Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Essay, Research Paper

Sex and the Search For Truth in Orwell? s Nineteen Eighty-Four

The inquiry of the being of human nature has been a popular subject in modern literary plants. Writers such as Shelly and Freud seem to hold that there is such a thing, nevertheless, they disagree on its properties. Orwell besides believes that human nature does be but he takes it a measure further than merely admiting its being. Rather, in 1984 he uses such subjects as truth and gender to heighten the properties of human nature. There features, Orwell believes, are insuppressible. Orwell believes that it is unconditioned for world to be sexual existences, and to be in chase of truth. In the class of 1984, these subjects continually appear. It is Orwell? s purpose, I believe, to demo that in a? Utopian? society such as depicted in 1984, it is the undeniable being of human nature that will do the ruin of the province.

The reoccurring subject of the hunt for truth is best depicted as Winston? s involuntariness to accept the Ingsoc dogma of doublethink. Doublethink is the recognition that two contradictory prepositions can both be true at the same time. Quite evidently the colour black can non be both black and white, nevertheless, in Oceania under the opinion of Big Brother, truth is mind-dependent and whatever a individual believes to be true is so in fact true. This construct is better known to us as general relativism. O? Brien? s character is the incarnation of the Party in 1984. At one point O? Brien tortures Winston in the Ministry of Love until he believes that two plus two peers five. Winston, who is the incarnation of cognitive reason, refuses to accept that truth can be dead set and the Party? s will. O? Brien continues to torment Winston until he eventually admits that two plus two will be whatever the Party wants it to ( pp 165-167 ) . Not merely is this relativistic, but it besides contradicts the correspondence theory of truth. This states that a preposition is true if it corresponds with a fact. In the case of the Party, they adhere to the matter-of-fact theory of truth, which states that a preposition is true if it accomplishes your ain intents. In the Party? s instance, it accomplishes their end of brainwashing all of the citizens of the State to its liking. For illustration, the Party is in control of all records in Oceania. It besides controls the heads of the citizens. These records are altered to be whatever the Party wants them to state. Even more so, when these records are altered, one is to bury that the old record of all time existed. The new version is the past, and no different yesteryear of all time existed. This technique of changing the memory can be learned, and is an avid technique used by the Party for world control.

Philip Rahv acknowledges in his unfavorable judgment, ? The Unfuture of Utopia, ? that O? Brien is the revealer of the Party? s pursuit for entire power. He states that O? Brien does, in fact, embody the Party? s nonsubjective truth, but his psychological truth is non revealed. Rahv claims that the? motive in the psychological economic system of the novel remains ill-defined? ( p 315 ) . I, nevertheless, believe that Orwell did this intentionally to demo that in 1984, there is no such thing as an person. Merely the Party exists. When Winston asks O? Brien in the Ministry of Love if Big Brother exists in the manner that he exists, O? Brien answers? You do non be? ( p 172 ) , therefore demoing that in the Utopian society of this novel, there is no single, implying no single psychological science. O? Brien is really much stripped of his humanity and wholly assimilated into the Party. He has no psychological science. He merely knows to be true what the party tells him.

Winston writes in his diary that? freedom is the freedom to state that two plus two make four. & # 8221 ; This phrase embodies a great subject found in the humanistic disciplines ; that truth is freedom. It is in world? s nature to seek truth and no Party can extinguish that unconditioned hunt. If a force efforts to stamp down this built-in desire, it is bound to neglect.

The subject of gender is besides prevalent in 1984. Winston and Julia finally submit to their natural desires which is non permitted by the Party. It merely condones sexual dealingss for the exclusive intent of reproducing for the Party. In the position of the Party, sexual relationships would make truenesss that they could non command. Any trueness outside of the Party was purely out. However, the fact that Winston and Julia did hold sexual dealingss show that they are human. Sex is in human nature and can non be controlle

vitamin D.

Irving Howe remarks on the unlikelihood of all the Outer Party members flinging titillating pleasance so wholly in his unfavorable judgment? 1984: History as Nightmare. ? He says that? in a society so pervaded by ennui and grey as Oceania is, there would be a pressure hungriness for titillating escapade, to state nil of experiments in perversion? ( p 328 ) . Howe claims that if Winston and Julia feel this manner, it is improbable that they are the lone 1s. This, Howe believes, was a inexpensive effort made by Orwell to do them look more heroic. ? ? If their demands as human existences force these two rather ordinary people to rebellion, may non the same thing go on to others? ? he states. Once once more, I believe that Orwell did this intentionally to turn out a point. In the clip of 1984, there is no person. Merely the Party exists. The other members were wholly assimilated into its dogmas that gender was non an issue. Orwell separates Winston and Julia from the Party because they represent hope. Whether or non it is likely that they are the lone two that have sexual desire is non an of import issue at all. Their gender is metaphoric for freedom. The qualities of human nature are one time once more touched upon in the novel, and Orwell shows us that every bit long as human nature does be, any external force trying to modulate it is bound to neglect.

The evident genuineness of 1984 can be attributed to Orwell? s gaining control of the human spirit. Winston? s character embodies human nature, and we as readers can associate to him and his emotions. As stated by Howe:

To capture the totalitarian spirit, Orwell had simply to let certain inclinations in modern society to whirl frontward without the brake of sentiment or humanity. He could therefore do clear the relationship between his theoretical account of dictatorship and the societies we know in our experience, and he could make this without fall backing to the clap-trap of scientific discipline fiction or the rough premise that we already live in 1984 ( p 325 ) .

The importance of human nature in authorities was anticipated by Orwell, which is why so many of his subjects have to make with it. Without human nature, a totalitarian society would be. Fortunately, we are governed by human nature and a society such as the one in 1984 seems really unlikely from our position. Equally long as we acknowledge our human nature, we have nil to fear.

Possibly it seems as if I? ve overlooked the stoping of 1984 when Winston professes his love for Big Brother. Although our hero succumbs to the Party, all is non lost. The subjects that Orwell touches on in his novel acknowledge the absolute being of the qualities of human nature. These qualities can non be overcome successfully in the long tally. When Winston wholly assimilates into the Party, Orwell is non proposing that we are hopeless against dictatorship. Rather, the fact that Winston loses his individualism creates hope in all of Orwell? s readers. We, as members of world, can associate to Winston and Julia because we portion their innate desires. This novel was written to convert reader to go more politically cognizant so that the events in 1984 do non happen. Orwell? s work is non a anticipation, instead, it is a warning. He suggests that the subjects of history and doctrine should be preserved. Ethical motives and literature besides play an of import function on society and should non be subjected to general relativism. Orwell believes that people are inherently good, whether they are in hunt of truth or carry throughing their natural sexual desires. This normative moral principle would be even if there were no heads to grok it, which is what makes it independent. This natural goodness can non be suppressed because it is unconditioned in all of us. Even when Winston gives in to the Party, there is still hope for the hereafter. The Party could continually seek to stamp down any hint of humanity but it is bound to resurface and a rebellion will happen.

Equally long as there are subjects such as Philosophy, our human nature can non be suppressed. Our ability to be rational is excessively great, and constructs such as doublethink would merely be refuted. I believe that modern society has headed Orwell? s warning, and that a society like that in 1984 would non come up itself after such atrocious visions of Oceania. An of import lesson that Orwell wants us to larn is this: the qualities that make us human are besides what set us free.

Orwell, George. 1984, in Irving Howe ( ed. , Orwell? s Nineteen Eighty-four: Text, Sources, Criticism. New York: Hartcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Publishers. 1982 )

Post Author: admin