Lititude: 1984

Released in 2010, the movie Inception has quickly become a cult favorite around the world. Masterfully mixing action, drama, and emotion, Christopher Nolan truly delivers an experience worth watching on the big screen. However, hidden between all the explosions, deaths, and tears lies a simple theme exploring ignorance, linking it to the letters of 1984. Here’s the action-packed trailer to the movie.

As a quick run-down, let’s go over the plot of Inception. Note that this article will contain spoilers: if you haven’t watched the movie yet, go watch it now. Don’t worry, I’ll wait. Back? Awesome. Inception tells the story of widower Dom Cobb, a skilled dream extractor on the run. Cobb’s skills lie in the world of shared dreaming, a technology invented by the military in order for soldiers to collaboratively practice battle scenarios in dreams. This has several benefits; for instance, a soldier dying in a dream would only result in their waking up. The special secret with dreams, however, is that they allow people to access someone’s mental state: their ambitions, goals, and ideas. As a dream extractor, Cobb steals ideas within the minds of prosperous businessmen in their dreams, in order to leak them to other companies. However, someone soon comes to Cobb’s door asking for a unique job: was it possible to plant an idea rather than to steal one? Though his teammates vehemently deny the plausibility of that notion, Dom reconsiders. Through various flashbacks, we learn that he had indeed accidently done so before, to his wife. By planting the idea that reality was a dream in itself, Cobb leads his wife, believing that she would be waking up in the real world, to commit suicide. As a result, he is forced to leave the country and his kids. Through various mind-bending tricks and explanations, Cobb attempts to perform inception once more, in an attempt to be reunited with his family.

Phew. Definitely a mind-trick of an explanation in itself. Between the various levels of complexity, however, is hidden the remarkable theme of ignorance is bliss. But let’s take a step back and think of dreaming itself, for a moment. Isn’t it true bliss? When we dream, we have absolutely no idea that we’re in one. As Cobb puts it, “Dreams feel real while we’re in them. It’s only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange.” As a result, we see that one’s ignorance to their true place in reality can indeed imbue them with a sense of bliss. Throughout the entire movie, those who have no idea of their dreaming state are highly comfortable with themselves and truly enjoy the experience of dreaming. On the other hand, those who are aware that they are dreaming (such as extractors) are also aware that anything that happens would only be restricted to their minds, and nothing happy would stay so.

As a result, the life led by extractors is painful and filled with regret. Most of us retire to a night’s sleep wondering what adventures lay waiting for us in our dreams, though this isn’t a belief shared by extractors. The knowledge that they are simply dreaming destroys their bliss from the act of doing so.

In literature, pain is something that often follows true knowledge, and 1984 is no exception. Winston learns the truth behind the government through the book Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, written by Goldstein. Soon after doing so, however, he is thrown into a jail cell and tortured by the government for his radical ideas and rebellious notions. Winston is quite similar to extractors in Inception; both know the painful reality of their world, and are forced to suffer as a result. When talking about the government, Winston states that, “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.” (75). Unlike the general populace, the knowledge that both have about their world drives them to pain. When contrasted with ignorant people, both Cobb and Smith show a definite lack of bliss.

In the middle of the movie, there’s a particular scene in which we see people utilizing the shared dream world extensively, almost to the point of obsession. You see, in a dream, time goes faster than in real life, as the mind constructs reality at a quicker pace. A few hours of sleep in real life, for instance, can equate to several days’ worth of dreaming. In this scene, there’s several people in an underground room who use the shared dreaming interface for several hours each day in order to dream and construct the reality that they want. Due to the time dilation, this translates to them essentially living in their dreams, for days at a time. I found this particular exchange fascinating.

Cobb: After a while [shared dreaming] becomes the only way you can dream.

Eames: They come here every day to sleep?

Old Man: No. They come to be woken up. The dream has become their reality. Who are you to say otherwise?

These people have ignored the fact that dreaming is not reality, and have left behind various hopes and dreams that they wished for themselves in the real world. By losing themselves in the dream world, they’ve glimpsed at what they feel is true joy: having the power to do whatever they want and change the outcomes of anything. That kind of power is definitely intoxicating, hinting as to the reasons of their addiction. Sometimes, ignoring reality can truly lead to a sense of bliss.

This question of whether reality is subjective is one that’s explored thoroughly in 1984 as well. As O’Brien explains to Winston as he is being tortured, “‘Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing.’” (265). O’Brien insists that reality is simply what one makes of it, rather than what is actually true. The party is able to enforce this dogma by enforcing ignorance throughout society. The party can allow anything to be seen as true, as in their eyes, the beliefs of their citizens make it so.

The last scene of the movie, one that is highly debated, is also one where I believe that this theme is manifested (the interesting portion begins around 2:40). Throughout the film, Cobb is obsessed with the fact of whether or not he is dreaming. At various points in the film, we see him frantically attempting to check whether or not he is in reality by spinning his totem: a top which never topples in dreams, though falls normally in reality. At the end, Cobb finally returns to America in order to see his children, something he has not been able to do for years. When he sees his children, he spins his totem as usual to ensure that he is indeed in reality, though he soon looks away and moves to embrace his children. As we see the totem spin, the screen cuts to black, leaving the viewer in doubt whether or not Cobb is dreaming.

Cobb’s initial compulsive need to know whether he is dreaming reflects his desire for knowledge and the grip of reality. As mentioned earlier, dreams were places in which things could go wrong for extractors, who preferred the cold logic of reality to the world of imagination. At the sight of his children, however, Cobb is taken by the same sense of bliss which surrounded the people in the underground chamber. Whether he is dreaming or not doesn’t matter to him, as the emotions that he experienced are real.

As we've seen, the theme of ignorance being bliss is implied in both 1984 and Inception. However, we see different takes on this same subject. 1984 presents a society in which individuality has been lost due to the collective ignorance of the masses; everyone displays the same mindless sense of happiness. In contrast, Inception shows a world in which emotion trumps the immutable will of knowledge. We can see this from either perspective, but in the end, isn’t reality merely what you believe it is?

-G

As children, we’re often viewed by society as being pure and innocent, a metaphorical tabula rasa. However, the various evils of time commence attacking us from the moment of our birth, both in body and mind. Our body withers and ages, crumbling into dust as the years drag by. And our mind?

We lose our innocence. This loss of innocence is commonly seen as a rite of passage in today’s society, though with it comes a greater cost than simply the knowledge of the workings of the world. By acquiring this knowledge about the world, we lose our carefree sense of happiness. Ignorance is bliss, it is said, and nowhere can we see this better in action than with the loss of innocence in those around us and within ourselves.

At first glance, the concepts of ignorance and innocence may appear to be different, though they are actually the same thing, when placed in the context of this article. As we grow, we acquire knowledge of the real world, something that eventually causes us to lose the initial bliss we were born with. The real world is a dangerous and dark place, something that can be understood only through the experience of pain. Our ignorance melts away in the heat of this understanding, followed with our childlike innocence on how the world works.

Oftentimes, this change in mindset occurs quite slowly, over the period of several years during our teenage periods. The discovery of greed, perhaps, or the understanding of jealousy. It may happen in a different manner for each person, though there’s no denying that all of us reading this article have unequivocally at least began to lose our innocence.

