My Final Blog, Finally

So I'm finally writing my last blog, apologies Mr. Ross for my blogs being varying degrees of late, but to make up for it I hope, this one is going to be annoyingly long, so like please take mercy on me.

"For the first time he perceived that if you want to keep a secret you must also hide it from yourself. You must know all the while that it is there, but until it is needed you must never let it emerge into your consciousness in any shape that could be given a name. From now onwards he must not only think right; he must feel right, dream right."

I found this section particularly interesting when you consider that this seems to be a process that other Party members understand. This sense of how to stay safe comes as an epiphany to Winston, but it seems that for others their own strife towards the Party is already buried deep. Parsons ends up in Miniluv too from what he said in his sleep, which either means he has his own rebellion developed in his subconscious or his daughter lied. While I enjoyed entertaining the second option, let me follow the first for a moment.

People have a way of hiding memories and thoughts within their mind to avoid distress. On a mass scale I think Ingsoc has convinced the general public to bury deep their true thoughts and feelings through crimestop and doublethink. Ingsoc wants all rebellion to stay far outside of your conscious thought, all true feelings and emotions you must hide from yourself to be a good Party member. In that same strain of thought, keeping any rebellion buried deep reaps the pleasure of relative safety. A tool of the Totalitarian society is the fact that everyone is truly in danger of being killed and the Party still employs this tactic, but you are more likely to believe in safety if you don't think you have done anything wrong. Keeping rebellion buried deep and separate from everything is the only way to feel safe, and these people have learned how to do it.

Sacrificing personal freedom for the idea of safety is the only thing that Party members know to do. they sacrifice their thoughts the most personal thing of all in order to be relatively affected. It really makes me wonder everything that went into creating this system, and how the idea of safety versus freedom extends into our world.

QUOTE 2
"‘pain is not always enough. There are occasions when a human being will stand out against pain, even to the point of death. But for everyone there is something unendurable—something that cannot be contemplated. Courage and cowardice are not involved. If you are falling from a height it is not cowardly to clutch at a rope. If you have come up from deep water it is not cowardly to fill your lungs with air. It is merely an instinct which cannot be destroyed."

I found this portion of the book both interesting and questionable. Why did Orwell choose to include this idea? How does this connect to everything else? And while I don't think I have the answers, I'm going to try and analyze this idea.

In terms of why Orwell included it, of course, he had to make Winston truly break. His message is not a message of hope, so Winston had to break at some point, even if he did love Julia (debatable) and even if he hated Big Brother there must be a line where eventually will gives way to self-preservation.

The entire scene serves to indicate that some point the torture becomes so forceful so personal that personal morals and promises must be made, through the realization that it won't stop unless he complies, and with compliance, a pattern is formed and soon you have accepted a new truth. I think my only general surprise in relation to this scene is that we are so used to seeing characters who are tortured, but come out themselves on the other side, and are able to hold onto their beliefs. This entire system is based on the fact that they know who you are, they know what you fear, and they know the exact thing that will break you. In a way, it's like being tortured by a close friend or family member, you trust them and in doing so they learn some of your secrets and fears. The Party has the same knowledge. They know exactly what will make you crack and how the pure terror will make you do things you wouldn't dream of before.

I wonder if Winston hadn't already been pushed to the edge with the previous torture if the rats would produce the same reaction out of him. If the order had been flipped and he went to Room 101 first what would change? Would he hold too much of his own ideals that he wouldn't betray both Julia and his own mind, or is the fear infinite and all-consuming no matter the state of mind?

Innocence

‘Of course I’m guilty!’ cried Parsons with a servile glance at the telescreen. ‘You don’t think the Party would arrest an innocent man, do you?’

I found what Parsons said while in the cell with Winston very interesting. What is innocence in the eyes of the Party?

Throughout the book, we get to know a lot about how the Party functions, and from what I can tell I'm questioning whether anyone is ever perceived innocent. In thoughtcrime, I believe that no one would ever be proven innocent of thoughtcrime. The Party is afraid of any threats, so the ability to be innocent of thoughtcrime implies that those who commit thoughtcrime could be innocent. The ability to be innocent makes it so that people may not consider the dire consequences of committing thoughtcrime. The ability to get off easily for thoughtcrime or perceived thoughtcrime gets rid of the horror of being taken away by the thought police at any time with no notice.

