What 1984 Was Really About
Orwell was kind of a genius.
The man wrote of the height of a tech-induced era before the true dawn of the digital age, so it makes sense that the majority of take-away from the novel is shrouded in awe of his insight.
I decided to take a look at passages within the novel that resonated with me and string together a relationship between two underlying themes; betrayal and self-identity.
To distinguish that a person possesses the quality of loyalty is rare to find, for the roots of betrayal dig deep into human nature. To be self-expressive, assert opinion and acquire a strong sense of self-identity is entirely contradictory to the obedience required by the nature of betrayal. In the novel, conflict stems from individuality attempting to surmount a harsh totalitarian regime known as the Party.
The main character, Winston, strongly opposes the Party and wishes to escape both mentally and physically from its mandates of severe conformity to live a life of love and free will. However, his struggles with the conventionality of the regime prove it impossible for him to express his views or resistance. In this respect, betrayal cannot exist when self-identity is abolished. The thesis is further supported within the following paragraphs which discuss the Party’s dictation of lifestyle, the conversion of rebels, and the elimination of vocabulary as a means of expression.
By terminating and banning words that may be related to non-nationalistic mannerisms, the Party effectively removes any expression of self-identity; thus, removing any possibility of betrayal to the regime. The Party is continuously refining and controlling what citizens may say. It becomes evident that the goal is to control the vocalization of any rebellion before the thought itself is formed.
Consequently, it is impossible for citizens to revolt when they cannot be themselves; when they no longer have the means to express their true thoughts or even the ability to recognize what those are. The control over members of the Party, who are civilians working in the Ministry, is so strong that they passionately advocate regulations of confinement upon themselves and others without question.
“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…fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller” (55)
The entire concept of “thoughtcrime” revolves around Party members wanting to limit and control the feelings of the citizens for feelings, which are an experience of self-identity, are considered dangerous as they are the origins of thought. Moreover, independent thinking will likely lead to betrayal. To prevent this assertion of self-identity, the Party wants to decrease the vocabulary in their language, Newspeak, “because there will be no words in which to express it (individual thought).” That the Party has even attempted to define “every concept that can ever be needed,” says a great deal about the role they play in the day-to-day lives of Oceanic citizens; conversely, the only conceivable way that a government defines the very communication of its people so severely is with force.
This force is being used to lessen “the range of consciousness” of citizens; to lessen the possibility of deliberate opposition through eradicating any related words. By controlling the words of people, one controls the entire entity of a human being and their mind; by controlling the mind, the Party cannot be overthrown by an insurgency.
The Party ensures self-identity will not surmount or betray the regime through eliminating the possibility of citizens living their own lives, having their own interests or personal daily routines. Citizens must live their lives as is dictated; they must abide by the lifestyle the Party harshly suggests. This ensures that they do not develop a sense of individuality which may lead to the Party’s end. Even subconsciously wearing an odd expression is considered “facecrime.” Subsequently, for fear of vanishing at the hands of the Party, all Oceanic citizens express continuous loyalty and enthusiasm for Big Brother, who is the leader of the party.
“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” (85)
The idea of “communal recreation” within the regime is any nationalistic activity sanctioned by the Party. One such example is the Two Minutes Hate, which citizens must attend like clockwork. It is a daily, rigorous display of opposition to the Enemy of the People, who is a man dictating freedom of speech and thought. The Party has scrubbed all self-identity and morale of citizens; it has forced them to despise someone promoting release from the regime, to swallow a bitter pill and rejoice. The simple act of “[going] on a walk by yourself” is socially unacceptable, for it could lead to thinking original thoughts, which is a form of self-identity.
Articulating even the tiniest degree of “individualism and eccentricity” is “always slightly dangerous” in the world governed by the regime implying that any display of uniqueness in a carbon-copy society is a huge red-flag of potential rebellion. No person can be perceived as an individual, and any actions he or she performs leading to the establishment of that concept is fatal. Citizens must either conform willingly or be exterminated; accordingly, by fear, they relinquish personal values to remove suspicion of being insubordinate. If citizens can no longer live their daily lives as they please or take part in personal interests, they can no longer self-identify as being opposed to the regime. They are no longer threats.
Since the Party converts the virtues and values of rebels via torture before they are killed, it is made evident that the Party believes it necessary to first destroy self-identity as a means of obliterating betrayal. That there is no solace to be found in eternal quiet, for one cannot live or die with deviance towards the Party or Big Brother, proves that betrayal cannot exist without self-identity. The extent of conformity is quite terrifying. To betray the Party is an impossible feat; to be unconventional in secret, even more so.
Nevertheless, to conform is to choose the lesser of two evils as opposed to being subject to torture; however, freedom is not a choice. The true insanity lies within the Party’s belief that there cannot be a single soul who does not worship Big Brother, breathing or not. Perhaps what is even more terrifying, is the sheer dependence disloyalty has upon singularity.
“when finally you surrender to us [the Party], it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him.” (267)
“…to die hating them [the Party], that was freedom” (294)
That the Party believes “free will” is really “free will” in the face of torture is incredulous. Being unable to take your last breath with the peace of having followed your beliefs, of defying a larger evil, is perhaps the most wicked act of the Party. To dictate free will is to rule self-identity. To be made mentally battered enough to destroy all personal virtues and morals is the true definition of torture, but to the Party, it is “[bringing] him over to our side,” it is “reshape[ing] him.” Notwithstanding, there is simply no place, dead or alive, for free, conscious spite or opposition towards the Party.
It is either conform or die, there is no in between, except for the anxiety-ridden limbo rebels enter for a short period whilst trying to live a secret, free life before the Party catches them. The Party “[burns] all evil and all illusion out” of any rebels. This “evil” and “illusion” proposes any and all traces of uniqueness or opinion, which are two essential components of self-identity. To be stripped of all abilities to be different or distinctive, to be stripped of feeling a specific feeling, is to be forever halted from defiance to the totalitarian regime.
The excerpts thoroughly describe the truth in how betrayal cannot occur when the self-identity of those who may act upon it, is scrubbed from existence. To obliterate means of expression, mandate a particular lifestyle and attempt to alter the virtues of a person are all acts of cowardice in reeling hopes of maintaining power. In closing, the reliance that change has upon self-identity utterly highlights the immense power associated with individualism.
