I wasn't planning to post about this book, since I was just re-reading it for "fun." However this "fun" little book gave me both nightmares and a few thoughts.
I was probably a teenager when I first read it and didn't know enough about history and politics to understand the relation between Orwell's major themes and reality. It makes sense to me now that Harcourt has published this book along with Animal Farm in one volume. Animal Farm shows how when the "middle" enlists the aid of the "low" to overthrow the "high" in the name of equality, they simply assume the high position until the next revolution, and maintain the hierarchy they formerly despised. It's a game of musical chairs, with the "low" forever consigned to stand. Nineteen Eighty-Four is a fantasy about how it might be possible for the "high" (the Inner Party) to maintain their position indefinitely through the use of technology and by controlling the minds of their only real threat, the "middle" (the Outer Party). As always the "low" (Proles) are used when it is convenient but are otherwise left to their backward, survival-level lives.
I can't help thinking that if Orwell had not died so young he might have seen socialistic progress in the world that would have made him doubt his Animal Farm thesis. Certainly the forces of oligarchy and oppression are still strong throughout the world but there are places, such as Canada, where equality has truly been increasing, and for several decades in a row. That might not seem like much in the context of human history, but it is reason to hope.
What might also surprise Orwell is that technology has served to increase equality and liberty, particularly telecommunications. Within hours or days the entire world can know of abuses happening in a fortified prison or a remote mountain village. You know that "optics" have become a real political force when the president of Iran cares what CNN reports.
Of course in Nineteen Eighty-Four, technology is used for exactly the opposite purpose, that of keeping people in the dark, particularly about "the enemy" (so as to permit blind fear and hatred) and about history (so as to abolish all memory of freedom). Nineteen Eighty-Four's hero, Winston Smith, whose job it is to rewrite newspaper articles to suit the Party's latest version of the truth, is particularly concerned with history. He yearns for both human memories and tangible evidence of a happier, more beautiful past. He needs a reference point to confirm his suspicion that life is getting worse, contrary to the party line that life is only getting better.
I think I share Winston's passion for history, not because I want to prove that life here is inhumane (it isn't, for most of us), but because knowledge of history is a sure way to prevent it from becoming so. (Technology helps us here too, particularly in the form of printing.) Furthermore, there is much of beauty contained in history, something Winston is also sensible to, as shown by his attraction to the cream-papered diary and coral paperweight he found in a Prole shop. While nostalgia can be as dangerous as ignorance of the past, there is much we can gain from studying how our ancestors solved the eternal human problems. We are in an especially enviable position in having access to the histories of many peoples, not just our own.
Another way the Inner Party controls the Outer Party is through the manipulation of language, which Orwell also touches on in his essay Politics and the English Language. The appendix on "Newspeak" in Nineteen Eighty-Four shows, I think, that Orwell was most concerned about the use of language for political purposes (not surprising for a writer). The general aim of Newspeak was to remove from the language all words dealing with freedom, equality, truth, and justice in order to remove those concepts from the consciousness of the people. It also sought to reduce the language to simple, monotonous, arrhythmic words to accord with the ugliness of life under "IngSoc," the principles under which the society was run. Pure Newspeak was said to sound like a duck quacking, and it was considered a compliment to say that a Party member was a good duckspeaker.
In this case I think Orwell would be unhappy with how modern political parties can now "frame the debate" to gain support while hiding the true nature of their beliefs and intentions. And I think he would be horrified at how certain words have been co-opted (Patriot Act) or denigrated (welfare) so that they can no longer be used for their original meanings. Due to the richness of the English language we are not in any danger of running out of words, but our political vocabulary does seem to be eroding.
In the book, not only does the Inner Party control language and history, it can control the mind directly through torture, mind games, drugs, and a technology that resembles electroshock therapy. By controlling the mind the Party can erase and prevent all perceptions that might call the Party's truth into question. Winston tries to hold on to his belief in objective truth but is vanquished by the mind-control techniques. The flaw in this system is that the human body is still able to register objective truth even if the mind cannot. Winston missed this entirely. I would say Orwell missed it too except that he makes a point of describing Winston's various ailments, how they clear up during his love affair with Julia, and how they return even worse after his "cure." The body doesn't lie about the conditions of life, as we well know in our age of the diseases of affluence.
The ultimate form of control was control of the heart. The Party is not interested in exacting confessions and accusations, though that is done through regular torture as a matter of course. The Party wants to own its people, body and soul. To complete this process they expose malcontents to their greatest fear, which inevitably leads to the greatest betrayal, that of wishing the punishment to be taken out one's the beloved rather than oneself. This is the last, irrevocable step towards total acceptance of IngSoc.
It's hard for me to put my thoughts together about this, but I keep thinking of the many Christian (and other) martyrs (if I can use a word that is denigrated today) who consciously risked and sacrificed their lives for others. The story of Winston Smith represents total despair—with no possibility of healing and forgiveness—the polar opposite of my faith and of many faiths. I appreciate the book as a warning against totalitarian control of life and mind, but I reject the idea that the soul or spirit or will can be controlled. It may be injured and hindered, perhaps, but never destroyed or controlled. Ultimately this is a work of fiction, and I am glad of it.