In crimes other than thoughtcrime it still seems likely that the Party would make sure individuals that committed any crime wasn't mixing with their general population. In order for their society to be perfect, they need crime out of it so perceived criminals could be moved away from the people they knew to keep up the idea that crime is always punished.

‘I don’t know. I don’t know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six—in all honesty I don’t know.’

What saves Winston is his ignorance. Winston is only saved from pain when O'Brien makes him believe and accept his own ignorance, even though he just held the knowledge. By forcing party members into ignorance through doublethink, and comdeming thoughtcrime through the refusal to accept doublethink, in 1984 ignorance is protection.

Knowledge makes the Party weak

"Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for ‘Science’. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty."

I found this particular quote to be totally sad. The idea that science no longer exists and no exploration occurs in Oceania is very depressing. Curiosity and knowledge are essentially weapons of mass destruction in Oceania, and could harm the rhetoric of the Party. So to minimize the issues of keeping those curious and knowledgeable from impacting and informing those who were less so, the Party promotes the idea as ignorance as strength.

Achievements and furthering of the mind in any sense would go against the public view that people were not individual, that everyone was a cog in a perfect machine. In a way, any sort of innovation promoted that there is something to be fixed. People who are 'scientist' in that sense that we think are probably cycled through often. Though they may want them for the idea of how to further diminish liberty and technological advances that may possibly assist in that, the Party likely gets quickly scared of people able to have ideas beyond what they have provided and get concerned with how that could be used against them.

This quote also makes me wonder just what technological advances have been made. When the Party began how much access had they had to people? I wonder how recent a development telescreens were and how long hey had actually worked. It seems possible that originally most telescreens didn't have access to video and sound, but the rhetoric was spread that they did, so people became afraid. It wouldn't be unlike fake security cameras, as just the act of feeling watched can cause people to alter behaviors.

Here's some less than enlightened writing about chapters 3-6

"He tried to make her understand. ‘This was an exceptional case. It wasn’t just a question of somebody being killed. Do you realize that the past, starting from yesterday, has been actually abolished? If it survives anywhere, it’s in a few solid objects with no words attached to them, like that lump of glass there. Already we know almost literally nothing about the Revolution and the years before the Revolution. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." (128).

I feel that Winston is in somewhat of a unique position. These past few chapters have been good in displaying while how Winston cares for the future and the past of the Party for all, Julia only cares about those factors of the party which come in direct contact with her life. While Julia seems to grasp and contemplates some major hoaxes she believes the Party to be involved in i.e. the war, she is bored of the other lies the Party tells, accepting that things are just like that. I wonder how much of it is a generational difference. Julia doesn't remember a time before the Party at all while Winston does, Winston can vaguely remember that things might have been better before, but Julia holds no such memory.

Winston's overall understanding that to the Party only the present exists is quite interesting. The past is simply rewritten and falsified and there is no truth to any of it. The public has a complete lack of knowledge beyond the Party. They are being kept in the dark about everything slowly as time goes on the Party can claim to be responsible for more and more history. Winston notes that during his time in school the Party claimed to have invented helicopters, while in Julia's time they claimed to have also invented airplanes. The Party's ultimate goal it seems to be erasing more and more of the past until nothing remains but the Party. There will be no mention or fleeting memory of the time before the Party, only 'knowledge' that it was a horribly awful time and things are getting better. Old artifacts and trinkets will slowly disappear even in the proles housing, and the notice of anything but the present will be useless. No knowledge of history will be needed because it changes, no explanations of the changes will need to be made because not only will no one notice, but no one will care about the differences because the present is the only thing that carries weight.

The idea of 'history repeating itself' or 'learning from history' will be completely irrelevant as time marches forward because the history everyone learns will be the present. The only mistakes that will be learned from are the 'capitalist in top hats' and even then history is dictated by what the government wants you to see. History as always will be dictated by the winners and the Party is always right, so the Party will always win. With the severe restriction on history, the restraint of public knowledge, and the shunning of individualism, it doesn't seem like Winston's time is far off from what the Party truly wants: a nation of 'good' people afraid stir the pot or ask any questions about the way things are.