Due to this slow change, I believed that it was possible to track the differences in ignorance and bliss as people slowly grow older. As one’s age grows, both their ignorance and their bliss happen to slowly fade. Interestingly, there’s exists a parallel with 1984 with this acquisition of knowledge and destruction of bliss. The three social classes of people in the novel, as shown below, clearly embody patterns seen in adults, teenagers, and young children. In order to see this in action, I decided to interview people from three different categories: adults, teens, and children. As I expected, this broad difference in the innocence of the three varied quite a bit, and their insights into various questions were quite eye-opening.

As expected, all of the adults that I talked to immediately responded that their innocence had been lost. However, they all believed that it was, in the end, a positive thing. The adults generally mentioned that the realities of society and responsibilities have forced them into a position in which their loss of innocence was the only way to handle the way things were. Without the maturity that came with this loss, they wouldn’t have been able to cope or make sense of the reality that they were placed into. When talking to them, I couldn’t help notice that many of the judgements about the world that they had made were highly negative, likely stemming from the painful experiences that came with dealing with their rite of passage. In addition, these adults placed a larger emphasis on happiness stemming from concepts like power and money, rather than a materialistic point of view.

While performing these interviews, I definitely saw a parallel between the views of adults and the Inner Party: the group that controls the government, and thus, the men of the country. With infinite authority at their fingertips and knowledge of the uncensored truth, these powerful people can be thought of as adults. Both adults and the Inner Party knew the way that the world truly worked. In addition, both had an innately negative view concerning the world, likely stemming from the pain of experience. As O’Brien, an Inner Party member, mentions, “But always – do not forget this, Winston – always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler.” (267). Greed is a concept that shows most directly in both adults and the Inner Party.

Moving on, the teens had responses that ranged across the board. Many were mellow, insisting that their innocence had not been lost and that they had been able to isolate their knowledge of the world and emotions from their innocence. Others dejectedly mentioned that their innocence was completely lost. However, the great majority had responses in the middle. As a teenager myself, I definitely feel the stresses and responsibilities of the real world pressuring me. However, at the same time, my inner child (so as so speak) runs rampant, asking questions about the world and imagining extravagant scenarios.

The behavior of teens bears a strong connection to the Outer Party, limited members of the government. Teens often glimpse at the truth that lies beyond their world, though many make the decision to stay innocent and within their little protective bubbles. In either case, teenagers are marked by a slow and laborious understanding of their world, and both ignorance and bliss disappears at slow, yet steady rates. Likewise, the members of the Outer Party often glimpse at the truth of the government and its power, though many decide to not pursue that lead and stay ignorant. Members of this Party often fall on a wide spectrum of ignorance, with some, like Winston, knowing the truth at the cost of happiness. In addition, doublethink is a concept that can be uniquely associated with teens. Many of those I interviewed denied that their innocence had been lost, though their experiences showed otherwise. Likewise, the government uses doublethink to enforce false beliefs in the minds of the Outer Party. As Smith so eloquently puts it, these teens expressed the ideas of “To know and to not know, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.” (35).

And finally, children. As these interviews were conducted through the eyes of parents, there may have been a slight chance of bias, though there’s no doubting the simple truth: all of these kids were positively innocent. As their parents mentioned, many of these young children saw the world through a positive lens: they believed that the world had much to offer, and were highly optimistic were learning about new things.

As I saw it, the proles are what can thought of as young children. Vast potential surrounds them all, yet they cannot see beyond themselves and are blind to the workings of the world. This ignorance, however, breeds pure bliss and they are satisfied with the way that their world is structured. Pure and untainted, children view the world in a similar way. Their belief in goodness breeds a sense of bliss in the world, coupled with trust. Winston Smith reveals this childlike nature of proles, stating that “"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.” (72).

The society in our lives is highly structured around this concept of age. Children depend on their parents to nurture them, both in terms of providing the needs of life and the concepts needed to survive the real world. Before undertaking this interviewing journey, I always imagined the idea of the loss of innocence to be a negative thing. After all, who would like to trade the bliss that arises from ignorance for the pain that stems from knowledge? However, I now see that my view was quite shortsighted.

As I look inward, I now see that my loss of innocence has meant something to me. The knowledge of how the world works has prepared me to do things I could never imagine: do things that I would not have been able to do without this loss. I’m now more capable than I ever was before, though the price paid has been that of innocent happiness. Perhaps bliss isn’t the way to heaven after all.

-G

Special thanks to Aryan Kumar, Estelle Pinai, Neeharika Jaladanki, my Lit Group, and various interviewees who wished to remain anonymous.

After reading 1984, it reminded me of a 1999 movie called The Matrix. For those that haven’t watched it, The Matrix takes place in a dystopian future, where sentient machines rule over humans. The remaining humans are kept in a simulated reality known as the Matrix, to keep them subdued. Meanwhile, their body energy is used as an energy source to power the machines.

Here is the trailer:

“The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.” -Morpheus

­The simulated reality is like the continuous propaganda that the Party spews out through its telescreens. Even though the Outer Party and Proles aren’t living in a simulated reality, ­the situations are extremely similar, because they don’t know what is real and what isn’t. For instance, the Party would constantly change the history for its own conveniences, up to a point that no one knows what happened before the revolution. In Part Three, O’Brien claims that if he thinks he floats off the floor, he can because everything that happens is in your mind. This brings into question, what is reality?

As seen in the above quote, Morpheus says “The Matrix is everywhere…It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.” In a sense, the Outer Party and Proles are living in a simulated reality, because they are blinded from the truth. That makes the Inner Party like the sentient machines, oppressing the Outer Party and the Proles for its own power and control. Both the machines and the Inner Party view the remaining humans as disposable units that keep the structure of the social hierarchy.

“What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.” -Morpheus

“What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.” -Winston Smith, (278)

Yet this ignorance to the truth can bring bliss, as seen with the jolly old Prole Winston meets in the bar. In the movie, Morpheus is a leader of the human resistance that helps free people from the Matrix and makes them aware of the real world. The Agents, or sentient machines in the Matrix, tells the public that Morpheus is a dangerous terrorist, which reminds me of how the Party calls Emmanuel Goldstein a traitor. Morpheus always offers the humans in the Matrix a choice between the blue pill, that will make you forget about the Matrix continue living in an illusion, or the red pill, that will make you enter the painful world of reality. The blue pill represents ignorance, while the red pill represents knowledge. One of the people that Morpheus unplugged from the Matrix, Cypher, expresses regret over choosing the red pill. Cypher wants to go back into simulated reality of The Matrix instead of living in the dreary real world, exemplifying the theme of ignorance is bliss. The knowledge of the real world has brought more misery for Cypher, so much so that he wants to have his memory of the Matrix erased and return to the dream world.

The protagonist of the movie, Neo, is a computer programmer living in the Matrix, who felt that something was wrong with the world. At night, Neo is a hacker that steals information by penetrating computer systems, learning about the Matrix through such means. As a result of his online criminal activities, Neo is captured by Agents, who act like the Thought Police in 1984. The Agents interrogate Neo, much like how the Ministry of Love tortures Winston, and plants a bug in him. The main Agent we see is Agent Smith, who is much more ambitious and intelligent than the other Agents, similar to O’Brien in 1984. The omnipresent surveillance of the ruling class is evident here in both The Matrix and 1984. Neo can be seen as an embodiment of Winston, as both quietly rebel inside against the oppressive ruling class.

