What Thought-Crime Means, and Why the Hope Isn't Just in the Proles

We read Chapter 1 of Goldstein's book along with Winston so that we could have an important facet of Oceanic society articulated to us: that there are no laws. No rules, no legal framework, nothing. ..That sounds strange now that I say it, and maybe there are technically rules, but even if there were, it's not like that would make any difference. Every situation is handled in the exact way that concentrates the most power in the hands of the Inner Party. An important application of this rule is that "thought-criminal" does not describe someone who has thought thoughts that are against the Party. A thought-criminal is one who has done that, but also is not a member of the ruling class and now has the potential of resisting or rebelling against the class order. This might be obvious - the Thought Police are only going to go after those who endanger the class order, as that is the singular goal of the Party. So, now that we are clear on what a thought-criminal is, let us consider the extremely likely possibility that almost every Outer Party member of Winston's generation is a thought-criminal.

Doesn't it make sense? There wasn't anything particularly unique about Winston's childhood - after all, vanishing parents, strife, poverty, and starvation are fundamental characteristics of Oceanic society. And Winston doesn't get to learn much - he is kept in the same level of ignorance as most other Outer Party members. Additionally, from what I can remember about early in the book, Winston's been thinking against the party (specifically in a way the Thought Police would go after him for) since before any unique events happened to him, like O'Brien's "We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness" and the on-record falsification of a fact - it makes sense after all, as why else would he latch on to those memories the way he did? So without any particular special circumstance, Winston is a thought-criminal. Why are we to assume that his brain is a fluke? 

What's special about Winston's generation is that their formative years were spent during political upheaval, before the Party truly came to its height of power. Of course, children in 1984 are well-educated in Oceanic ignorance and proper doublethink, and even Julia exhibits some "Crimestop", as she rarely dwells on a whole class of rebellious thoughts against the party (maybe she's just a sex machine, but that would be stupid). But middle-aged Outer Party members could have formed lots of important ideas about the world and how society should work BEFORE the Party had a chance to remove such ideas at the first hint of them appearing, like they can in the current youth.

Does this mean that if there's any hope, it lies in not only the proles, but also this very generation of Outer Party members? It's an interesting contrast. Winston extends hope for the proles to maybe in a thousand years set society equal, and yet if his social class is to make any difference, it has to be NOW. And although it may be very, very difficult for Outer Party members to make any difference, I believe it must be almost as hard for the Inner Party to wring out all traces of thought-crime in the Outer Party, because nearly all their lower-downs in the Party are dangers to them.

Let me know what you think in the comments :)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Civilization VI and The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

 Perhaps most defining to the later half of Part II is the long excerpt of Goldstein's book which the reader reads along with Winston. Within that, I'll zone in on the discussion of how the three superstates function and how Goldstein theorizes that this produces and is produced by the waste of surplus goods/labor and war.  Firstly, I'll try to explain the causation (mostly for myself) in simple terms: We have a small group of people in power who want to stay in power. We have the trend of mechanization occurring all across the world. This trend, which explodes the production power of the world, also raises the standard of living for many. Raising the standard of living too much is dangerous to the people at the top. (Personally I question this, because I expect there to be a disproportionate amount of production power going into further bettering the positions of the rich & powerful in this scenario. Through an economic lens, when the poor aren't so poor but the ri...
Read more

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 establi...
Read more

Winston's axiom

Below is Winston's axiom, as he writes it at the end of chapter VII: "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." I call it Winston's axiom even though it is really only a pair of sentences among many he has written in his diary. It's less about accurately describing the context for and role of the two sentences than it is about emulating and strengthening Winston's feeling "that he was setting forth an important axiom". As far as axioms go, it's got its problems. For one, if axioms are supposed to be as general as possible, why does Winston center the logic of his sentences around a very specific mathematical fact, that 2 + 2 = 4? But I'm going to veer away from semantics and call this part of the diary entry Winston's axiom, for funsies if nothing else. So anyways, what the heck is Winston saying? Unfortunately, I cannot provide answers, but I'll make some guesses. To start with ...
Read more