Nineteen Eighty-Four Today?

[The mekanik]

One clue; THE NANNY STATE.

[Thanatos]

That makes no sense. There are, however, other parallels, of which the most currently obvious is the permanent war: instead of Eurasia or Eastasia, the eternal, undefeatable enemy is terrorism. The so-called war on terrorism enables the governments of Oceania (sorry, Britain and the United States of America) to build up support by mad patriotic fervour and hatred and make the people look the other way as their human rights are eroded.

[HStorm]

Yeah Thanatos is quite right, the government of Oceania is clearly not a nanny state. A nanny state is an overwheening government that takes it on itself to take more care of its citizens than it needs to, which is inefficient and stifles talent and industry. It has nothing but the best of intentions, but inadvertently causes harm. The Inner Party of Oceania, on the other hand, has no concern for justice or the public good, only for power. It is a totalitarian state, not a nanny state.

The recent article I wrote (www.freewebs.com/thecritique/article20.htm) on the novel gives all my comparisons with the real world, so I shan't bother listing them again here.

[Thanatos]

Ingsoc is not totalitarianism; O'Brien makes an explicit distinction between the two.

[Thanatos]

An excellent article, by the way, though I disagree with certain minor details; I don't have time to elaborate now but should be able to at the weekend.

[HStorm]

O'Brien may make a distinction between totalitarianism and Ingsoc, but let's face it he also says that he could disconnect himself from the floor and float about in mid-air if the Party orders him to! His philosophy is infinitely variantisable.

In any case, totalitarianism isn't a political theory but a group term for any form of government that is concerned with total control of its population's lives. Ingsoc therefore is just one form of totalitarianism. It could be argued that total control is not achieved or even attempted as the Proles are left alone to an extent, but it seems to me that they're still very much controlled, just in other ways.

To draw a real world ideological parallel, there were sizeable distinctions between German Nazism and Russian Stalinism (for instance, the Red Army had no real political influence in the Soviet Union, certainly far, far less than the KGB, whereas the armed forces in Germany had at least as much authority as the Gestapo), but they were clearly both totalitarian regimes.

The distinction O'Brien points out was more in terms of the method of control rather than the nature of it; he's criticising the 'half-heartedness' and self-delusion of earlier totalitarian regimes more than trying to claim that Oceania isn't one.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on the article.

[Thanatos]

My first disagreement with your article is with your assertion that "the Inner Party are imprisoned by their own lust for power". Apart from the grammatical error ("are" should be "is" and "their" "its"), it is incongruous with O'Brien's comments on power (pp 275 ff, at least in my edition). He says, "We are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness, only power, pure power...Power is not a means, it is an end." You say that this shows that "they have even sacrificed their own freedom...that they never have any time or freedom to enjoy the fruits of their power, or even to lead relatively full lives," but here you miss the point: the fruit of their power is power. As far as they are concerned, power is all they need for a full life. As O'Brien goes on to say, "always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always at every moment there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless." Power is what the Inner Party's members desire, and they are no more prisoners of that desire than you and I are prisoners of the desire for a good lunch. It is only a simple desire, not an addiction as to alcohol or heroin, of which they could be said to be prisoners, because it is utterly voluntary: they retain their own free will, and the addiction has no unpleasant physical or neurological side effects. Neither is it eternal, insatiable lust, as of a sex maniac - its fulfilment is fulfilling.

Secondly, the comparison between O'Brien's stamping boot and Bush's "with us or against us" dichotomy is false. Bush's remark is, indeed, worthy of all the adjectives you accord it, but O'Brien's remark could hardly be more different: he is right. It is not stupid, since he accurately diagnoses the state of the society he has helped to build; it is not narrow-minded any more than any statement of fact; it is not belligerent or threatening, as he and the Party have already defeated Winston; it is not dishonest, because it is true. The only similarity is that both Bush's and O'Brien's remarks are thoroughly unpleasant.

Ypu assert too that "there's no doubt that the primary motivations for that war and for the war in Nineteen Eighty-Four are identical. They both serve to give a disgruntled population an external enemy to unite against and take their boiling frustrations out on." This is certainly one part of the motive of Oceania's war, but not the primary one. The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism states (pp 196 ff), "The primary aim of modern warfare...is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living...The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent." It goes on to say that this is an important part of perpetuating a hierarchichal society and averting equality and happiness, which ties in with O'Brien's statement that power is exerted (for its own sake) over the people by making them suffer. The book does go on to talk about war's role in creating also the necessary mindset, which you correctly compared to the so-called war on terrorism (the comparison as regards the war's endlessness is also accurate), but this follows on from the point about the prevention of material happiness.

