Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Belief as Reality?
In the novel 1984, Winston is tortured to the point of betrayal of his moral principles, his convictions, and his love: "In the face of pain, there are no friendships, no alliances." At the end of the book, he says he truly believes that "The past was alterable". This view is Platonic: that our reality depends on our thoughts, and not upon some exterior, material world. Wht the Party did, throughout this whole book, was attempt to overstep the bounds of the material world: to change facts in people's minds. It did so successfully because it was able to manipulate the conceptions and ideas of the mind without having to change material facts. In this way, the term "Thought Police" fits very well- it polices our thoughts and thinks of them as crime (thoughtcrime) rather than our actions. Winston, in accepting the principles of the Party, such as doublethink, distanced himself from a material conception of the world. In our society, we might refer to Winston's Party-inspired ideas as his "denial" or "delusion". It's interesting that the Party thought the exact same thing of materialistic, non-Platonic Winston. I do disagree with the mentally-leaning inclinations of the Party's ideology- the distancing of material from fact. The argument extended by Winston in 1984 - that assumption of any existence is fallacious- disagreed with me. I thought that the acceptance of thought introduced by O'Brien in Part III of the book is just as fallacious, because of the assumption inherent in the acceptance of said thought.
THe Washer-Woman: a Character Sketch
THe washer-woman, in 1984, is a prole: a member of the lower, proletarian class. After Winston rented the room above Mr. Charrington's shop. he heard singing, looked out the window, and saw the washer-woman. She was described as follows:
"a monstrous woman, solid as a Norman pillar, with brawny red forearms and a sacking apron strapped about her middle, was stumping to and fro between a washtub and a clothes line pegging out a series of square white things which Winston recognized as babies' diapers. Whenever her mouth was not corked with clothes pegs she was singing in a powerful contralto:
It was only an hopeless fancy,
It passed like an April day,
But a look and a word and the dreams they stirred!
They have stolen my heart away!
... the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound."
Later on, after Julia bursts into he room with illegal goods and commodities of the past (coffee, tea, bread, sugar, jam), Winston again looks out of the window.
... Down in the yard the red-armed woman was still marching to and fro between the washtub and the line. She took two more pegs out of her mouth and sang with deep feeling:
They say that time heals all things,
They say you can always forget,
But the smiles and the tears across the years
They twist my heart-strings yet!
She knew the whole drivelling song by heart, it semed. Her voice floated upward with the sweet summer air, very tuneful, charged with a sort of happy melancholy. One had the feeling that she would have been perfectly content, if the June evening had been endless and the supply of clothes inexhaustible, to remain there for a thousand years, pegging clothes and singing rubbish."
First of all, the lady is a proletariat, a member of the lower class. Later on in the book, the statement "she would have been perfectly content ... to remain there for a thousand years" is reflected in the Party's political philosophy: the willingness of the proletariat to remain in their station, and their failure to rise above their rank. For Winston, the Washer-Woman is a relic of the past: an unsuccessful prole, willing to remain in her rank. She is, after all, seemingly content with her station, and makes the best out of her situation, singing the songs designed to keep her happy. To Winston, the Washer-Woman was an important influence. Orwell was not aimless with her inclusion in 1984. The Washer Woman serves to remind Winston that things have not changed- that no matter what the Party says or does, the proletariat will always exist- he gains courage and initiative to join the Brotherhood and fight against the Party. The unofficial, to him, with his relationship with Julia, his illegal goods, and the defiance of the proletariat, which is alive and well, and it is more evident to him than ever that the Party is incorrect in its statements of fact.
"a monstrous woman, solid as a Norman pillar, with brawny red forearms and a sacking apron strapped about her middle, was stumping to and fro between a washtub and a clothes line pegging out a series of square white things which Winston recognized as babies' diapers. Whenever her mouth was not corked with clothes pegs she was singing in a powerful contralto:
It was only an hopeless fancy,
It passed like an April day,
But a look and a word and the dreams they stirred!