We can see that the ignorance of the lower class, the Proles in 1984 and the humans in The Matrix, contribute to the bliss of the ruling class, the Inner Party and the intelligent machines. The primary way that the Inner Party keeps control maintain is by keeping everyone else ignorant, and therefore oppressed. In the THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM, Emmanuel Goldstein states, “the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.” (Orwell 290) Similarly, all the humans plugged into the Matrix are ignorant to the fact that they are living in a virtual reality, and their ignorance keeps the machines in power.

I find it quite ironic that Neo lives in the room number 101, an allusion to room 101 in 1984. O’Brien describes Room 101 as “The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world” (Orwell 283). Neo is trapped in the virtual reality of the Matrix, which is his own torture chamber.  

Neo is contacted by Morpheus and given the same choice of the blue or red pill. Naturally, Neo’s curiosity influences him to choose the red pill, and he awakens in the real world. In the actual world, Neo meets Trinity, and the two gradually fall in love. Like Neo, Trinity was rescued from the Matrix by Morpheus, and chose the red pill over the blue pill. Trinity’s character is a parallel to Julia’s character in 1984, since both of them are strong female protagonists that rebel against the ruling class and fall in love with the narrator.

Across both 1984 and the Matrix, we see the overarching theme of control and class conflict. Although ignorance might bring bliss for the humans trapped in the dream world and for the Proles, it brings us to the question, is it worth living your entire life ignorant?

Art is a world of unknown of a multitude of mediums. According to Merriam Webster, Art is “ the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” To the Proles, the only art they see is Goldstein, Big Brother, and the eyes that are watching them.   One of Big Brother’s slogans stated that, “Ignorance is strength.” In all honesty, George Orwell perhaps believed that “Ignorance is bliss” is equivalent to “Ignorance being strength,“ because the Proles made up a majority of the population. They were the followers of everything the Party showcases even if the rationale does not add up or make particular sense. They were the strength that Party is trying to hold up since they are the vast majority. There is strength in the numbers. The Party would only have minimal worry of being overthrown since the Proles were brainwashed and are conditioned to be loyal to the Party. Most Proles are blindsided by the unknown truths that are masked by lies and deception.

In today’s modern era, street art through instances of graffiti is usually frowned upon and illegal. Society markets street artists as delinquents who stir up ruckus in the neighborhood. They label them as uncultured as their art is nothing but “scribbles” and vandalism on the wall. I believe that the societal norms and regulations are made to be broken. Bliss comes from the pop of color in a world where everything is black, white, and grey. The ignorance lies in the information and story behind the “blobs” of sprayed paint on the wall. Similarly to Winston, artists question the world, the government, and try to challenge society. Winston questions the war between Eurasia and Oceania due to the lack of deep information: “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed, “ (35).

The Proles in 1984 seem to know sometimes what is going on, but are forced to believe in the ideals of the Party simultaneously. (Double think!!!) It must be perhaps exhausting and baffling all at once, thus choosing the life of ignorance instead. They choose to be ignorant because if they aren’t, they wouldn’t be protected. They are being protected from this “war” without any proof. They are living minimally, yet believing that it is necessary for the rationing of supplies. In another medium of art, poetry expresses the knowledge with a hint of ignorance. How someone reads a work of writing is processed differently. With their own bias and background, the meaning of the poem can be changed altogether. Similar to Big Brother’s slogans, the Proles and everyone living in Oceania has different interpretations of it.  Years from Bliss By Susanne Donoghue The spring trees are filling out, fattening for full-scale factory production of carbonaceous syrup to fill their veins with green blood to make them strong to spread their roots and flaunt their flowers irresistibly in the faces of bees, squirrels, and birds, and as the merest afterthought, exhale oceans of oxygen, life's elixir. We swim in this ocean like fish, gladly, mostly unaware, and eat the fresh fruit kindly supplied by the same life-givers. We listen to their sessions with the wind. Inspired to make our different musics, we sing about them with full-throated joy. Why then do we cut them? This poem is interesting to me because it reveals that ignorance is present all around. Perhaps ignorance is a choice - a choice of being burdened by knowing what could hurt you and the choice of happiness on the other side of the wall. It’s saddening to me that some people have to live through ignorance everyday thinking that they know the whole truth without a clue that there is a whole other world out there that they don’t try to seek or unable to. Donoghue asks, “Why do we cut them?” Why does the Party cut out those who seek knowledge from the other side? What do they really have to hide?

Nowadays, media and social media alike are seen as tools that help people stay connected with the entirety of the world. However, they are also massive keys of deception. Though, it is very seldom to see people to shut the media out of their life, even when knowing that it doesn’t always portray the truth. “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.” It is evident that there are those with more common sense than others, but the definition of common sense does not conform to “one size fits all”. The “truth” from the media might be a lie, but because of its sphere of influence, one day, the “truth” might actually become the truth. Since there are so many instances of media being widespread, there is strength in numbers of how far the information presented reaches. Ignorance is bliss to those who never question what is being presented to them.

Take for example, Donald Trump, a Republican candidate for the United States’ 2016 election. He is a well-known public figure who, when speaks, is listened to. With admiration or hate from the young and the old, people listen to what he has to say. He represents a sliver of the face of America with his plan that derives from hate speech and bigot remarks. He wants to build a wall blocking out Mexico, send immigrants back to their ethnic homelands, label people with a physical representation that they are of a specified religion... The younger generations, who may not be as educated in the political world, will be listening. The younger generations will feel that it is socially acceptable to be hateful, racist, and closed minded individuals because of the “leader” standing at the podium of the media.

“Let’s make America great again,” says Trump. Ignorance is bliss to those who have tunnel vision, who want change, but do not question what is being presented at hand. Hearing that America can be great again captivates them. The progression that he wants to strive for is actually regression. America could be worse than the current conditional state that it is already in. There are so many citizens that would vote for Donald Trump as a joke or not voting at all because they view him as a joke. The fact that Trump is leading in the Republican 2016 election primaries is quite troubling. Ignorance is present in those who believe that their voice does not make a difference, however desire the change that they will not receive if they vote for him. They desire bliss in the nation, but he cannot achieve that with his empty promises and capitalistic coated words. Thankfully, alike to George Orwell’s 1984, there are people who are speaking out against Donald Trump and disregard his ideas. Winston Smith is the one that questions the Party and their teachings. They may have the upper hand in everything that they present to the Proles through the power of their words. However the strength in numbers guarantees that they will not be overthrown, for they rid those who are even the least bit of a threat to their power. “The voice from the telescreen paused. A trumpet call, clear and beautiful, floated into the stagnant air. The voice continued raspingly: ‘Attention! Your attention, please! A newsflash has this moment arrived from the Malabar front. Our forces in South India have won a glorious victory. I am authorized to say that the action we are now reporting may well bring the war within measurable distance of its end. Here is the newsflash –‘ Bad news coming, thought Winston,” (25).