I take issue finally with the comparison between Newspeak and political correctness. Firstly, although the latter is sometimes carried to absurd extremes, it is for the most part merely symptomatic of the gradual reduction in racism and other bigotries in our society over the past few decades - the unacceptability of "Paki", about whose offensiveness there are no two ways (and which has never, as far as I or my dictionary know, meant "happy"), reflects only the welcome greater tolerance among whites of those of Pakistani origin. Words or certain senses thereof have not been consciously destroyed; I agree that the disappearance of "gay" in the sense of "happy" is a pity, but language constantly evolves and words' meanings are ever-changing. "Terrific" once meant "terror-inspiring". The beginning of Wisteria Lodge, which begins His Last Bow, the fourth of Arthur Conan Doyle's five books of short stories of Sherlock Holmes, shows that "grotesque", a mere century or so ago, meant not "disgusting", its present sense, but "strange" or "remarkable". It did have some negative connotation, but it was "of the tragic and the terrible" rather than the repulsive and was only "some underlying suggestion".

You may well consider some or all of the above arguments petty quibbles with the relatively unimportant; if so, this reflects how much I agree with the spirit of the article, its general message and most of its content. Apart from the Newspeak/political correctness issue, I would find little or nothing to disagree with in a good précis of your excellent piece.

[HStorm]

Regarding the self-imprisonment, you miss my point. I'm well aware that the Inner Party treasure power and only power, which is what I said in the article, but I'm not talking about their desires, ambitions, or even their perceptions of what's happening, I'm talking about the consequences of what they do. Because they only care about power and have deidcated their entire lives and their entire activity to retaining it, they have deprived themselves of all freedom of action in any other area of life. That IS self-imprisonment. It's fair to say that they don't care that it is, but it doesn't make it any less true, any less sad, or any less ridiculous. Indeed, the fact that it doesn't bother them makes it MORE ridiculous.

And as far as I can see they do NOT retain their free will at all. If they did there could be a danger of them developing ideas contrary to the principles of Ingsoc, which the rest of the Inner Party won't allow in any member of the elite, any more than they'd allow it in a member of the Outer Party. Therefore the Inner Party are even more prone to the absurdities of doublethink than anyone else, and doublethink is by nature the antithesis of free will. It is the ability to believe anything the Party as a whole wishes the individual to believe. Therefore there is no individual choice, therefore there is no free will.

O'Brien's assertion seems very narrow-minded to me but I wasn't actually implying that it was any of those things in that sentence, I was referring purely to Bush's rhetoric. What I meant when I say the one reminds me of the other is that there is another key similarity between Bush's sentiments and O'Brien's. They refer to a belligerent instinct that they wish to fulfill in their respective populations. Bush's was a rallying cry, O'Brien's was a candid statement of intent, but the impulse behind each of them was the same. That was what reminded me of O'Brien when I heard Bush say it.

Fair point about the primary reason for the war, but the external enemy to unite against is still a very prominent motivation. My use of the word 'primary' was probably wrong, but the rest of the point is still true.

Yes, language always evolves (for instance, the words 'awful' and 'awesome' have swapped meanings in the last fifty years), but it tends to do so by itself, and rarely has it ever been eroded on grounds of 'offensiveness'. Political correctness is an artificial erosion of the language, and the danger of it is that it indicates that there are certain matters about which people are not allowed even to think. The motivation behind its invention might have been positive, but then so was the British Empire's. I have no problem with language evolving in natural, social order. It only frightens me when people near the peak of society try artificially to annihilate language. It is in that particular regard that political correctness and Newspeak are very much the same thing.

'Paki', by the way, is a word that originated in India, and it does mean 'happy' or 'free'. This was confirmed to me recently by a friend of mine whose father was born in Delhi, and it was even pointed out a few months ago by an Asian on The Wright Stuff on Channel 5. He has long been trying to get the word accepted once more as he finds it far more offensive that people say he should not be proud to be called one.

Hope that clarifies a few things.

[HStorm]

Going back to the Mekaniik's original assertion about the Nanny State, I think you've wandered into the wrong future Dystopia, old boy. I recommend you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, if you haven't done so already, to see an example of the Nanny State taken to a satirical extreme. Compared to Orwell's work it is a little bland and undramatic, but it still has a scary vision about a world that stifles all the important qualities of individualism i.e. a world without talent, initiative, imagination, variety or enterprise.

Even more than that though, I recommend you read Huxley's essay from the 1950's, Brave New World Revisited, which examines both BNW and 1984, assesses their potential to come true from the perspective of the early Cold War period, and makes some chillingly accurate predictions about the troubles that the world would face at the end of the Twentieth Century, especially the destitution caused in countless countries by the horrors of overpopulation.

[Naselus]

I have to say, we're actually somewhat closer to a Brave New World than 1984. There's the desperate consumerism, the endless supply of near-useless gadgets to waste money on, and we even have several of our own versions of Soma. They just aren't forced on everyone yet, be in Prozac, Ecstasy, heroin or even beer.

