Criticism Of Kathleen Fitzpatrick English Literature Essay

In the undermentioned essay, Fitzpatrick, an writer and doctorial campaigner at New York University, maintains that although Orwells dystopian vision has non been borne out by Soviet-style communism, the writer ‘s frights about the ability of the province to command people is still a danger in modern society.

Critics by and large agree that the hero of the novel, Winston Smith, may be recognized by his name every bit related to both the great British solon and World War II leader Winston Churchill and a non-descript Everyman. However, the point is non that Winston is a great adult male, or even that he is one adult male among many ; instead, O’Brien, while tormenting Winston, says that if Winston is “ a adult male, ” as he claims to believe of himself, so he is the last adult male. In fact this reverberation of the novel ‘s original rubric, The Last Man in Europe, reveals Winston as symbolic of what critic Ian Watt has described as Orwell ‘s construct of a deceasing humanitarianism. Whether Winston Smith is genuinely a humanist, in the classical sense of the term, is of no affair ; in comparing to the totalitarian government which destroys him, Winston is, in fact, the last incarnation of the human. In change overing Winston to the love of Big Brother, the last adult male in Europe is destroyed.

Winston maintains, throughout the novel, two avenues of hope for a life outside the confines of the Party and the alert eyes of Big Brother, a life which may sabotage or even subvert the Party ‘s clasp on Oceania. One of these possibilities is witting, spoken: the workers. Merely as Marx foresaw, in the 19th century, that the Revolution would come from a self-generated rebellion of the labor as they shook off the ironss of their oppressors, so Winston writes in his journal that if there is hope, it lies in this 85 per centum of Oceania ‘s population that exists outside the confines of the Party. And yet, the impossibleness of a proletarian rebellion nowadayss itself to him at every bend. Echoing Marx, Winston writes: “ Until they become witting they will ne’er arise, and until after they have rebelled they can non go witting. ” And, unluckily, he is right ; as O’Brien admonishes Winston in the Ministry of Love, “ The workers will ne’er revolt, non in a thousand old ages or a million. They can non. ” Therefore this little spot of hope is crushed.

The 2nd possibility remains largely mute and unconscious: desire. It is this possibility, the fleeting devastation of the Party through confidant brotherhood with another individual, which solidifies Winston ‘s relationship with Julia. Though they are drawn together at first by what seem to be basic carnal impulses, it is exactly the sordidness and the animal nature of those impulses that gives them their liberatory potency. As Winston relates earlier, in contemplating the asepsis of his relationship with his married woman: “ The sexual act, successfully performed, was rebellion. Desire was thoughtcrime. ” Desire is thought offense in Oceania because it elevates the human, the person, above the powers of the province to command him. In fact, as Winston and Julia begin to do love for the first clip, this piece of pent-up cognition becomes witting ; “ the animate being inherent aptitude, ” he thinks, “ the simple undifferenti-ated desire: that was the force that could rupture the Party to pieces. ”

The menace to the Party of the thoughtcrime that desire represents is sufficiently serious that the province must exercise formidable control over any such human, instinctual reactions. In his essay “ 1984: Mystery of Power, ” Irving Howe writes, “ There can be no ‘free infinite ‘ in the lives of the Outer Party faithful, nil that remains beyond the bid of the province. Sexual energy is to be transformed into political force and personal craze. ” It is this acknowledgment by the Party that there may be no component of “ human nature ” which can stay the state of the person without jeopardizing the Party ‘s clasp on its members that represents the great “ progress ” of Ingsoc ( English Socialism, in Oldspeak ) over old totalitarian governments. There was ever room, notes Howe, in these old governments, for “ ‘free infinite, ‘ that border of personal liberty which even in the worst minutes of Stalinism and Hitlerism some people wanted to protect. ”

The “ progress ” represented by Ingsoc, harmonizing to Emmanuel Goldstein ‘s The Theory and Practice of Oligarchal Collectivism, the book written by a collective of Inner Party members including O’Brien, is the realisation by the Party that all old oppressive governments were however “ septic ” with broad thoughts about the person:

Part of the ground for this was that in the past no authorities had the power to maintain its citizens under changeless surveillance. The innovation of print, nevertheless, made it easier to pull strings public sentiment, and the movie and the wireless carried the procedure farther. With the development of telecasting, and the proficient progress which made it possible to have and convey at the same time on the same instrument, private life came to an terminal. Every citizen, or at least every citizen of import plenty to be deserving observation, could be kept for 24 hours a twenty-four hours under the eyes of the constabulary and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communicating closed. The possibility of implementing non merely complete obeisance to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of sentiment on all topics, now existed for the first clip.

With that development, the totalization of surveillance of Party members, non merely does private life come to an terminal, but so does the possibility of sexual desire as genuinely emancipating. Julia and Winston do pull off to steal their minutes together off from the Party. But the Party ‘s hatchet mans, the Thought Police, are watching even when the lovers are convinced they are safe, and the retaliation they exact for this evildoing of Party control is tremendous.

It is important that the instrument of this totalized surveillance is the “ telescreen, ” Orwell ‘s projection of the hereafter of telecasting. As Orwell was composing 1984 in 1948, telecasting was merely emerging from the developmental suspension forced upon the broadcast medium industry by World War II. Many people were disquieted, in the late fortiess and early 1950s, approximately what this new medium would be, how it would work, how much control over its spectators it would make. Orwell ‘s ain concerns about the hereafter development of telecasting are reflected in 1984 ‘s telescreens, which on the one manus, broadcast an eternal bombardment of Party propaganda, and on the other manus, act as senders as good, enabling the Party to exert the entire surveillance it required.

Martin Esslin has claimed in his essay “ Television and Telescreen, ” nevertheless, that Orwell ‘s frights about telecasting missed the grade on two counts. First, Orwell was obviously more concerned about the potency for telecastings to go cameras, a technological development which has non taken topographic point, overlooking the importance of “ what they have really become, the omnipresent, changeless suppliers of extremely colourful ocular amusement for the wide multitudes. ” Second, Orwell ‘s impression of what these telescreens did transmit was the crudest possible kind of propaganda – soldierly music and eternal lists of production figures – which overlooks the public-service corporation of amusement as a signifier of mass use. In Esslin ‘s words:

There is, after all, non that much difference between a society that floods the multitudes with inexpensive, novelettish love affair, strident and sentimental dad music, and erotica to maintain them amused and politically inert and one that does the same thing for commercial addition – but with the indistinguishable ultimate political consequence: apathy, ignorance of existent issues, and acquiescence in whatever the politicians are making. And does non commercial telecasting make merely that?

Furthermore, both Esslin and Irving Howe point out another failing in Orwell ‘s word picture of the telescreen when compared to the development that telecasting has really taken in the latter half of the 20th century: the workers – to the full 85 per centum of the population of Oceania – are non required to hold telescreens. If the machine-made novels and vocals are being put onto the market in order to maintain the multitudes complacent, would n’t the telescreen prove much more effectual? Furthermore, the workers, kept free of the telescreen ‘s powers of surveillance, retain the ability to hold a private life which Party members have lost. The Party clearly regards the labor as non being deserving observation, as being unable to develop the “ humanity ” which must be guarded against in Party members. As it is stated in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchal Collectivism, “ What opinions the multitudes hold, or do non keep, is looked on as a affair of indifference. They can be granted rational autonomy because they have no mind. ”

This division of society into Party members and workers in 1984 was clearly modeled on the division which was coming into focal point in the Soviet Union in 1948, in which Party members were closely monitored while workers were less controlled. Both Esslin and Howe, nevertheless, point out that Orwell ‘s vision of the impotence and inactiveness of the workers did non bear out, given the grounds of history. In fact, legion rebellions against the Soviet machine, from the Magyar Revolution to the pupil rebellions in France, from the Prague Spring to the rise of Solidarity in Poland, to the eventual autumn of the Berlin Wall, demonstrate that the labor, and even party intellectuals, were non wholly crushed by Party political orientation, and that, in Esslin ‘s words, “ the totalitarian use of popular feelings and thoughts by the mass media is far less effectual than Orwell had imagined. ”

However, by the novel ‘s terminal, Big Brother is finally winning, holding won over the last adult male in Europe. In today ‘s universe, Big Brother is still a force, particularly to those who worry about the continued possibility of the rise of dictatorship today. However, there is another face to Big Brother, which is exactly that “ use of popular feelings and thoughts by the mass media ” about which Orwell warned. If people find in authorities eternal new grounds to be argus-eyed about the incursions into personal autonomies which 1984 depicts, they would make good to retrieve, as Neil Postman claims in the debut to Amusing Ourselves to Death, that there is a really different version of the dystopian existence presented in Aldous Huxley ‘s Brave New World, in which “ no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their liberty, adulthood and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their subjugation, to adore the engineerings that undo their capacities to believe. ” Big Brother may non be watching ; he might be airing.

Beginning: Kathleen Fitzpatrick, in an essay for Novels for Students, Gale, 1999.

Kathleen Fitzpatrick

Lev Grossman

The clip is 13 o’clock ; the day of the month does n’t count ; the twelvemonth goes without stating. Winston Smith, a administrative official at the Ministry of Truth, toils twenty-four hours and dark in the service of Big Brother, the distant, faux-benign swayer of this eerily familiar dystopia. Orwell ‘s novel is a survey of every possible manner a state can be beaten down by its authorities: spiritually, physically, intellectually, by the media, anguish, surveillance, and censoring, to the point where the province can pull strings world at will. When Smith is tempted by a beautiful opposition combatant into an act of rebellion, 1984 becomes something more: a strange, tragic, profoundly sad love narrative. It is Orwell ‘s victory, and the century ‘s bad luck, that 1984 is every bit prescient as it is pessimistic.-L.G.