The telescreen is similar to the television that we have in our modern era, giving reports and updates of the ongoing events that may occur. Seeing is believing, however sometimes words are all that people have to account for what had happened. The issue is how trustworthy are these sources? In the recent light being shed, once (and still to most) trusted news corporations like FOX news and CNN news have been exposed and called out for providing falsified information in streamline media. These sources of news media have also been guilty of their word choice. It is absolutely and holistically absurd when someone regardless of race commits the same crime as another human being. However, these news channels have the audacity to label them a certain way to sway the ethos, logos, and pathos of the people who pay attention to the news. A white male who commits a crime could be excused and waived due to the “tragic backstory” of how he were a lone wolf in his childhood, while an African American male may commit the same crime or even to a lesser degree, and be pinpointed by the mistakes he had made in his lifetime before the crime. These news channels can make or break a person by their description.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/27/when-fox-news-acknowledges-a-hate-crime-depends/205225

Social media outlets like Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook have been the new platforms for raw news coming from the direct source of the scene of occurrence. Social media is able to reach out to people (mainly the youth) in ways that mainstream media news outlets cannot. With hashtags like #staywoke and #blacklivesmatter, many stories of brutality and personal experiences have really told the other side of the story that money cannot censor on the mainstream news casting channels. 

Ignorance is bliss to those who choose to blatantly disregard that there are two sides to every story and to believe the one they hear more of. Ignorance is bliss to those who feel that the world is troubled, but wish to conform to the norm of society.

Harriet Tubman to Be Added to the $20 Bill

Last Wednesday, Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew announced that Harriet Tubman, an abolitionist who was a major leader in the Underground Railroad as well as a suffragette, would be replacing Andrew Jackson as the face of the $20 bill. Jackson would be moved to the back, in a symbolic exchange of power that had the country conflicted. Supporters applauded the decision to finally acknowledge a prominent African-American woman while symbolically putting her ahead of the less-than-perfect Jackson. There was an outcry, however, that putting an escaped slave and a slave owner on the same bill was disrespectful to Harriet Tubman. Others (Trump) claimed that replacing Jackson with Tubman was purely a move for political correctness, and should not have been made, out of respect for Jackson’s accomplishments as our president.

The debates centering around the exchange of currency face bring to light a topic that has been rising in prominence: Andrew Jackson. While he is hailed for various victories, such as leaving the country with no debt and extending the franchise of the white man (truly the champion of democracy), historians, as well as the public, acknowledge his many downfalls. Most of these downfalls exist in the realm of his treatment of minorities: African-Americans and Native Americans. Though Jackson’s once-pristine image is beginning to fade into a more balanced one, some still cling on to the past, claiming that he truly represented democracy in the best way and should be hailed for that, not stained by minor transgressions. They cling onto ignorance to Jackson’s faults...their faith in him is their bliss.

Since his campaign in the Election of 1924, his victory in the Election of 1928, during his presidency from 1929-1937, and throughout much of history up until recently, Andrew Jackson has been deemed a champion of the common man and a hero of the Democratic party. He was the first president to be without a formal college education (besides George Washington), and the first to be elected without having an aristocratic, wealthy elite, classically powerful background. Because of that, Andrew Jackson was hailed as a hero for citizens who identified with “Old Hickory’s” background, who wanted a president who knew the struggles of the lower class. He promised to attack financial institutions that benefited the wealthy at the cost of the poor as well as internal improvements and tariffs that would only serve the industrial America, not the agricultural one. He wanted to extend the vote, from white male landowners, to just plain white males (because that is TRUE democracy. Funny thing is, it was a revolutionary idea at the time. No one “Remembered the Ladies.” Hence, the necessity of the woman’s suffrage movement...but that’s a topic for another time). 

He succeeded in his goal to expand democracy, in fact. Jacksonian democracy is well-known for its extension of the vote to ALL white males, not merely the rich landowners. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that the vote should stay with the educated elite, in order to have a more controlled democracy that made informed decisions. The Jeffersonian versus Jacksonian democracies can be tied back to our theme of Ignorance is Bliss, because through Jackson’s championing of the common man, the “ignorant” (that is, uneducated) could now participate in democracy (that is, bliss in the extension of civil rights). Hence, Jackson, to this day, is beloved by the common white man. He was their savior, their champion, after all. They revel in their ignorance to his more controversial policies...his less “democratic” actions as president. What were those? 

Remember the Indian Removal Act and Trail of Tears? Yeah, those.

These actions forcibly removed Native Americans from their homeland to settlements across the Mississippi River, freeing up land for western expansion for the common white man! Jackson deliberately violated Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia, which upheld Cherokee rights to their native lands, in order to champion the case of (you guessed it) the white man. Entirely ignoring the repercussions of his actions for the Native Americans, Jackson ignored all criticism and went ahead with his Indian Removal Act, which led to the tragedy of the Trail of Tears.

Modern society recognizes Jackson’s position as a slave owner and his anti-Native American actions as stains on his presidency. He was not a perfect president, even if he left American free from debt and expanded franchise to unprecedented levels.

This youtube video shows an overview of Jackson’s presidency, acknowledging the bad, but also glorifying the good. This is the majority of Americans’ point of view on Andrew Jackson, as of the present. However, what about those who don’t share this point of view?

Some people still refuse to acknowledge the flaws as major negative effects on Jackson’s presidency. This was clearly demonstrated in conservatives’ reactions to the news about Harriet Tubman’s likeness replacing Jackson’s on the $20 bill. This article notes several memorable reactions, mostly espousing Jackson’s beneficial effects as president.

Senator Lamar Alexander’s reaction is a common conservative one, seen below.

Alexander defended Jackson’s legacy, saying the government can honor Tubman without casting aside the former President.

“United States history is not Andrew Jackson versus Harriet Tubman,” Alexander said in a statement. “It is unnecessary to diminish Jackson in order to honor Tubman. Jackson was the first common man to be elected president. He fought to save the Union. He defined an American era. He helped found the Democratic Party.”

Is deliberate ignorance to the fallacies of Jackson’s presidency bliss? Maybe so, because in acknowledging his downfalls, we lose another American hero, and become a cynic people. On the other hand, proclaiming his presidency as a perfect one that saved America would be disrespectful to every minority that he oppressed: African-Americans, American Indians, and women of every race. What do you think? Can a more balanced view of President Jackson’s legacy be blissful, or is glorifying him the only way to preserve bliss?

Uncensored as usual, so feel free to comment.

Thanks for reading,

The majority of Americans have no idea what the Armenian Genocide was. In fact, only 43 states out of the United States of America recognize the genocide, according to this twitter thread. 

I had no idea about the Armenian genocide-I’ve heard bits and pieces of the phrase thrown around in conversation, definitely, but we never learned about it in school- until I was informed of it through social media, such as the thread I linked above. Another tweet that has been widely circulated pertaining to the Armenian Genocide was this tweet, from Kim Kardashian West herself. Such a public, controversial figure shining light on this topic caused surges in google searches of “armenian genocide,” which proved that social media is an incredibly effective way to spread information that may not be available elsewhere. Exposure of these hidden topics can be both a blessing and a curse, in the best and worst way.

On one hand, social media is a great way to experience a more open-minded point of view and a more free conversation that isn’t hindered by government-sponsored curriculum. Obviously, students will not learn about the genocide in school, seeing as our country refuses to acknowledge it due to the prominence of Turkey in the political world. We then turn to social media, to learn about more controversial topics that have been hidden due to politics outweighing humanity.

