How to exert power, Orwell vs Huxley edition
O'Brien has a nice little monologue in Part III Chapter III where he explains some of his (read: the Party's) ideas on power and human suffering. He asserts that for a human to exert power over another human, the suffering of the latter is required. After all, "unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own?"
What a baffling idea that is. How the heck, I asked myself, could causing suffering do anything for power? Doesn't that just motivate hatred against the one exerting the power?
Here are some possible answers:
- If you ensure that the person you want to control is suffering, you can be sure that what you are doing to them and/or making them do is different from what they want to have happen to them or do. Thus, you know that the power you exert over them is causing the things they do and the things that happen to them. So, suffering is a roundabout and twisted way of affirming your power, more so than a means of establishing and perpetuating power.
- If the person you want to have power over is suffering, they will be busy trying to alleviate their suffering and you may more easily manipulate, deceive, and otherwise channel their actions into carrying out your purposes.
So I buy these ideas to some extent, but they make me wonder why one who seeks power must necessarily worry about people trying to obey their own will, when there are theoretically ways of lessening the force of such people's will until it either no longer exists or is for all practical purposes in line with the group in power. For one, if you start young, you can do a lot of damage to the individual wills of the people you want to control - simply look to the Spies as an example. So you do not need human suffering, necessarily, if you interfere during the developmental years in which humans might otherwise develop an individual will. Additionally and more importantly, if you slowly manipulate the culture of an entire society to revolve around hedonism and superficial pleasures...in addition to the conditioning of the members of the society throughout life to repress their individual will from the very start (who knows, maybe even in their sleep!)...and you form a whole system around distraction, misdirection, and simple happiness, you might even find a way to exert power in a completely opposite way to causing human suffering!
To top it all off, O'Brien denounces what he calls "stupid hedonistic Utopias". But if societies like Brave New World's World State are so good at maintaining power (and even incorporate futuristic methods of dissolving human social connections like O'Brien dreamed of), I now wonder: What would O'Brien think of BNW?
(speak to meh about dis in da commentz ples! tank u <3)
The Party in 1984 subscribes to that Machiavellian ideology that we learned about in sophomore history: namely, that it is better to be feared than to be loved. In their case, they drive the fear and scrutiny so deep that it becomes love. They broke Winston so thoroughly that he was unable to separate himself from the Party's iron grip--his old self was essentially dead--and so he learned to love Big Brother, because what else could he love? I still think that the BNW society would be more effective in practice, but it's highly unrealistic--more unrealistic to manage, I think, than the 1984 one.
ReplyDeleteAh, I like this analysis. Indeed, what else did he have to love?
DeleteI had to think about this a bit. I suppose part of the answer lies in the fact that everyone is going to suffer at least a little during their lifetime (woo hoo, happy thought!!). Religions often have to address a key question, "If there is a God, why do they let us suffer?" Perhaps one way of getting power is giving suffering a "purpose." In the case of 1984, that purpose is created by the Party. I'm just babbling about this, though; would love to see other thoughts.
ReplyDeletei think O'Brien would scoff at BNW and their lack of instilling fear, however, I would argue BNW is actually better set up to continue controlling power, without any sense of rebellion. 1984, as noel said, is more realistic for us to imagine, but BNW strategically is much smarter. One could even argue BNW does their "torture" early on so nobody even remembers it hurt.
ReplyDeleteYour writing got me thinking about something else. You mentioned that young minds are impressionable and can easily be taught one thing to be right and the other thing wrong. Now, putting this in the context of 1984, could it be a sign of the Party's weakness that there are people like Julia and Winston who exist in the first place? If the Party really has control since birth over everything and everyone I feel like these insurgents shouldn't exist?
ReplyDeleteBut perhaps they need insurgents, just like they need an enemy to fight in "the war." It shows they are powerful and can root out their foes.
DeleteI feel like 1984 is sort of a precursor to BNW in the sense that eventually they will have brainwashed people since birth, so there will be little standing in their way.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, O'Brien would be both very proud of himself and very confused after seeing BNW's situation. Lemme explain: he'd be overjoyed at how much more of a torturous regime he helps run, but he'd be confused as to why BNW society ACTUALLY SEEMS TO WORK. Who knows, maybe O'Brien would rethink his decades of ruthlessness.
ReplyDeleteI think that O'Brien would disagree with how BNW's world was run but I think it would be interesting to see if the world of 1984 could transform into the world of BNW. They are complete opposites but the party said at one point that they were working to get rid of familial ties all together which is very similar to BNW. With the technology of BNW controlling people would be easier so maybe they would appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteI think O'Brien would dislike BNW because he's a loser incel that hates sex and happiness, which are both very prevalent in BNW's society. He might also dislike how BNW society has achieved the state it has with different methods, or dismiss it saying something about how the will of the people could still be just the will of the people due to the lack of the methods he uses.
ReplyDelete