians across the political spectrum have appropriated Nineteen Eighty-Four, an observation demonstrated by its use in debate by both the former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and former Conservative Party Leader Sir Iain Duncan-Smith.Table 1 shows the crossparty appropriation of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp. 1-47  The finding that the Labour Party most frequently referenced Nineteen Eighty-Four was expected, as they were the opposition for the entirety of the research's timeframe.As existing literature on the framing of political issues helps illuminate (see Kuypers, 2006;Faucher & Boussaguet, 2018), likening the policies and actions of the sitting government to the totalitarian government in Orwell's novel is not a surprising strategy.Yet, what is significant is that references by Labour (42.7%) are not the absolute majority of references.A substantial 26.5% of references were made by the Conservative government, with a further 11.4% and 6.5% spoken by the Liberal Democrats and SNP respectively.viii This article has so far determined that the references are made in such different ways and contexts, and this extends to within political parties themselves: to understand why there is cross-party appropriation we need to focus on what makes fiction appealing to all of these groups.Since its publication, Nineteen Eighty-Four has been continuously used as a tool in the political causes of the left, the centre and the right (Rodden, 1990).Orwell  From identifying a significant range of topical debates which Nineteen Eighty-Four was referenced in, this research can highlight that literature has the ability to enhance argument in important matters.References were present in key topics of Brexit, economic policy, foreign policy, education, social issues, healthcare, human rights, immigration, and technology (an exhaustive list can be found in Appendix 3).For example, in a debate over Brexit, one MP argued that it was not possible for three promises the government made to different groups to be simultaneously possible, adding emphasis through citing Orwell's novel.Setting up their argument, they stated: In his dystopian novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four", George Orwell described "doublethink" as "holding simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them".Instead of reading the book as a cautionary tale, the Prime Minister seems to have taken it as an instruction manual.(UK Parliament, 2019b) In the area of healthcare, another MP criticised 'the Government's Orwellian Success regime, which include the closure of scores of community hospital beds' (UK Parliament, 2016a), to highlight the totalitarian spin on the situation.
In these key topical issues, which are contested across the political spectrum, and crucially by the individual too, framing is of the upmost importance and literature lends itself to this cause.Both the interpretation of fiction's messages and the framing of political issues stem from the individual's own background, traditions, and political orientation.Further, many of these topics are ones of emotion as policy is often life-changing for the public affected by its implications.In these topics of emotion, arguments which invoke pathos are common, a key concept in theory on political rhetoric defined as 'the evocation of feelings and emotions in the audience' (Finlayson & Martin, 2014: 7).The general threat of totalitarianism displayed has the potential of evoking an emotional response of fear and concern, particularly from a public audience.Nineteen Eighty-Four is so 'permeated in our collective consciousness' that 'even people who have never read the book will admit to having paused momentarily in vague anxiety at [its] mere mention' (Rodden, 1990: 17).Through reframing issues in the context of this threat in parliamentary debate, politicians can get closer to fulfilling the task 'of convincing others to see things in the same light as we do' (Finlayson, 2007: 550), even through a mere reference to Orwell's novel.
A final proof of literature's place in political argumentation is this research's identification of the novels use in different types of argument itself.Nineteen Eighty-Four has been used in arguments of definition, centring on the names of things and how they are defined (Finlayson, 2007): for example, one reference used the novel to dispute naming an EU Withdrawal Bill the 'Great Repeal', which they described as a 'thoroughly Orwellian title', as they claimed this contradicted the contents which cut and paste EU law into UK law (UK Parliament, 2018a).The novel has been frequently used in arguments of quality, concerning the nature of an act and how it should be judged (Finlayson, 2007).Nineteen Eighty-Four was used to argue the implementation of Facial Recognition Technology was dangerous, due to discriminatory automated facial recognition algorithms, with the Lord stating that 'without regulation and oversight there is the potential for Nineteen Eighty-Four to become a reality, albeit 34 years later than originally envisaged' (UK Government, 2018b).In another debate, an MP stated, 'I want to touch on the Secretary of State's Orwellian proposal effectively to take charge of all council communications across the country' (UK Parliament, 2013b), framing this act as totalitarian.Orwell's novel has even been used in arguments of place, attempts to set the boundaries of political argument (Finlayson, 2007), in references where politicians criticise framing an issue in relation to Nineteen Eighty-Four.All help prove the novel is a versatile tool in helping politicians advance their argument.