[HStorm]

Socially I think we're not far from BNW, politically I think we're drifting uncomfortably close to 1984. The most scary aspect about it though is that a great many of the similarities between the real world and the novels have only developed or become apparent SINCE the books were written.

[Naselus]

And a tad worrying we're headed for BOTH distopias. Wouldn't have though them compatible. Still, good old GWB's bound to find a way.

[Thanatos]

If the Inner Party's members are imprisoned by their pursuit of power then Tony Blair was imprisoned by his pursuit of the keys to No. 10, actors are imprisoned by their pursuit of an acting career, teachers by pursuit of a teaching career etc. People who devote their lives to anything can be said, with equal justification, to deprive themselves of freedom of action.

As regards free will, doublethink is not its antithesis but quite the opposite: it enables its practitioners to do and think anything even if their thoughts or actions contradict each other. It is doublethink that enables O'Brien to commit a small thoughtcrime (his reference to the now vapourised Syme) when first he communicates with Winston despite his own sincere and complete devotion to Ingsoc. What sets the Inner Party apart from the Outer is that is members believe in Ingsoc not because they are coerced, be it by simple propaganda or the Ministry of Love, but through an entirely conscious choice. Many are old enough to be of the era of oldthinkers, yet they are the most orthodox people of all despite O'Brien's occasional unorthodox utterances in his dialogues with Winston in the Ministry of Love. Doublethink is, as you say, the ability to believe anything the Party as a whole wishes the individual to believe, but not the compulsion to do so or inability not to; it is not the antithesis of free will but the reconciliation of the latter with orthodoxy.

[HStorm]

Thanatos said:

If the Inner Party's members are imprisoned by their pursuit of power then Tony Blair was imprisoned by his pursuit of the keys to No. 10, actors are imprisoned by their pursuit of an acting career, teachers by pursuit of a teaching career etc. People who devote their lives to anything can be said, with equal justification, to deprive themselves of freedom of action.

That's not remotely the same thing. Dedicating your life to a career doesn't mean you have to exclude every other possible activity, but what the Inner Party does forces them to expend every activity of their lives (bar eating, sleeping and breathing) to preserving their authority. They never get to do anything else because they aren't allowed to let their guards down even for a moment. Tony Blair, by contrast, gives himself plenty of time for raising a family, watching football, playing tennis etc. More to the point, if he wanted to he could walk away from the job tomorrow (oh, cherishable thought!) and no one could stop him (or would want to I reckon), but if O'Brien tried to walk away from the Inner Party he'd be carted off by the Thought Police for heresy.

As regards free will, doublethink is not its antithesis but quite the opposite: it enables its practitioners to do and think anything even if their thoughts or actions contradict each other.

'Enables' is the wrong word. It constrains them to do so.

What sets the Inner Party apart from the Outer is that its members believe in Ingsoc not because they are coerced, be it by simple propaganda or the Ministry of Love, but through an entirely conscious choice.

When they join the Inner Party, that may be so (although I'm not convinced even of that because in the end nobody is allowed to decide against Ingsoc). But once that choice is made they have no fiurther choice. And if any of them ever decide to reject the principles of Ingsoc they will be eliminated by the Thought Police, just as the Outer Party members would be. They aren't allowed to change their minds or deviate from a specific pattern of behaviour at any stage of their lives. Being given the right to make a single personal decision about the course of their own lives doesn't sound like free will to me.

Doublethink is, as you say, the ability to believe anything the Party as a whole wishes the individual to believe, but not the compulsion to do so or inability not to.

Well for a start they are compelled to use doublethink whenever they are faced with the slightest logical contradiction in anything the Party says. If they don't use it they become fully aware of the reality of the society they're in and the Thought Police will nab them.

But anyway, I'm not talking about ability, I'm talking about rights. Doublethink denies people a most crucial freedom - the right to KNOW. If you aren't allowed to know about something that affects you directly, you're being deprived of something that, by any moral standard, you should be entitled to as a human being. Doublethink is a practise imposed on the inhabitants of Oceania (not one they choose), which deprives them of the basic freedoms to know what is true and what is false, or to form opinions of their own. That's why it's the antithesis of free will.

[Naselus]

Personally, I think that the Inner Party do have a little more frredom and free will than the outer, but only because they are the ones who are least likely to use it. O'Brien, for example, CAN turn off the telescreen because he WON'T unless it serves the party. They are allowed more freedom simply because they will choose not to use it unless absolutely forced to, such as in order to 'save' Winston from his mental problems. They are like prisoners who's cage is unlocked because they'll never try to open it.

[HStorm]

Mm, that's true, but I still wouldn't call that free will. Free will would be where the Inner Party will make the personal decisions for themselves knowing that they won't face any retribution.

Yes they have slightly more freedom than the Outer Party, no one's disputing that, but all that means is they have slightly more freedom than none whatsoever. And in fact, the people who have most personal freedom in Oceania (and still very, very little) are the Proles, as they have no intellect with which to use it.