They have stolen my heart away!
... the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound."
Later on, after Julia bursts into he room with illegal goods and commodities of the past (coffee, tea, bread, sugar, jam), Winston again looks out of the window.
... Down in the yard the red-armed woman was still marching to and fro between the washtub and the line. She took two more pegs out of her mouth and sang with deep feeling:
They say that time heals all things,
They say you can always forget,
But the smiles and the tears across the years
They twist my heart-strings yet!
She knew the whole drivelling song by heart, it semed. Her voice floated upward with the sweet summer air, very tuneful, charged with a sort of happy melancholy. One had the feeling that she would have been perfectly content, if the June evening had been endless and the supply of clothes inexhaustible, to remain there for a thousand years, pegging clothes and singing rubbish."
First of all, the lady is a proletariat, a member of the lower class. Later on in the book, the statement "she would have been perfectly content ... to remain there for a thousand years" is reflected in the Party's political philosophy: the willingness of the proletariat to remain in their station, and their failure to rise above their rank. For Winston, the Washer-Woman is a relic of the past: an unsuccessful prole, willing to remain in her rank. She is, after all, seemingly content with her station, and makes the best out of her situation, singing the songs designed to keep her happy. To Winston, the Washer-Woman was an important influence. Orwell was not aimless with her inclusion in 1984. The Washer Woman serves to remind Winston that things have not changed- that no matter what the Party says or does, the proletariat will always exist- he gains courage and initiative to join the Brotherhood and fight against the Party. The unofficial, to him, with his relationship with Julia, his illegal goods, and the defiance of the proletariat, which is alive and well, and it is more evident to him than ever that the Party is incorrect in its statements of fact.
Friday, March 14, 2008
How much hatred in two minutes?
Much philosophy in the history of mandkind is dedicated to the potentiality of man: how much can we achieve? What are our limitations in imagination, material, and ability? The positive strain of human traits is much discussed, but what about negative human limitations? The Two Minutes Hate seems to be an absolute vent of rage and frustratrion. Can humans achieve much more hate than in 1984?
A totalitarian society as described in 1984 makes much use of ingenious devices of manipulation and control of population, including propaganda, control of assets (gin and cigarettes) and the Two Minutes Hate. Some discontentment must occur as a condition of a totalitarian society, and the Two minutes hate gauges it very well. The venting of frustration and dissatisfaction into mindless hate is a convenient redirection of rational opposition to conditions of life, and very likely, these frustrations stemmed from the totalitarian regime, rather than the proposed problem - Goldstein the scapegoat, the stereotypical Jew, and the enemy of the State. This is because of the power of propaganda: it's easy to redirect emotions, and they must have existed; from Winston's actions and thoughts, we know that considerable dissent against Big Brother and the Party did (and should have) existed. So, the negative emotions displayed during the Two Minutes Hate must be some reflection of negative conditions in 1984 society: the negative effects of a totalitarian regime.
So, can conditions become much more negative, causing more hate? In 1984, every kind of control is imposed on humans complete with human limitations, including influence of thought and actions through control of language and observation. I'm inclined to think that the control of thought, communication, and actions (instead of material wealth and living conditions) is the ultimate oppressor of people. Does that not translate to define the ultimate creator of hate: the Party? Communism has always had material oppression, but implementation of propaganda and limitation of communication to such a large extent as in 1984 was always impossible. I find it difficult to imagine nonmaterial societal controls implemented to a greater extent than imposed by Big Brother and the Party.
1984 is much about the attempt to fulfil maximum potential: the potential efficiency of language, of society, of education, and of economics. I think that 1984 is just as much about achievement of maximum potential hate, oppression, and negative conditions... this is outlined in the Two Minutes Hate.
