Skip to main content

On George Orwell's 1984

 

Orwell’s reasoning goes like this: by becoming continuous war ceases to exist. War is the opposite of peace and hence is regarded as an aberration but if war becomes normal then the contrast between peace and war would be obliterated. But in what sense can war become normal? It would happen when external pressures would cease to exist. Orwell says: “Reality only exerts its pressure through the needs of everyday life—the need to eat and drink, to get shelter and clothing, to avoid swallowing poison or stepping out of top-storey windows, and the like…..Cut off from contact with the outer world, and with the past, the citizen of Oceania is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.”

The thought here is that a perfect society with absolute equality and brotherhood is possible only in thought and in practice societies will always be hierarchical. To elaborate, one of the reason for wars is uneven resources and insufficiency:

“ ….the fundamental causes of war are both biological and economic. The more prolific the herds and flocks the more frequently had new grasslands to be sought for: at any moment a drought might precipitate an invasion. Similarly the more prolific the city population, the more food was needed and the more land was necessary for its cultivation. War accordingly was constant in both civilizations; for stomachs, whether animal or human dictated its necessity and living space became and has since remained the one great problem in the struggle for existence.”

—- JFC Fuller

But even if there were enough resources for everyone and wealth was evenly distributed war would not cease, it would become continuous where its becoming continuous is as if it ceased to exist because its character would change. There would be no victor plundering the vanquished but the ruler exerting power to keep the structure of the hierarchical society intact. The state would wage war over its own people. It would not be a physical war but a war over minds of people, as Orwell argues without the external pressure of reality in form challenges that confront us in actual life, we would be cut off from all contact from the world and would be directionless: “Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.” And: “When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or is regarded….Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police.”

This is the necessary consequence of a world in self-isolation which lacks an other, a pressure from outside to take cognizance of what is real or what is true. In its dream world it can disregard facts but the actual world exists in so far as it is opposed or it exists in conflict. The daydreamer has to come back to the real world because of conflict or pressure reality exerts on him. In this world peace and war have become indistinguishable and in this way Orwell attempts to make us understand the limitations of our quest for a Utopian society. But then practically the external pressure of reality can never cease and so hierarchical society can never cease to exist either:

“But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”

If anyone believes that the victory of an ideology or a sect over another is the way to peace then they are mistaken. Governments understand power not ideology, as Orwell says:

“What opinions the masses hold, or do not hold, is looked on as a matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual liberty because they have no intellect.”

And so governments keep us busy in endless debates to prevent concerted action. The war is never meant to end rather is meant to be continuous, it continues in prosperity no less than in physical war and its purpose is to keep the hierarchical structure of society intact and so if seen closely even peace engenders war because peace is not absence of war but an interval between two wars. This does not mean that we keep justifying inequality because inevitability is not a justification but we do need to understand that our social fabric rests on a delicate balance between pressure and resistance and excess of one over another does not make the society perfect. The police state is the result of absence of resistance and anarchy the result of absence of pressure. Orwell’s insight is that the two results are really the same because permanent peace and permanent war are the same. Imagine what happens when you are in a state of war but cannot know that you are in one, that your existence is incompatible with Big Brother’s existence and that either he will live or you will live but you can’t live together? This is Orwell’s nightmare but reality will get to you sooner or later.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ramanuja and Nimbarka

  The primary question for any Vedanta philosophy is what is the relation between Brahman and the world and Brahman and the individual souls. Nimbarka takes this relation to be one of identity and difference. He gives the analogy of a coiled snake and of sun and its rays. Brahman is both immanent and transcendent; the souls and matter are really just the different manifest states of the one Brahman. The concern with such a philosophy is to show that the immanence of Brahman does not compromise its unity and the impurities that accrue to the soul and matter do not thereby affect Brahman. Ramanuja believes that this is not possible in the Bheda-Abheda system (his criticisms of Bhaskara would with certain modifications apply also to Nimbarka). The reason is identity and difference cannot be affirmed simultaneously of the same object. Identity is an absolute relation or in the logical terminology of Nyaya it is a locus pervading relation. In terms of Modern Logic identity is a reflexiv...

Leibniz And Locke

  In NE 290, Leibniz objects that there is no precise way to determine what a particular is, for him a particular is at once an individual thing and connected to a whole series of monads which connexion is essential to being a particular. Hence he says in order to understand a particular entity we will have to understand an entire infinity (since all attributes are essential to a substance and given its connexion of harmony with infinite monads, by Identity of Indiscernibles this result follows). Here we should note that Locke believes that we know a particular Idea by the testimony of our consciousness but Leibniz too believes that senses bear testimony to a system of particulars whose harmony we find in the thinking subject. Leibniz further says that abstraction proceeds from species to genera and not from individuals to species. So the question comes down to this: a) Can there be a particular without species? and b) Can a particular be known without knowing the species it belong...

Moving Beyond The Right Wing - Left Wing Dichotomy

Moving Beyond The Right Wing — Left Wing Dichotomy I would like to make the argument that the right-left dichotomy is a false one and that they share many things in common and so we need to get past them both. Overtly, the difference of right and left consists in this — the right believes that history of a particular group of people is special and determines the identity and the values of that group of people and this history cannot be overturned. They agree with enlightenment that reason cannot ground religion and tradition, we cannot prove many things that are nevertheless still valuable to us and so reason is not sovereign. Some things have a sentimental value and they are not the less if no proof of them is forthcoming. The split between right and left can be traced back to the period of enlightenment when Pascal reacted against Descartes’s rationalism by arguing that religion is grounded in the ‘heart’ and not in reason. Pietism inspired by this line of thought emphasizes personal...