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.

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.