The Nature of Literature in Politics
The following section has been formed from a perspective which centres the novel in order to deduce appropriation.Table 2 identifies that politicians' use of 'Orwellian' covers a multitude of different aspects of the totalitarian control portrayed in the novel, with a similar pattern identified in direct references to 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' (Table 3).Each of the references framed 'Orwellian' in a way which emphasised some kind of totalitarian threat, reaffirming it can be seen in accordance with the plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four.sustained appeal of Orwell's novel.In their work on quotation in political speech, Atkins and Finlayson (2014: 167) stated that 'quotation works only to the extent that it, or its source, is recognised and approved of by the audience that is to be persuaded by it'.In viewing references to literature in speech as like a quotation, we can see how Orwell as a respected author, and by consequence his novel as a piece of respected literature, contrast the echoes of populist interpretation of political spin by divisive figures such as Donald Trump.The appeal of using literature to enhance argument is evident: the speaker also receives the intellectual kudos of quoting what can be viewed as a cultural source of authority, for both the novel and Orwell have been described as being increasingly extolled as artifacts of popular culture (Strub, 2004).Other authors this research has identified, such as Shakespeare, can be viewed as equal artefacts of culture, upholding that literature as a whole is an effective strategy of political argument.
The second most popular category is references to 'Technology and intelligence (issues of privacy)'.This category's prevalence can also be reflective of the political climate, as the increasing powers of technology increase worries about the implications on the privacy of the individual, reflected by a reference made by one MP that 'signing up for pan-European data sharing on every ordinary citizen is regarding technology.Theory on metaphor can also further illuminate the appeal of references to 'Spin and propaganda in naming/phrasing/language/narrative', where in succinct speech, it can be difficult to otherwise quickly articulate where such manipulation has taken place.
Whilst effectively enhancing argument in these two key issues, evidently, there are other important issues in the modern political climate that Nineteen Eighty-Four does not and cannot represent.However, this leads to the question of if there are other pieces of literature which can.The work of Dickens certainly has the potential for enhancing argument on socio-economic issues.Further research into literature as political strategy is undoubtedly needed.
To evaluate Nineteen Eighty-Four's appropriation in a holistic manner, it is important to look at the overview of both tables.Breaking down the aspects of totalitarian control is the product of this research, something not often considered by the audience when politicians use it in their argument in parliamentary debate.This brings about possible problematic implications.In Table 2, there are seven separate aspects of totalitarian control depicted in the novel to which references to 'Orwellian' relate (see the first seven categories of Table 2).In Table 3, there are five separate aspects of totalitarian control depicted in the novel which references to 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' relate to (see the first five categories of Table 3).In his essay 'Politics and The English Language', Orwell (1946) himself passionately addressed the issue of key words in politics encompassing too much.He describes the abuse of words such as fascism, which he states, 'has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable' (Ibid: 9).He continues that 'the words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings' (Ibid: 9).One reference in this research spoke of Orwell 'turn[ing] in his grave' in relation to the increase in CCTV (UK Parliament, 2015a), but he may in fact be doing so as his name has become appropriated in a manner in which he explicitly condemned.
Edelman and Finlayson, key voices which have contributed significantly to this article, have equally identified and voiced the issue of political words being too open to interpretation in their work.Edelman talks of the 'diverse pictures [that] may be in the minds of the various respondents to such cues', of words like communism and tyranny (Edelman, 1964: 116-7).Finlayson sees how terms like freedom, choice, democracy and even poverty are 'concepts whose meaning cannot be established independently of contestation' (Finlayson, 2007: 551).Considering these key voices, it is only right to in turn be critical of the current nature of literature in parliamentary debate: the number of categories seen in the tables clearly show that politicians are each assuming multiple different meanings of Nineteen Eighty-Four.In this context, it is likely Orwellian would be a word all three would criticise.
