Utopias and Dystopias 2021 - Keshav Gandhi

Stockholm syndrome, if you didn’t already know, refers to hostages that develop an emotional connection with their captor. So, in this case, Winston may be dealing with something similar with regard to his relationship with O’Brien.  Winston often makes excuses for O’Brien’s behavior, is appreciative when O’Brien reduces his pain, and we as readers can eventually see the beginnings of Winston bending to O’Brien’s will. Although O’Brien is a “tormentor” and an “inquisitor,” Winston also sees him as a “protector” and a “friend” this early on in his captivity. In my mind, this draws upon the principles of doublethink, ironically fueled by Winston’s cognitive dissonance. His thoughts are “washed clean.” His hatred of the Party is transformed into love, and this is just the beginning. Maybe we’ll get more answers when Winston inevitably goes to Room 101. Do you agree with this analysis? Will Winston eventually grow to love O’Brien, and the Party by extension? Is this somewhat relat...

Emmanuel Goldstein wrote The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism , and we as readers are finally able to learn more about the backstory of the world in 1984. The never-ending battle between three geopolitical superpowers and the people they subjugated is the context for the constant war that Winston has been experiencing for a lifetime.  But I question Goldstein’s theory, as there have to be ingrained cultural differences between the three superpowers that would make their implementation of oligarchical collectivism slightly different in each society. From the languages these people speak to geographical location to culturally-embedded social norms, there are subtle differences that could accumulate and eventually turn the tide against the other superpowers.  And why haven’t the “proles” of each superpower or the colonized peoples helped mount any decisive victories? The so-called “coolies” of equatorial Africa, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia have ...

 “Their embrace had been a battle, the climax a victory. It was a blow struck against the Party. It was a political act.”  These few sentences decisively summarize the developing relationship between Winston and Julia—as people who are pursuing a forbidden relationship and as people who are rebelling against Big Brother. Orwell clearly places these sentences at the end of the chapter to explicitly highlight the significance of sexuality being of a political nature—a theme that we’ve seen throughout this semester.  But we also know that Julia is against the Party for different reasons than Winston (e.g., Julia seems to be focused on having the freedom to do what she wants, while Winston is much more concerned about history being rewritten, reducing the scope of language, etc.).  Can intimacy be considered a “political act” when people are engaging in it for different reasons? While both Winston and Julia direct hatred towards the Party, personally, I think that both ...

Throughout the novel, Winston is aware of the inevitability of being caught by the Thought Police, though this doesn’t seem to affect him as much as I thought it would.  His hope lies in the proles. It was almost as if Winston had already given up, and he was ready to pass his desire for freedom to the only people that weren’t being monitored.  However, unfortunately for Winston, Orwell implies that the proles probably won’t be able to overthrow the Party. Those who have a memory prior to the Revolution are quickly fading away. We see how Orwell characterizes the old man Winston was talking to: his memory is fragmented, his nervous system no more intricate than bits of thread hastily tied together, but even then, he isn’t really able to recall anything particularly relevant to Winston’s questions.  Does he simply exist as a sum of random impressions? Do we know that what he’s saying is even real? To me, this is Orwell’s hopelessness. Is there really a future for the prole...

In both 1984 as well as other dystopian novels, I’ve noticed that—in the context of a person vs. society narrative—the protagonists always seem to have a disdain for the society’s artificial traditions, bland community events, etc. Even in Brave New World , we saw characters go through this (e.g., Lenina, Bernard, etc.), but they eventually faded into obscurity as John became the “main” character.  But for 1984 in particular, this rejection of the community seems to be especially important. In other novels like Brave New World , the worst punishment is being sent off to an island, and even then, it wasn’t like your thoughts would be monitored. However, for people that aren’t proles, “thoughtcrime” is more of a danger in the world of 1984 than it is in other dystopian novels (e.g., Divergent , The Hunger Games , etc.), and these kinds of community events are necessary in order to snuff out any possible deviation.  In this manner, Winston is clearly the focal point—the protag...