A totalitarian society as described in 1984 makes much use of ingenious devices of manipulation and control of population, including propaganda, control of assets (gin and cigarettes) and the Two Minutes Hate. Some discontentment must occur as a condition of a totalitarian society, and the Two minutes hate gauges it very well. The venting of frustration and dissatisfaction into mindless hate is a convenient redirection of rational opposition to conditions of life, and very likely, these frustrations stemmed from the totalitarian regime, rather than the proposed problem - Goldstein the scapegoat, the stereotypical Jew, and the enemy of the State. This is because of the power of propaganda: it's easy to redirect emotions, and they must have existed; from Winston's actions and thoughts, we know that considerable dissent against Big Brother and the Party did (and should have) existed. So, the negative emotions displayed during the Two Minutes Hate must be some reflection of negative conditions in 1984 society: the negative effects of a totalitarian regime.
So, can conditions become much more negative, causing more hate? In 1984, every kind of control is imposed on humans complete with human limitations, including influence of thought and actions through control of language and observation. I'm inclined to think that the control of thought, communication, and actions (instead of material wealth and living conditions) is the ultimate oppressor of people. Does that not translate to define the ultimate creator of hate: the Party? Communism has always had material oppression, but implementation of propaganda and limitation of communication to such a large extent as in 1984 was always impossible. I find it difficult to imagine nonmaterial societal controls implemented to a greater extent than imposed by Big Brother and the Party.
1984 is much about the attempt to fulfil maximum potential: the potential efficiency of language, of society, of education, and of economics. I think that 1984 is just as much about achievement of maximum potential hate, oppression, and negative conditions... this is outlined in the Two Minutes Hate.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Newspeak: Language=thought?
At the very beginning of reading George Orwell's 1984, I skipped to the appendix, called The Principles of Newspeak. I wasn't sure about the restriction of thought; the concept outlined in the appendix seemed to me elusive. From the beginning of human existence, has language defined our thoughts and influenced our eventual actions? One would think so. In the idea of Newspeak, it's clear that some measure of control over 1984 society must exist; one wonders how far this control reaches. To change an entire language must require much control over a society. Is it worth it to try to influence human thought? It seems that control of a society and of thought through control of language might require as much control as would be required for control of a society anyways, without control of language. I think that Big Brother and the Party should achieve their ends through other, more convenient mechanisms... unless the control of language and the control of minds is an end in itself! I think it must be; otherwise the totalitarian regime in 1984, with as much control as it does have, might simply control a society with brute force and material oppression: slavery, restriction of resources, etcetera.
What end is there in controlling thought? Obviously, no physical oppression need occur, but stability in society seems like the one great goal inherent in control of mind. Is it possible that the Party and Big Brother actually care about their own people? That's the only reason to care about stability of society; not for the welfare or the stability of a regime, but for the welfare and stability of a populace. In that respect, the Party seems much better than any government which naturally serves its own ends.
What, however, is stability without freedom? Freedom of thought is, to me, the freedom of language and communication. So: is the freedom of thought and of communication worth preserving, in exchange for other, harsher methods of oppression? Censorship, when well applied, is simply brainwashing; an undetectable subtle influence that is not known. I, for one, would enjoy my new, stable, controlled reality. When you consider the alternative- physical, material force, brainwashing is just peachy. After all, ignorance is bliss.
What end is there in controlling thought? Obviously, no physical oppression need occur, but stability in society seems like the one great goal inherent in control of mind. Is it possible that the Party and Big Brother actually care about their own people? That's the only reason to care about stability of society; not for the welfare or the stability of a regime, but for the welfare and stability of a populace. In that respect, the Party seems much better than any government which naturally serves its own ends.
What, however, is stability without freedom? Freedom of thought is, to me, the freedom of language and communication. So: is the freedom of thought and of communication worth preserving, in exchange for other, harsher methods of oppression? Censorship, when well applied, is simply brainwashing; an undetectable subtle influence that is not known. I, for one, would enjoy my new, stable, controlled reality. When you consider the alternative- physical, material force, brainwashing is just peachy. After all, ignorance is bliss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)