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.