Being critical of the nature of literature in politics is an important line of enquiry for moving towards improving literature as a style/strategy of argument, ultimately, fulfilling Finlayson's goal in RPA, 'to ensure not less argumentation but more and better' (Finlayson, 2007: 559).
Engaging with narrative, a key concept in political rhetoric, is a means to pursue critical evaluation.Bevir and Rhodes (2003: 26) emphasise the importance of narrative as a feature of political argumentation, an 'organising perspective', which 'signals the distinctive nature of explanation'.In political debate where politicians are restricted to relatively short speeches, a reference Nineteen Eighty-Four has an instantaneous ability in fulfilling this function, for fiction already exists as a complete narrative.In exploring debates on technology, this article has already identified the appeal of fiction as being like a fix to fill in gaps in a narrative, but through applying a critical lens, it can appreciate the danger of this.One reference can have the effect of embodying all of the totalitarian control displayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four.This can be problematic and has the potential to become even more so when exploring the nature of how 'Orwellian' in particular is appropriated in parliamentary debate.
After observing a trend during the discourse analysis process for politicians to simply drop Orwellian in a clause in speech, I explored how many of the references to both 'Orwellian' and 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' expanded beyond a brief reference to mention a specific plot point, concept/ neologism, or direct quote.For references to 'Orwellian', less than a fifth of references expanded further, with only three references quoting directly from the novel.In contrast, half of references to 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' expand further, including six direct quotations, double the amount in 'Orwellian', in a sample nearly five times smaller.As established, the appropriation of Orwell's name to embody Nineteen Eighty-Four, took place decades ago outside the political arena and was perhaps therefore always more prone to disconnect from the substance of novel in this research.But when Orwellian is simply dropped in a clause in speech, the effect of embodying the entire totalitarian narrative of Nineteen Eighty-Four remains.Parliament, 2021c).Yet, another politician equally uses 'Orwellian' to critique a trainline's bicycle policy, stating, 'it seemed to me to be ridiculous-Orwellian, even-that if people turned up at a station with a bicycle and there were spaces in the carriage designed for carrying bicycles, they should not be allowed to take their bicycle with them' (UK Parliament, 2016b).The reference to Bicycle Policy is representative of a small but significant number of references only tentatively applying to the theme of the novel.xi This article has so far seen the interpretive quality of literature as positive in adding to its existence as a strategy.However, this comparison displays how interpretation can be problematic when politicians can interpret the novel's depiction of totalitarianism to illuminate on vastly different topic matters.Though the reference to bicycle policy could be interpreted by us almost humorously, the politician intended it to advance their argument, in what can be seen as an inappropriate topic.
There is a noticeable piece of discourse in the sample of references where difference in interpretation is explicit.A politician questions if a peer who referenced Nineteen Eighty-Four had even read it: he states, 'My charitable view is that it demonstrates that my noble friend has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four', on the basis it is misleading that there are cameras in every bedroom (UK Parliament, 2016c).The peer responds defending his comparison, referring to GCHQ intercepting webcams which is his interpretation of CCTV in every bedroom in Nineteen Eighty-Four (UK Parliament, 2016d).This exchange can be perceived as fairly harmless, but it demonstrates how a difference in interpretation can be harmful in eroding the clarity of meaning needed in argumentation in parliament.In their debates, others may not have the opportunity to clarify in rebuttal and excerpts can later be taken out of context when presented to the public audience through different media outlets.
Of note, upon identifying a tendency for politicians to add a caveat in relation to a reference to 'Orwellian', this research deduced the total references which lessen the impact of Orwellian.Less than a fifth of references consciously minimised their references to the term, oft supplemented beforehand with descriptors such as 'somewhat', 'slightly' or 'quite'.None were able to be quantifiably identified for references to 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'.It can be determined that the majority of politicians do not attempt to negate the full force of the dystopian reality of totalitarian control embodied in their references.The implications discussed still stand.
Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp. 1-47 The Future of Literature in Politics This article has considered how the current nature of literature in parliamentary debate can be problematic.However, in identifying the presence of politicians criticising the use of Orwellian, the question is raised of if fiction should continue to be a style/ strategy of political argument in parliamentary debate.Whilst it was expected to find references criticising the term for not applying, the case for references to 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', in references to 'Orwellian' it was criticisms of the term specifically which accounted to the third most popular category (see Table 2).The reasons for criticising the appropriation of Orwellian differed significantly.One politician criticised the term as a piece of 'effective and emotive' language (UK Parliament, 2014b).Another politician criticised it as a cliché (UK Parliament, 2015b).A third referenced how the term was insufficient in describing the Chinese government's detention facilities and that the style of novelist Franz Kafka was more applicable (UK Parliament, 2019d).
These criticisms do not suggest literature should cease to be a style/strategy of political argument.They actually help prove that literature is effective as a strategy: the first criticism even directly acknowledges how the use of 'Orwellian' is effective.It continues to aptly criticise 'Orwellian' as emotive, for this article has already identified this concern in relation to the pathos tied to Nineteen Eighty-Four.However, it should be reiterated that this research has identified pathos as a strategy of political argument: a strategy may be effective, oft dependent on the context.Whether references were effective in terms of successfully persuading fellow politicians in evoking pathos, would be impossible to determine.We expect politicians to be rational, and therefore inappropriate evocations of pathos may indeed not affect them, though could move the public audience.In regard to the second criticism, the work of Ilie (2007) shows that dismissing an argument as a cliché is a classic critical response in parliamentary debate, not exclusive to, or a result of, references to fiction.Finally, the third reference shows that literature does have a place in politics, that simply a different piece of literature may be better for articulation in the context.This article has recognised the issue of 'Orwellian' in particular encompassing too much in one word, but this does not mean we should give it disproportionate criticism.Tyranny and freedom are just some of the many words (Finlayson, 2007;Edelman, 1964) which, as they are interpreted differently, can also be harmful in eroding the clarity of meaning needed in argumentation when used in parliamentary debate.And this is unlikely to change, a feature of political rhetoric which Orwell identified in his essay on, 'Politics and the English Language', before he even wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four (Orwell, 1946).The most problematic concern this research identified was how different interpretations of what is classed as totalitarianism facilitated the novel being appropriated in both debates over genocide and trainline bicycle policy.Yet, this has an evidently simple solution: for politicians to stop using the novel in inappropriate topics or contexts.Politicians can use it where it is appropriate to emphasise the dangers of totalitarian control, the alternative, to protect democracy.This would ensure better argumentation, the aim of RPA (Finlayson, 2007).

Conclusion
This article set out to prove literature as a style/ strategy of political rhetoric, which RPA, and wider theory on political rhetoric as argumentation, aim to identify.Using George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four as a representation, it has shown how fiction can be used as a strategy in argument in parliamentary debate.In doing so, this research has fulfilled its intention to help enlighten the appropriation of Orwell and his work, while signposting and advocating for further exploration.It has also given due attention to the relationship between English Literature and Politics which has been historically underexplored by scholars.Edelman in particular has made a significant contribution in discussing the relationship, but this research explicitly showcases how literature integrates into the key political arena of parliament.
Throughout, this article has ensured to value the specific abilities of fiction, to illuminate why it is used as strategy.It has seen how the lessons we take from literature are open to interpretation in their application, and therefore can be used in arguments made across the political spectrum, in different topics and contexts.It has acknowledged literature's power as a means for politicians to show what could happen, in line with deliberative rhetoric, for fiction can provide a thorough vision of an alternative reality.This research has also ensured accuracy through appreciating the effectiveness of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four in its own right, an infamous novel in our culture, whose plot displays a dystopian reality of government totalitarian control.It has explored the timeless quality of the novel, with themes that are still relevant and are used by politicians to illuminate upon the modern political climate.
In engaging with key established aspects of political rhetoric throughout the results, such as pathos, narrative and appeals to authority, this article has shown literatures alignment and its place in this academic field.
Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp. 1-47 I have identified where future research could be carried out, in addition to building upon Casiraghi and Testini's (2021) study to provide a transparent and clear method which centres the literary, alongside a dataset which can be repurposed, to reaffirm that literature is a strategy of political argument.This initial research has helped to illuminate both the place and nature of literature in politics, in addition to providing implications about the future of this relationship.In looking to the future, this article has been critical of the current use of literature as a strategy, in order to improve its application, and ensure better argumentation.