This horrific ethnic cleansing inspired the Holocaust! Why do students learn year after year about the Holocaust, year after year about the atrocities that Hitler committed in the name of his country, yet nothing about the Armenian Genocide? Why do only 29 countries acknowledge the wiping out of the Armenian ethnicity? 

The answer is simple, and sobering. It’s because ignorance is bliss. Political leaders all around the world seem to have concurred on this one topic. They seem to all believe that the common people cannot handle an acknowledgement of such a horrific occurrence. Maybe they have their own motivations; after all, Turkey is a large world power. In that case, the citizens’ ignorance contributes to bliss: the country remains at peace with Turkey and is able to benefit from the symbiotic relationship. Is a little genocide worth making that sacrifice? Apparently it is, because countless countries across the globe are making the decision to leave the Armenian genocide unacknowledged. It is only through research that we are able to learn about the genocide-for teens, social media is the only way to go, as the typical teenager will not go about a research project on his or her own. 

The thread explores reasons why ignorance to the genocide is so widespread, which this blog interprets as reasons why ignorance to this situation might be considered bliss. Among these are “the UK government still doesn't use the word genocide as not to offend Turkey,” “avoided using the politically charged term, stressing however that his "view of that history has not changed,” etc. When it comes down to it, keeping citizens ignorant to the Armenian genocide allows for bliss for Turkey and its allies. If you think that articles like this, publicizing the extent of this cover-up, are exaggerating in terms of the denial that Turkey has in respect to the subject, see this. The Foreign Ambassador of Turkey to the United States actually replied to a tweet, about an article that explained the genocide and the world’s refusal to use the word “genocide” to describe it, saying that those who insisted on calling it a genocide were ignorant. 

Aside from the bliss of peace, let’s consider the fact that maybe the public doesn’t want to know about the Armenian genocide. Maybe the public wants to live in ignorance, because acknowledging the genocide would just be adding another tragedy to the long list of tragedies that is world history. Maybe the public doesn’t want to pressure their government to recognize the genocide, because they want to believe that their government exists to protect them, protect justice and humanity, and is motivated by more than just selfish, self-protective reasons. After all, we are all children, living under our parent countries. Ever child wants to believe that their parent wants the best for them, right? It’s hard to face the fact that most of the time, your government is not looking out for you, and is instead looking out for itself. 

Thus, ignorance to the corruption of most world governments is a sort of bliss in itself, because one is spared the trouble of knowing that one lives under a government that does not truly care for its people. That sort of sobering knowledge can only bring negativity into one’s life- to believe that your government cares about you is to live in blissful ignorance. Is that so bad, to refuse to think about the massive amount of corruption and negativity in the world? Wouldn’t you rather live happily, looking on the positive side instead of always looking for things that are wrong with the world? 

Personally, I disagree with that. However, looking through the lens of our theme, Ignorance Is Bliss, the argument is logical, and we can see why the Armenian Genocide is covered up to such an extent, globally. The ignorance of the people, and the ignorance of the countries’ leaders, both are accepted because they contribute to peace, happiness, contentment...bliss. 

We see this philosophy imbued in the Inner Party members of 1984. One significant cover-up the government makes pertains to Big Brother. Is he real? Is he not? In Part Three, as O’Brien is torturing Winston, this concept is discussed. 

“Does Big Brother exist?”

“Of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is an embodiment of the Party” (Orwell 259). 

The Inner Party cannot acknowledge the non-existence of Big Brother, because the blissful ignorance that the Outer Party members and proles have been in would be destroyed. Big Brother is their God, the presence that calms them down from the frenzy of the Two-Minute Hate. What kind of manic panic would occur once the common people are enlightened to the fact that Big Brother does not, indeed, exist? Where would the calm and peace stem from, now? This release of information would only cause outrage and a mass uprising, if worst came to worst. 

This mentality is one that probably plays into the cause of the Armenian Genocide’s lack of acknowledgement from most of the world. Mass release of this information would only upset the people. There would be questions about why the information had been hidden for so long, speculations about the motives of those who kept it hidden, and a massive headache for the Public Relations committee. Weighing this against the positive aspects of such a release of information, it is only logical that the genocide be kept unseen. The bliss of ignorance is too big a price to pay for the publicizing of the Armenian Genocide, and until ignorance is no longer considered bliss, that is the way things will remain. 

Our only hope for the spread of hidden information, currently, is through social media. Don’t underestimate the power of a passionate teenager behind a screen. We can change the world. 

Signing off, 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/17/474567056/after-9-detainees-transferred-from-guantanamo-the-number-held-there-drops-to-80 

President Obama has recently, once again, brought attention to the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, a high-security prison located in Cuba established post-9/11 for “extraordinarily dangerous” terrorists. As reported by NPR, the number of prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay has dropped to 80 after releasing 9 more detainees. The effort to close the prison has been fraught with difficulty, as evidenced by the various news articles on the subject and statements made by the president. Among the various reasons for closing the camp (besides being exorbitantly expensive and of questionable legality in the eyes of international law), Guantanamo Bay is known as the site of many human rights abuses. Prisoners, some even under the age of 18, were subject to torture and abusive interrogation, leading many to go on hunger strike or even attempt suicide. Many of the prisoners still being detained are cleared for release but because various legal and diplomatic problems, they have failed to be set free (except for occasionally, as described in the recent news article). And here’s a summary of the atrocities of Guantanamo Bay in musical form!

But how could such a stain on American history be allowed to exist in the first place? Ignorance! To the minds of Americans, the prisoners at Guantanamo aren’t real people, similar to the concept of unpersons in 1984. Despite the common use of the title “comrade,” everyone in 1984 is a stranger to one another, ignorant towards each other’s feelings and humanity. When someone goes missing and becomes an “unperson,” no one cares. No one even remembers that that person had once existed. In the same vein, Guantanamo Bay prisoners are viewed as less than human, deserving no rights for the sole reason of being Muslim. This firm belief in the indubitable evil of Guantanamo Bay prisoners turns into a type of bliss--the bliss of not taking responsibility. Whether they live or die or tortured or released, the prisoners are left without a voice. They are essentially “unpersons,”  in the sense that they are forgotten. One poll conducted in 2002 (relatively recently after the opening of Guantanamo Bay) showed that most Americans thought that the treatment of prisoners received at Guantanamo Bay is “acceptable.”

US Treatment of Taliban Soldiers at Guantanamo Bay

http://www.gallup.com/poll/5302/few-americans-object-treatment-guantanamo-bay-captives.aspx

Despite condemnations from international organizations, including Amnesty International, for Guantanamo’s lack of legal and humanitarian protections for prisoners, Americans still refused to acknowledge the humanity of the prisoners. Does this type of ignorance lead bliss? By supporting the detention camp, Americans could feel more secure against the threat of terrorism. Guantanamo was a sign that the government was doing something (anything!) after 9/11. It a sign that at least some action was being taken against the indescribable evil of terrorism. This sense of safety is a form of bliss and can be paralleled to the sense of safety Winston feels at the end of 1984. He is content in trusting that Big Brother will protect him, similar to the way Americans believe the existence of Guantanamo Bay will protect them from terrorists.

Nationalism was another factor that led to the existence of Guantanamo Bay. The same Gallup poll found that if an American soldier received the same treatment in Guantanamo Bay, significantly more would find that ethically unacceptable.