Social Monitoring of the Party

"In principle, a Party member had no spare time and was never alone except in bed. It was assumed that when he was not working, eating, or sleeping he would be taking part in some kind of communal recreation: to do anything that suggested a taste for solitude, even to go for a walk by yourself, was always slightly dangerous. There was a word for it in Newspeak: OWNLIFE, it was called, meaning
individualism and eccentricity.:(70).

I found the harshness with which individuality is punished particularly interesting. As a society, we tend harshly away from individuality and towards a single acceptable look. We learn to 'tolerate' those who are different before we can accept them. In Winston's world, there is no effort to 'tolerate' or accept those who are different, simply a movement to eradicate them.

It seems to me that the Party also shuns introverts in general, by forcing almost constant socialization. I think that probably has to do with the fact that it is simply harder to control those who are on their own and properly monitor them. Individualism and solitude are impractical preferences. So often do I hear people say they are living their own life or living for themselves, but within the structures of the Party that ideology is not possible. People are living for the Party. The Party wants them to do activities and spend little time alone so they comply.

I think beyond just having people be in fewer places, the Party wants people to spend time with others to further establish the beliefs of the Party. When talking with fellow Party members there seem to be few safe topics, meaning that the topics that end up being discussed are ones that the Party approves of. This type of social monitoring by anyone you interact with could result in those who may not think they like certain activities 'actually' enjoying them, simply because they have nothing else to base enjoyment on. If all you can safely talk about are things sactioned by the Party, how inclined is everyone else to talk of the same things? How long until you begin to believe it all? Winston's disconnection from the general scene may not only be an act of wanting separation from semi-required events for a bit of peace, may go deep enough to the fact that he doesn't want to get caught up in the harsh sentiments of the party as he does during the Two-Minute Hate.

The Party clearly begins the cycle of brainwashing young. If you are conditioned to believe certain attributes are good and bad traits, such as how wanting individualism is a negative trait, and have only seen negative consequences of such actions wouldn't you be inclined to believe it?  Winston still has a wavering memory of a different time and a feeling that things had been better then, but what about children growing up then? The only tangible difference will come if they realize the rations are smaller or they're being lied to, but they will never have the reference point of a time without the Party.

So my real question is how far does the party go? We see from Winston's time with Julia that there must be more who aren't as loyal to the Party as they seem, but how many fake it heavily like Julia, or lightly like Winston? The mistrust of peers and trust that authority knows what is best for the people is what is keeping the people from banding together. None of them trust that others have the same hidden beliefs, so nothing changes. With the pressures of the Party you could be talking to a group of completely like-minded individuals, but never know, because you're stuck talking about a sport that none of you really care about.

Newspeak and the Dismantling of Language

"‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,’" (Chapter 5, 46).

I found this concept that Syme brings forward particularly interesting. Syme is deeply aware of the goal of the Party and fundamentally supports its. Not only is the shrinking of the English language fun for him in a linguistic sense, but in a societal sense of limiting the possibility of thought. Syme in this respect is an interesting character as he is intelligent enough to understand that the Party is lying to him, with shifting numbers, facts, and alliances. Winston has a detailed grasp of the gymnastics done to lie to the public and while doesn't have the same close view of that goal of the Party, he understands what some goals are. This begs the question as to why Syme supports the Party when he has to flip everything around in his mind to draw closer to what the Party wants him to think? To that, I think that unlike Winston who has a will to stop what the Party's actions or at least defy them within his own mind, Syme is allowed to do the things he wants to the Party. The Party has given him power over other people by giving him the power of language. With the power that he wants Syme has no reason to defy the Party.

The control of language by the Party in order to limit free thought is quite elaborate. It brings me back to the pre-reading statements we went over and how without the words to express something whether or not it exists. By limiting the vocabulary of the public though I think in a sense thoughtcrime would be impossible as no one would quite have the words to express it, there is also a going to end up being some unconscious thought that instead of proper articulation in speak would have trouble finding proper articulation within our own heads. No one could truly defy the ideals of the Party, because they would lack the words to make a stand. I don't think that limits the possibility of defiance, because actions could be in the place in words. All a person needs to think is 'The Party is Ungood' and realize from there that there is some wrongness in the whole situation. Without any concept of freedom, this idea may be difficult to reach, but I'm building on the wavering thought that someone somewhere would want more out of life than what they had been restricted to.