Warfare in 1984

“I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.”

-Diogenes 
 

In George Orwell’s, 1984, Oceania’s illusive leader, Big Brother is deemed as an all knowing power. His authority is never questioned. He is always right. The citizens of Oceania blindly support their government’s every decision and the war against either Eurasia or Eastasia is assumed to be justly motivated. Sound familiar? This is exactly how how the never ending cycle of patriotism and war operates in our modern world.
  
What do you feel when you see a yellow ‘Support our Troops’ ribbon? Are you overcome with an overwhelming sense of support and appreciation for our troops fighting to keep our country free? Or are you angry at this blatant order to support an illegal war simply because of the country you were born in? This extreme patriotism, commonly called nationalism, was invented to perpetuate war. Think about it. If everyone let go of their biases about their country and really thought about things from a rational perspective, there could be no war. The working class, essentially the proles of our society, would not let it be. 


The difference between war in 1984 and war in our society lies in what we are told about the war, and in the real motives behind it. In 1984, the people of Oceania are told they are at war to gain territory and spread their influence throughout the world. They all possess the idea that at some point this war will come to an end with Oceania the undisputed victor. Even the inner Party members who know the real reason behind the war, possess this idea. The real motive behind the constant state of warfare is to regulate supply and demand and to keep the general population in a constant state of fear.

This can be seen in modern society by looking at the war in Iraq, and the motives behind it. We, the public, are told many different things about the war in Iraq. The most common excuse is that the war is retaliation for the events of September 11th, 2001. The official story of the attacks is:

“On that date [September 11, 2001], as is well known, 19 terrorists associated with an organization called al Qaeda hijacked four [Boeing 757 and 767] airplanes, and succeeded in crashing three of them into public buildings they had targeted — one into each of the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York, and one into the Pentagon near Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center towers were destroyed and the Pentagon was seriously damaged. Passengers on the fourth airplane sought to overpower the hijackers, and in so doing prevented that airplane from being similarly used, although it too crashed, in a field in Pennsylvania, and all aboard were killed. In all, more than 3,000 people were killed in that day's coordinated attacks.” -Padvilla v Bush

The official story of the attacks lacks details and contains many inconsistencies within itself. Though the story is obviously off, it would be deemed unpatriotic to question it.  


"... about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre... In fact, after the September 11 attack, the figure was about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed to raise that to about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support the war" — Noam Chomsky

Is Winston a Hero?

“A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles.”

-Christopher Reeve, 1952-2004

 
In story books, fantasy novels for children, the line between good and evil is clear and precise. There is no in between. There is no gray area. The hero is the brave prince who risks all to save the helpless princess. The villain is an evil step-mother or a cackling witch. In the real world, things aren't quite so simple. Good and evil are never clearly defined, and one might possess both qualities of a hero and a villain.

Even if the hero is not a handsome prince come to save the day, he generally does possess certain qualities. He is courageous, selfless, determined and dedicated. He is willing to make sacrifices for the greater good and he is loyal until his last breath. A hero is vigilante and visionary, he persists until he has accomplished what he set out to do.

When Winston decides to write a diary, he could be called courageous for committing such a bold act in the face of the Party's regime but he could just as well be called foolish. He can not be called selfless, as shown in his memory of stealing chocolate from his dying sister. He is not courageous. He is determined but he never makes anything of his determination. In theory, Winston claims that he would make any sacrifice for the cause but as one can see by his torture and subsequent betrayal of Julia, that he is neither vigilante nor loyal.

When the novel begins, Winston appears to be what is commonly called an 'everyman'; a character, often the hero, who can be identified with by a wide variety of people. Winston is shown to possess very few heroic qualities and those which he does embody are lost by the end of the novel.

What is Freedom?

"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life."

-George Orwell, 1984

What is freedom? The Oxford English Dictionary defines freedom as "the ability to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without". There are many different types of freedom: from religious freedom and cultural freedom to freedom of speech and expression. In Canada, one has the freedom to practice a religion of one's choice or even no religion a all. One has the right to express one's opinion as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms.

In 1984's, the citizens of Oceania have virtually no freedoms. They do not have the right to elect their government nor any say in, or even knowledge of, in affairs of state. They survive on rations and little pocket change and practically always don't have enough of something. Though the proles are allowed to wear what they like, Party members only wear a specific uniform. They do not have the freedom to love openly, sex and marriage being for the sole purpose of procreation. The citizens of Oceania do not have the freedom to express themselves through music, art or writing, nor anything else creative. Privacy is non-existent and no one is allowed to have secrets. There are no simple pleasures, no true friends and no trust.

Power

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.

-George Orwell, 1984

In the novel, there are two different, very definite senses of the word 'power'. There is power in the sense of power within the Party and there is power in the sense of having the capability of conscious thought in this strictly regimented society.

From the perspective of having power within the Party, submissiveness and compliance equal power. If one complies with the principle of doublethink and one accepts the Party and Big Brother as the ultimate ruler while still maintaining a certain mid-level intelligence one may rise in Party ranks.

In the other sense of the word, power is scarce. The Inner Party has the most power, mostly because they have the most knowledge of what is happening and why. Members of the outer Party, I would say actually have less power than the proles. Because the proles have significantly less surveillance than The Outer Party, they have the power to rebel against Big Brother if it occurred to them to do so. It would be extremely difficult for a member of The Inner Party to incite a rebellion without being caught by The Thought Police. From this perspective, knowledge and determination are synonymous with power.

Language and Freedom

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

-George Orwell, 1984, Chapter 5

One of the themes in Orwell's 1984, is the deconstruction of language as a means of controlling the general population. The Party is doing so by creating and refining a language called Newspeak. Newspeak is closely related to English except for its grossly simplified vocabulary. Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year. In the novel, Winston's friend, Syme is working on putting together the 11th edition of the Newspeak dictionary. He talks about every new edition contains fewer and fewer words. They seem to be essentially stripping down the English language to its bare bones, to its most logical form. They're doing this, as Syme puts it "to narrow the range of thought and therefore make thoughtcrime virtually impossible". 


Language is defined as "communication of meaning in any way". Freedom is defined as "the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without". It would be seemingly impossible to exercise choice and make decisions when ones only means of expression has been significantly handicapped. Obviously, language is crucial to the idea of freedom because without it, one does not have the means to express discontent, desire for change, or ones opinion.