Guantanamo Treatment for Taliban vs. American Soldiers

Americans’ hate for the Taliban draws parallels to 1984’s Hate Week, which prominently displayed society’s hatred for Oceania’s enemy in war. The sudden switch in enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia highlighted the idea that the actual enemy was not important. “It was rather more of a shock to him when he discovered from some chance remark that she did not remember that Oceania, four years ago, had been at war with Eastasia and at peace with Eurasia.” (194). People’s hate did not stem from some objective, moral reason. Such irrepressible hatred stemmed from the fear of everything different, blind trust in the government, and unbridled love for Oceania. They were driven to hate simply because of some superficial nationalistic difference, which, as an analogy to the current day, corresponds to being Muslim. Ignorance to who the enemy truly is and why a certain group is the enemy does lead to bliss in the sense that you would always feel righteous. Being ignorant would make you invincible to argument, because your argument does not exist. This seems extremely dangerous--to hate without knowing why.

One of the most controversial aspects of Guantanamo Bay is the use of torture, most well-known in the form of waterboarding (see above graphic). Is torture ever morally acceptable? No. Torture serves no purpose except to harm another human being. When Winston was in the Ministry of Love being tortured with his worst fears, he was willing to do and say anything to make it stop--even give up Julia, as shown when he desperately shouts “Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me!” (362). Torture forces people to admit anything, so the information obtained from it should not be trusted. Except to cause suffering, torture serves no purpose and strips away the humanity of the defenseless. Especially in the case of the Guantanamo prisoners, who have never been tried or convicted of a crime, torture appears to have no purpose except to inflict pain on people without having a definitive, specific, legal reason.

Furthermore, the camp’s remote location creates a sort of mythical shroud surrounding it, as if the atrocities committed there do not actually happen. Although many Americans are content in this ignorance, one artist created an imaginary museum in protest of the camp.

http://www.guantanamobaymuseum.org/ 

This museum is especially interesting to me, because it highlights the injustices of Guantanamo Bay as if it were a remnant of the past. It exists in stark contrast with the ideals of the Ministry of Truth, where anything that the government has been wrong about is erased off the face of the earth. Although ignorance of atrocities committed by the government does bring more trust and positive feelings for the government, I find it extremely important to know about and protest such atrocities. This quote, from The Atlantic, eloquently describes the seemingly mythical nature of Guantanamo Bay:

"While creating imaginary entities is a tried-and-true protest technique, its application in this specific case is brilliant. Gitmo is a peculiar invention that only exists thanks to a tangle of legal rulings that allow Americans to pretend that Gitmo is not a part of America, even though it’s governed and controlled by Americans. No one really gets to see the place, as reporters’ and other visitors’ experiences are crafted by the authorities. The detention camp, as a place where people are held and interrogated, remains an imaginary place for all but the prisoners and the national security officials who operate it. The imaginary museum draws its power from this resonance: If Gitmo exists because of one fiction, perhaps it can be closed by another? Or put another (augmented) way, germane to this digital project: if we change Gitmo’s website, can it actually change its physical and legal reality? That’s what the museum’s organizers are hoping."

— Alexis Madrigal, "The Imaginary Art Museum at Gitmo"

That’s what I’m hoping too.

“‘Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing.’” (265). O’Brien presents his arguments to Winston on how reality functions only within the limits of human consciousness. So how can one define reality then? One way humans have tried to communicate what is real and what one has experienced is through art. However, one famous artist had never even glimpsed the subject of many of his most well-known paintings. So how real are his ideas of the world and what did that mean for art?

The artist in question, Henri Rousseau, lived in France all his life and never saw the jungle once, despite the fame Rousseau has received for his jungle paintings. Therefore, when he painted, Rousseau’s images were from his imagination, in a sort of blissful or innocent way of looking at the jungle. In fact his style of art is called naive, indicating its childlike quality in shape and color. While Rousseau considered himself an artistic genius, he was formally trained in art. He was known as "le douanier" or the customs officer. I find it interesting that Rousseau is defined by his day job despite being most famous for his art. It highlights his ignorance to the established art world. His path was highly unconventional, echoing Winston’s path towards rebellion. Like Winston’s defiance toward the Party, Rousseau was defiant towards establishment art critics, who disliked his aberrant art techniques and extraordinary subject matter.

The Tiger Riding Ukelele Man portrays an especially fanciful scene. A spectacularly mustachioed man in a suit carrying a ukulele is riding a tiger surrounded by brightly colored leaves and flowers. In the background, a wide-eyed lion peers at the viewer from behind the leaves. Everything about this painting is so extraordinarily unrealistic. It represents a type of ignorance to reality, something that Rousseau was frequently criticized for. The way the scene drastically differs from reality is important in the history of art. Along with the Impressionists and post-Impressionists, such as van Gogh, Gauguin, and Picasso, Rousseau ushered in a new era for art---one that was about creativity and expression rather than depicting scenes confined to reality. This kind of freedom is a form of bliss, brought on from a willingness to ignore reality.

Rousseau was important to art history and definitely brought a lot of change to how people view art and what people consider art is. His contributions to the art world was a step in a long journey towards modern art, which in most cases, completely ignore reality or play with one’s ideas of it. Is such artwork constructive towards society? Some may argue that artwork not depicting anything in particular is silly, unimportant---something even a kindergartener could draw. Modern art is frequently a joke and that back then, standards were higher or artists were more talented.

But I think there is something beautiful in drawing anything you please. I imagine an epic battle between Rousseau and the establishment artists in which he had to fight for respect and for the right to draw these beautiful fantastical jungle scenes. He never gained that respect but was admired by many of his contemporaries as well as future avant-garde artists. For me, art is not just about how pleasing something looks or how realistic someone can paint. I love the stories that come out of artwork and finding out how artists influence each other.

Rousseau’s influence on the art world unlocked new knowledge about the possibilities of art. In this sense, ignorance is not bliss, at least for those that appreciate creativity and expression (for those that wish to keep classical art styles and never change, I guess they would be rather blissful). Not knowing about the boundaries that artists could push and the different ways of conveying feelings and expressions is something incomprehensible to me. It seems like a metaphor for something, these artists creating a movement against the elite (#marxistmcp in real life). They created something completely radical for its time. Paintings aren’t famous because they are particularly beautiful. They’re famous because of their place in the history of art and because of the stories that they tell. For me, the story of Rousseau and other post-Impressionist works is one about revealing what art has the potential to do. There is no bliss that comes from not knowing what creativity is, such as in the dreary, miserable day-to-day existence of Winston’s job in 1984. This makes me think about how creativity might be expressed in Winston’s society.

What is the artwork of 1984 like? It is probable that art is completely banned, since individuality is undoubtedly heresy in the world of 1984. However, in the Soviet Union under Stalin’s rule, a close parallel to Oceania, the arts were actually promoted by the government. The catch was that this form of art was socialist realism, a movement that promoted Communist values in supposedly realistic ways. Ironically, depictions of happy workers and plentiful harvests were often far from the truth. This fits in with the ideology of the Ministry of Truth, where even lies can be considered real.

