Goldstein’s Theory

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 vast numbers. Couldn’t these populations—when occupied by Eastasia or Eurasia—simply ally with the other power as well and rise up against Oceania? I get that Orwell needed to do this for worldbuilding reasons, but it just seemed unconvincing that no two powers could even conceivably beat the third, especially considering the fact that they still do have people creating more technology. 

But maybe I’m missing the point. Maybe I’m too interested in trying to draw parallels between the oppression of colonized peoples in the novel and the possibility of Orwell’s potentially colonialist implicit biases influencing his worldbuilding. What do you think? Why is war so essential to 1984? Why do you think Orwell chose to create the context for 1984 in this particular manner?

Comments

  1. L. MoffittFebruary 25, 2021 at 9:53 AM

    I had figured that this was all part of the war machine and the point of war in this book was not to win but to keep fighting, part of the reason they abruptly switch enemies in the middle of a rally. It doesn't really matter who they're fighting so long as they give the people an enemy.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Proles, Memories, and Giving Up

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...
Read more

Offred's Possibilities

Offred can only trust her own mind, and she’s doing her best to compartmentalize all of the trauma she’s facing in a very logical way. For instance, she simultaneously imagines Luke as being dead, in prison, or alive and escaped—all in hopes of ensuring that she’s prepared for each outcome. She dreams of her daughter, but also considers her to be simultaneously alive and dead. In a dream and in reality.  Imagination and possibility are all that Offred has. She places the daffodil within the bed based on a hope, a longshot. She’s desperate for the possibility that her token will help the next Handmaid, similar to how she discovered clues in her room from the previous Handmaid. But again, all Offred has is the ability to account for all these scenarios.  How does preparing for the future while reconciling with events in the past affect her psyche? Will Offred ever fully recover from this society? For those who’ve read the novel in its entirety, how does this theme relate to the ...
Read more

Predictions

I guess I’ll start by talking about the doctor’s usage of the word “sterile.” It seemed to surprise Offred. This goes hand in hand with my prediction from last week—that something might have happened to make men go sterile all of the sudden. But men can’t be sterile in this world; in Gilead, reproductive failure is always because a woman is “barren.” And this is used to justify the oppression of women, cementing the role of the Handmaid.  About that, the Handmaid’s role. It was initially hard to tell what Atwood was referring to, as much of the language surrounding the topic was within Biblical euphemisms. And while I’ve never read the Bible, it definitely seems like the society of Gilead is twisting phrases and taking quotes out of context in order to subjugate women. I think that this speaks to the larger role religion as well as the suppression of media can play in oppressive systems.  For example, I remember learning in history class that enslaved people were taught twist...
Read more