When British society, culture, and politics cannot be separated from one another, but all influence each other in ways that may not be immediately apparent, the way forward must be prioritising interdisciplinary research.

Copyright Permissions
Hansard is covered by the Open Parliamentary License.This information can be found at: https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyrightparliament/open-parliament-licence/Imogen Birkett studied English Literature and Politics (BA Hons) at Newcastle University, graduating with First Class Honours in 2022.Her final year independent research project forms the basis of this article.During her degree, she chose an eclectic mix of topics, including Freudian psychoanalysis and theory on political leadership.She has a strong interest in the power of literature and politics, particularly how they combine to influence our culture.She currently works for a PR agency in Nottingham, writing both B2B and B2C copy.
affirms, 'claims to knowledge and truth are always transmitted to us via some kind of cultural schema; they are culturally embedded'.Somers continues to assert how metaphors, stories, and analogies are just some of the devices which can facilitate this.The existing literature has already recognised the power of metaphors in political speech (see Charteris-Black, 2005), in addition to non-fiction colloquial stories and analogies (see Atkins & Finlayson, 2012).Charteris-Black (2005) shows how metaphors are effective in enabling the speaker to construct complex arguments in a relatable fashion: this research identifies that the same ability is true of references to fiction.Metaphors are also linked to this research as they develop first in societal culture and then transition to be used in the political arena.The creation of the word Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp.1-47 and his work have been praised, and claimed, by 'prominent Labour supporters and democratic socialists, liberals and neoliberals, conservatives and neoconservatives' and more (Ibid: 21-22).Fiction has frequently been used to argue for an individual's or party's pre-existing political views.And it certainly has been in British parliamentary debate.Jeremy Corbyn used Nineteen Eighty-Four to supplement his criticism of the Tory government's lack of fair funding in schools (UK Parliament, 2019a), whilst Duncan-Smith's reference added emphasis to his argument that the European Commission had an excess of power (UK Parliament, 2013a).The existing literature may have focused its attention on how literature can create or influence public political opinion.However, exploring direct references in parliament gives due emphasis to how fiction is used to support the Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp.1-47 existing political intentions of individuals and groups: this is what makes fiction an irresistible contribution to argument.
Parallel to the presidency of Donald Trump in 2016, a new era of political spin has gained prominence, embodied in the phrase, 'fake news'.x This is the idea that any information contradicting one's ideology is automatically illegitimate or fake(Journell, 2017).One reference in the sample articulated this phenomenon, making the link between Orwell and Trump by citing the 'Orwellian world that is unfolding before us, where the theme that has been put forward by Trump is that lies are the truth, good is bad, war is peace and fantasy is fact' (UK Parliament, 2017b).This link has been recognised by scholars too: Rodden wittily quotes of a news article, 'George Orwell and Donald Trump literally say the same thing: it is all fake news'(Rodden, 2020: 263).Hence, there develops the question of why Nineteen Eighty-Four is still so commonly used in argument, when ultimately the novel was written over seventy years ago, and there exists more modern takes on the same matters.Applying the theory of political rhetoric regarding different sources of authority substantiates the Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp.1-47 Orwellian and dangerous' (UK Parliament, 2013c).When politicians are attempting to argue their case for or against technological policy that may have implications upon privacy, they are limited by only being able to articulate potential harm, a prediction of what is to come.They can use past examples of where policy has failed or current occurrences in foreign countries, but also significantly, a vision of alternative reality in the form of Orwell's dystopian novel where technology enables the government to always watch their citizens.The references indeed stress the potential: for example, politicians have referenced how facial recognition software may lead us to an Orwellian state (see UK Parliament, 2020; UK Parliament, 2019c) [own emphasis added].This is direct proof that fiction indeed has a place in deliberative rhetoric in being used to show what could happen.References to literature are an apt strategy of deliberative rhetoric in the context of parliamentary debate especially, which requires succinct, persuasive, and informed contributions.Here, Charteris-Black's assertions (2005) about metaphors can illuminate.He has argued that when the outcomes are too uncertain for politicians to know what to do, metaphors provide quick and cognitively accessible ways of thinking (Ibid).Like metaphors, as part of culture, fiction enhances argument in a relatable and accessible manner, capable of reaching the public audience.A reference to fiction serves to inform when comprehensive information about outcomes is not available, which can clearly be necessary in debates Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp.1-47 Undeniably, some of these references to the novel are appropriate.One politician uses 'Orwellian' in regard to China developing gait and facial technology, given China's recent history of human rights abuses (UK Parliament, 2021b).The same politician also uses 'Orwellian' in a debate on the treatment of Uyghur Women in Xinjiang Detention Camps (UK Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp.1-47

•
Critical of terms use (term specifically) 1) Criticises overuse of Orwellian 2) Then uses in terms of language/wording (spin and propaganda)-consent agreement • Critical of terms use (term specifically)-adjectives after literary writers as a way of framing issues, acknowledges wide use • Critical of terms use (term specifically)-as a cliché-in investigatory powers report • Critical of terms use (term specifically)-as not far enough to describe Chinese government's detention facilities-Kafka more appropriate • Critical of terms use (term specifically)-cliché that does not go far enough to describe North Korea • Critical of terms use (term specifically)-Conscious attempt to not use adjectives like Orwellian or Kafkaesque • Critical of terms use (term specifically)-Mocks the idea of an 'Orwellian nightmare' in investigatory powers • Critical of terms use (term specifically)-mocks the idea of the People's Vote Media Hub sounding Orwellian to opposer • Critical of terms use (term specifically)-that we are not in an of terms use (does not apply) • Critical of terms use (does not apply)-negating the idea of parliament attempting to stop freedom of

Table 1 :
Usage of Orwellian and Nineteen Eighty-Four in the Houses of Parliament

Table 2 :
Usage of Orwellian in the Houses of Parliament

Aspect of totalitarian control portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four the use of Orwellian relates to
*Sum total number of all references: 153.

Table 3 :
Usage of Nineteen Eighty-Four in the Houses of Parliament

Aspect of totalitarian control portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four speakers reference relates to
There are two aspects of totalitarian control portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four to which politicians predominately refer.As seen in Table2and Table3, references to 'Orwellian' and 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' both have the same top two categories.First is its use in relation to 'Spin and propaganda in naming/ phrasing/language/narrative'.ix In Orwell's novel, the government have an entire ministry, The Ministry of Truth, dedicated to spin and propaganda.Framing another's actions in relation to this hyperbolic depiction of spin and propaganda must be particularly tempting for politicians: one MP retorts during a debate, 'on the minimum wage, can we just stop the Orwellian language?' (UK Parliament 2021a), while another asserted 'it is Orwellian to say that there has been a cut in funding when there has not' (UK Parliament 2017a).Yet, this alone cannot suitably explain this category's prevalence, for each aspect of totalitarian control in the novel is depicted in a similar hyperbolic manner.This article has discussed how individuals take fiction's warnings and moral messages and choose where the lessons should be applied in reality, influenced by political orientation.For politicians in parliamentary debate, this process will also be heavily influenced by which matters are of debate at the given time, not necessarily just which topic is on the set agenda but what key issues are dominating political discourse.This shows how this category's prevalence can be seen to be reflective of the modern political climate.Since the dawn of the twenty-first century, attention to political spin and propaganda has increased, in what some attribute to **Includes one repeated reference to Orwellian and Nineteen Eighty-Four in same phrase Birkett.Exchanges 2023 10(3), pp.1-47 communications professionals becoming the news story (see de Vreese & Elenbaas, 2009).Derry (2005: 122) stated that 'every day public opinion is the target of rewritten history, official amnesia and outright lying', a bold claim but one which demonstrates the growing attention, and hostile attitude, to political spin.
General applicability of 1984identifies Lords will be familiar, uses to refer to parallels to new book by Ian McEwan.Refers to doublespeak to highlight free trade already exists with EU to diminish Brexit argument • General applicability of 1984-'Nineteen Eighty-Four argument about how much power should be given to the state and how much you risk if you take those powers away and leave yourself at risk from the activities of other Birkett.Exchanges2023 10(3), pp.1-47