What is real? I discussed this in one of my blog posts, since the passage in 1984 about reality existing only in the human consciousness really struck me. Among the various art movements I have discussed, which is best at representing reality? The theme of 19th to 20th century art movements was change, creativity, and expression. They were also describing reality, but with new techniques and attempting to represent things that could not simply be seen--movement, light, emotions. One interesting artist of the Impressionist movement, Edgar Degas, never considered himself an Impressionist. While establishment critics believed his works lacked quality, Degas thought of himself as a realist, representing things as they truly were. I believe him.

Looking at an impressionist painting up close and being able to see the brush strokes, it’s hard to be convinced that the subject is in any way realistic. But when you step back, the painting begins to blend together and in a way, it conveys more than a traditionally drawn painting. In Monet’s Woman with a Parasol, the feeling of being windswept is captured in the softer, less defined lines. The painting is far from realistic, but still represents reality.

Perhaps none of these artists were ignorant then to what the world is actually like. From the Impressionists to post-Impressionists and even the socialist realists, each movement finds a different way to depict reality. In a way, I agree with O’Brien in regards to the nature of reality. The human consciousness is a powerful lens with which to view the world. Like artists, we choose the things we want to emphasize and the things we wish to be ignorant towards. It’s a way of finding order in the world, if there is such thing, and a way of being a little more blissful.

Watch What You Say

There is a striking parallelism between the wars fought by Oceania and by the United States. Ever since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States has been in a War on Terror, with no end in sight. The war resulted in American nationalism, especially after the collapse of the Twin Towers. This is similar to how the party members feel nationalism from the endless war against Eurasia, which distracts them from the real issues such as poverty and oppression. Additionally, the war is used to justify increasing government control and reduction of civil liberties.

When we think about governments that monitor everything you do and everything you say, we often think of North Korea or the Soviet Union. However, this is actually becoming increasingly prevalent in the United States.

After the aforementioned terrorist attacks, Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act, granting the government sweeping authority to monitor citizens. The Bush Administration followed up with the Protect America Act of 2007, an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As a result, the National Security Agency, or NSA, was granted access to phone records and emails under the justification of homeland security. The PRISM surveillance program allowed the NSA to collect internet communications from major internet companies.

Proponents of privacy have often cited the 4th Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” as evidence that the bulk data collection was illegal.  Meanwhile, those that advocate for national security argue that bulk data collection helps the government capture terrorists. Yet Americans have rather mixed views on the issue of national security over privacy. Should we value national security over individual privacy? Comment below!

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, once said, "If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ­­It’s appalling how little Americans know today. In an age where information is easily accessible within seconds, it’s paradoxical how the public knows so little.  While it used to take news several days to travel to everyday citizens, now news can be watched in real time. According to various polls, only 36 percent can correctly identify and name the three branches of government. Their ignorance is how the government can pass invasive surveillance laws.

However, an alternative view is that the NSA is a crucial element in counter terrorism efforts. According to NSA director Keith Alexander, 54 terrorist attacks have been thwarted worldwide since 2001. This includes bomb plots targeting the New York Stock Exchange and the city’s subway.  Before whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked the extent of government surveillance, the American public was relatively ignorant about it. Studies have shown that the more Americans know about the NSA, the less favorable they view the organization. Perhaps ignorance of what the NSA does can lead to bliss, especially since the NSA has prevented several terrorist attacks, therefore saving countless lives. Americans only began questioning the legality and benefits of NSA programs after they knew about the extent of surveillance. Before that, they were relatively blissful because they didn’t know. No one was debating or protesting the extent of NSA surveillance, because very few people knew about it to begin with. In some cases, the less you know, the less you need to worry about, thus resulting in bliss.

Now, going to 1984, the Party has posters of “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” everywhere, from Winston’s apartment to his workplace. The Party has telescreens in every person’s room and in public spaces. Winston says “The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard.” (Orwell 3)

 “There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” (Orwell 3). There are even microphones in the supposed wilderness. These cameras exemplify the Party’s complete control over every aspect of daily life. Every single action, even your facial expression, is carefully being scrutinized by the Thought Police. Any evidence of thoughtcrime, and you are shipped to the Ministry of Love. Winston proclaims, “Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death” (Orwell 28).  

Therefore, the less you know, the better. Winston is a Party member in the Ministry of Truth, so he knows that the Party changes history for its own convenience. This knowledge is what bothers him and causes him to begin small acts of rebellion, such as buying a diary, to larger acts of rebellion, such as joining the Brotherhood. It’s evident with the Proles that ignorance is bliss, because they are not subjected to the Party’s propaganda.

We can see that the Party and the US government are quite similar in regards to surveillance. Both have government programs, the Thought Police and the National Security Agency, that monitor what people are saying. If someone is perceived to be a threat to national security of either the Party or the United States, then that person will be swiftly apprehended. The Party will arrest those that threaten its position of power, like Winston, while the United States will arrest those that threaten its safety. In both cases, it is better to be ignorant to the invasive surveillance to feel blissful. With the society in 1984, the Party actively hunts down the intelligent such as Syme or Ampleforth for vaporization while leaving the ignorant alone. The more Americans know about the NSA, the less they like it, so perhaps they would be blissful if they knew less.

For our final blog post of this project (articles incoming!), I’d like to discuss one key aspect of 1984 that left my group and me contemplative: double standards.

No, I don’t mean the double standards that are unequal pay or limited sexual freedom. The double standard present in this novel is one of intelligence. The Inner Party versus the Outer Party. In one circle, intelligence is a red flag, assuredly resulting in vaporization. This is clearly the case for members of the Outer Party, such as the aforementioned Syme (vaporized in Part 2) and the poet Ampleforth (jailed in Part 3, along with Winston). “There is only one offense” (Orwell 231)- and that offense is thoughtcrime. Ampleforth had been arrested for this very crime, but what was his offense? Poetry? Not being able to find an adequate rhyme for “God” in a Kipling poem? 

No, his offense was that he was too intelligent to accept an inferior slant rhyme, that he was too full of “intellectual warmth, the joy of a pendant who has found out some useless fact” (Orwell 231). Ampleforth was too intellectually adept to exist in a Party where the members must be kept ignorant-therefore leading to his arrest. This is almost a direct parallel to Syme’s situation: loyalty doesn’t matter if you have the intelligence to perhaps harbor disloyal sentiments. 

On the other hand, intellectual sharpness is valued in the Inner Party. After all, you need to be a genius to manipulate an entire population for your own gain. We see this in O’Brien: deceitful, two-faced, traitor, yes, but also incredibly intelligent. He is able to express fascist ideals while leading us to almost be convinced-and convincing Winston entirely. For example, as he is torturing Winston, O’Brien embarks on a twisted, oxymoronic monologue. He says, “But I tell you, Winston, reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else, Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes;only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal (Orwell 249). As readers, we reject his contradictory ideas, but  in Winston’s case, presented with such eloquent nonsense under torture, O’Brien is the epitome of intelligent discourse. 

However, if O’Brien is so intelligent, why has he not yet been vaporized as Syme had been and Ampleforth would be? The answer lies in the double standard: intelligence is valued in the Inner Party, but eschewed in the Outer. This is due to the fact that the Inner Party has the duty to subdue and manipulate an entire nation: intellect is necessary for such an undertaking. The Outer Party, however, exists only as workmen, carrying out the duties assigned to them by the Inner Party members. Thus, if Outer Party members were to rebel, the entire operation would be in shambles. In order to keep power, the Inner Party must always be intellectually superior to the Outer Party. 

Because of this, ignorance as Outer Party members is bliss. Ignorance saves your life and allows you to feel as though you are serving the Party through jobs in the various Ministries. Ignorance as an Outer Party member keeps you content, un-tortured by thoughts of revolution and oppression. 

Seeing this, would it be preferable to be an ignorant Outer Party member and happy, or an intellectual living under fear but maintaining your own individualism? I’d love to hear your thoughts. 

Signing off for the week, 

Part Three of 1984 takes us to the Ministry of Love and Winston’s rehabilitation. Winston is tortured by O’Brien to completely rewire his brain into a loyal party member. It is rather ironic when O’Brien tells Winston, “Now the turning point has come. I shall save you. I shall make you perfect.” (Orwell 244). How can torture save people when it commonly destroys them in the process?

At first, Winston is willing to double his pain to save Julia, displaying a true act of love. However, he soon finds out that “Never, for any reason on earth, could you wish for an increase of pain. Of pain you could wish only one thing: that it should stop. Nothing in the world was so bad as physical pain. In the face of pain there are no heroes...” (Orwell 239).

When Winston was interrogated, “His sole concern was to find out what they wanted him to confess, and then confess it quickly, before the bullying started anew.” (Orwell 242). This is precisely the reason why torture does not grant reliable information. As mentioned earlier, the only thing you wish for while in pain is for it to stop, even if that means confessing to crimes you never committed. Thus, there is no point in waterboarding prisoners to extract information from them in places like Guantanamo Bay, but that is a topic for another time… or maybe another article.  

Through numerous torture sessions with the sadistic O’Brien, Winston slowly begins to accept the Party’s philosophy of doublethink, or believing in two contradictory thoughts simultaneously. For instance, when O’Brien holds up four fingers, Winston says he sees four. However, after painful torture, Winston says anything that the Party says. Winston’s ignorance to the truth, the actual number of fingers, brings him bliss when O’Brien stops the torture. The prevalent theme of suppressing individuality can lead to bliss from the Party. We can see that once we reach a certain extent of torture, everyone, even those with strong willpower, will break.

Room 101, as O’Brien describes it, is “the worst thing in the world” (Orwell 283). Essentially, it is a torture chamber that pits you against your greatest fear. In Part Two, Winston displayed an intense fear of rats, or murophobia, in the room where he had an affair with Julia. This subtle foreshadowing is evident when O’Brien plans to torture Winston with large, carnivorous rats.

What exactly does Winston’s fear of rats symbolize? I think that the rats personify moral corruption, since they are commonly with squalor and disease. They have no morals themselves, and even eat defenseless babies. As seen here, rats prey on the weak, similar to how the Party has no moral compass and stays in power by oppressing the Proles. Likewise, Julia displayed no fear of rats because she was corrupt to the bones.

At the end of the novel, Winston has reached a state of bliss from his ignorance of the truth. He believes in whatever the Party tells him, and has no feelings except toward the Party. When Winston shouts, “Do it to Julia!” to O’Brien (Orwell 286), he lost his last piece of humanity and dignity. Orwell clearly shows that torture can completely break people, and make them a ghost of their former selves.

Is torture ever justified?

-A

Close your eyes for a moment, and think about the person that you love most in this world. You would probably go through fields of pain, mountains of torture, probably even to hell and back for them. But would they do the same for you? The funny thing about love is that it’s never possible to know how much a person loves you. Do their actions truly reflect their heart’s desire? Or are they merely faking it until the truth comes out? At what point can one truly know that love exists between two 

Take the novel 1984, for instance. Julia gives Winston a note, telling him “I love you” (108). As their relationship begins, we see that the relationship between the two more accurately represents that of lust rather than true love. The acts of intercourse undertaken by the two appear to be that of desire for each other and hatred for the government, rather than anything else. However, it soon switches direction and Winston begins to truly love Julia, when he remarks that “a deep tenderness, such that he had not felt for her before, suddenly took hold of him.” (139). Nevertheless, I don’t think that this feeling is returned, though, as Julia doesn’t seem to view Winston with love insofar as temptation.

Later on in the novel, the emotions that they shared have ramifications for both of them. When Winston is being tortured to convert to the side of the Party, he is told by O’Brien that Julia wasted no time in betraying him under the threat of pain. However, Winston holds out for several days, not wishing to betray Julia due to the intense love that he had for her.

Does love have the power to help one get through pain? I can definitely say from my life that looking forward to seeing someone that I loved has definitely helped me get through any shortcomings that were coming my way. But at what point does greed take over? At what point does self-preservation overcome the need to love someone? For Winston, this point came quite late in the torture session, as he believed that giving Julia away would nullify the love that they shared for each other. It makes me wonder if greed is truly the emotion that empowers all, as 1984 shows it to be. Given enough time, would anyone break and reform under the immense pressure of torture?

It’s said that the opposite of love isn’t hate, but indifference. In this case, being indifferent about someone would definitely lead to bliss, as it would allow one to betray the other quite quickly. In Winston’s situation, being indifferent towards someone would definitely cause one to give in quicker, and reach that state of bliss. However, is it really worth it? Is love worth it without the pain that comes with it? Or would being ignorant to love allow one to reach a real state of bliss faster? Comment below with your ideas!

There are some days are a tougher than others where you feel like you wish that things could be better and perhaps that you could start over new. Imagine if you fell asleep and woke up the next day, the same person, but with a completely clean slate. You feel completely at peace with yourself. All of your prior problems and concerns vanished. You feel like you are watched over and cared for, in all the warmest manners. You completely indulge yourself to know and follow a higher being. Apparently you have finally reached the state of true bliss. “’Nothing will remain of you: not a name I register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as the future. You will never have existed,’” (254).

The only problem is, to get to this point in time, is through torture. “Torture? How can something sound so rewarding from something that inflicts so much pain?” you may ask. Torture, indeed. O’Brien wanted to condition Winston into loving Big Brother and being at the same mindset of all the other Proletarians. Winston knew too much and he was made to live. Though, he was only allowed to live if he were completely controlled. You see, it’s a power trip.  O’Brien is somewhat exactly like Winston with his keen wit, but it seems that he finds bliss in holding power. He felt like Winston was a threat to his power, thus stripping Winston of the only thing that kept him strong - his knowledge. Winston is in physical pain as he goes through the motions of his forced transformation as well as mental altercations in his thought process. He had once hated the Party and everything they stood for. After his torture session with O’Brien, he saw the world in a new light – a world full of ignorance.

“Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark mustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scneted tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother,” (298).

Not knowing what he used to know brought him a sense of peace. He felt like he was at war with himself, but in reality, it was more than that. However, he can no longer recall his hatred or his rationale, but finally accepts the reality of his single oneness in the fight of the millions that do not know that they’re oppressed.

This reminds me of a time where I had met an alzheimer patient who had come from a country filled with oppresion. He had once hated the dictatorship government and hated that they were beyond materialistic. However one day, he (a veterean) was fighting and everyone around him had died. The opposing side had saved him, and from then on that was all that he could remember. He is now at a state of bliss, but in a sense given artificial bliss. In your opinion, is it better to know the truth and be dissatisfied, or to be shielded from it with artificial bliss?