Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Taylor Balatsias Robert Arnold INTL 3111-001 1984 Microtheme What do you think of the Ingsoc party's concept

of government power? Are their aspects of it that are good, or is it entirely corrupted? What exactly is meant by the term pure power? When Winston is being cleansed by Obrien he explains to him that the goal of the party has always been pure power. He compares the party to other oligarchies of the past, explaining the difference is simply the acknowledgement of ones own intentions. The party is truly successful in obtaining and exemplifying this form of power. In fact, although a bit sickening, I think it is mere genius. We live in a society, which believes we are created to be equal but different individuals. We make choices and each decision creates our own identity. Ingsoc has stripped the people of their most basic human staple: itself. But they have done so in such a pure, emphatic way. To oppress people gives them the opportunity for rebellion, the need to be different. However, the party liberates people through their chains. This is really prominent by the party slogan freedom is slavery. It almost goes beyond the definition of control, and into a more gray area: uncharted territory. Orwell proposes a power narrative that is much different from the past. Although scary, it is quite magnificent. There is definite controversy when reading the book. Reading the words surface so many emotions. I continuously found myself becoming uncomfortable, however being unable to put the book down. Orwell does a mindboggling job of penetrating the mind and giving way for unorthodox intellect. This was extremely apparent for me when

reading about Winstons capture. The difference I mentioned earlier between Ingsoc and previous oligarchies arises here. The party captures the rebellious souls and kill them, much like others would. The variance however is the transformation of its enemies. To me, this is power. To have enemies, and have the ability to make them your followers, is true supremacy. That is pure. I believe this type of power comes from choice. Total power can only go so far, and in most cases leads to rebellion. But pure power is the kind in which people actively choose to love you, honor you, and obey willingly. Once defining my perception of pure power, I now have to decide whether or not I think it is good. The only thing I know to do is compare Orwells idea of total power to my own life. Am I really free? We live in a free world and I am granted that right in the constitutionhowever only because the government gave it to me. At any time that right, which is in the hands of other people, could be taken away. A lot of the decisions I make come from precedence, of either my own or of others. I believe that this runs society. To explain further, I am talking about the moral codea guideline, which individuals follow. So are we really in control when so many other things dictate our actions? Is it a good thing to be in complete control? Would complete freedom not give way to total chaos? I know this is a bit extreme, to compare the Ingosc principles and dictatorship over society to ours today. However, I believe that there are definite parallels in the logic. Going a bit off topic, I will mention the marketing video you showed in class. The power of subliminal messages, much like those used in government propaganda (as well as other aspects of life) is very similar to a form of control. If not control, perhaps persuasion. But is the act of persuasion not a form of control? Maybe it is not as black and white or apparent as the role of power exemplified in 1984 but it is not too far off. Although I

do not necessarily agree with it, I do believe that there are aspects of it that are good even if we choose to not recognize it.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen