The misuse of a text.
Having read George Orwell's 1984 comparitively recently, and having re-read it over the course of last week, something struck me. The society in 1984 is an oppressive one; it limits the freedoms of the citizens, and even seeks to control how they think. The ruler is a purpoted 'benevolent' dictator called Big Brother who seeks to assure everyone that everything is fine. They schedule hate sessions, where a specific tone is played while an image of the person the public is being turned against is displayed. This tone induces a violent hatred in the viewers, and they come to associate that hatred with the image of the person.
Not only that, but they are surveilled every second of every day, with the little monitors that are so vital to their everyday lives containing monitoring equipment. Every inch of their houses are scanned, and anyone who shows dissent or does not conform to the thought patterns that the Thought Police (and by extension Big Brother) lay out are istantly snatched up and 're-educated'.
I'm sure everyone who has read 1984, or is otherwise even reading what I have described above, understands the dystopia being described. And what I find fascinating is that many people automatically associate this dystopia with a right-wing, capitalist state; and by doing so miss the entire point of the book.
EngSoc is the government central to the text, and it could not be more left-wing. It is a heavily state-centric form of government, and in addition it is socialist. Of course, this may be brushed off as a simple misrepresentation of socialism, but that is very wishful thinking. George Orwell was writing as a man who was watching the unfolding of the Marxist theory: he, more than anyone else, knew exactly what a 'socialist' ideal would be. And 1984 displays what such a dystopia would look like.
I would deal with the differences between captialism and socialism and why exactly such a government would be necessary to force socialism into a state of stability, preventing the economic collapse of the country, but that is not the point of this post. In fact, the major point of this post is to examine why people willfully ignore the socialist aspect of the book, and then misrepresent it in a way that supports their own viewpoints.
This question's answer is simple, because many people who misuse the text support socialism as an ideal, and any evidence that the ideal is not so ideal must either be ignored or discounted. This is much the case in the claims that the Nazi party of Germany were not socialists, as it is universally recognised that they were evil; so them being socialists cannot be possible as that would make socialism evil.
This type of wilful ignorance is a prime example of the Confirmation Bias. However, it does not explain what comes next. While, according to the bias, people should actively ignore the text and refute its validity, they do the exact opposite. The people who should hate it instead use it as some sort of weapon, citing it in comparison to their current government and how the government, while actually not following any of the practises laid out in the book, is similar to the Thought Police.
What accounts for this phenomenon? People misrepresent what is actually contained within a piece of literature in order to push their own agenda. The only explanation that I can currently give for something of this nature is that it is because of the book's notoriety. Before the current generation of pseudo-Liberals and the New Left were even born, this book was hailed as a masterpiece and a very good representation of a controlling dystopia. This opinion filtered its way down, and was automatically accepted by these same people who would misrepresent the actual point made.
Then, the few who read the book (as I am very sure that many who would cite it have not actually delved into the text) noticed something distressing. The author slanders their precious ideal, and makes socialism out to be requiring some form of dictatorship! Why, this cannot be, as socialism is a pure ideal; everyone is free, while the state controls everything and is the greatest good. Yet here they were, being presented with the harsh reality of what a socialist state would amount to, and they could not handle it.
The automatic reaction should have been to completey throw out the book as the ignorant ramblings of someone who could never understand The Glory Of Socialism. But this could not be done. Did not many of the greatest philosophers and thinkers praise this book? How could this be if it was portraying socialism in a negative light?
And then it begins. Their mind slowly parses what has been written as actually showing what the influences of the right-wing and conservatism will do to socialism. Yes, obviously the restriction of freedoms is because of the corrupting influence of that. So they begin to believe it, and as they do, they begin to espouse this outright set of lies. And this misrepresentation becomes popular, as their 'choir' loathes anything against socialism. And then, eventually, the popular thought process becomes that 1984 is actually a pro-socialist, anti-conservative text, and is quoted as such.
This process is both fascinating, and horrifying. Because if it can happen to a simple piece of fiction, nothing more than a social commentary, then what's to prevent it happening to history? Indeed, has it already happened? Even now, the Nazi party is spoken of as being some form of right-wing, captialist pigs. Stalin's communism was actually not real communism, that's why it failed. The crusades were initially started by the Christians and were nothing more than a bloodthirsty war, for no real reason. These, and more, are the warped versions of history that are being pushed as being real; and they are accepted by the people as being true.
As you can see, what started as nothing more than a post on how a book can be twisted to serve a purpose far from what it has been intended has turned into something discussing the distortion of history itself. And I consider it a beautiful metaphor for the snowball effect that will take hold because of these distortions. My parting message is this: analyse everything for what it is. Throw out your preconceived notions, ignore the 'popular opinion', and see it for what it really is. Only then can we continue to preserve the truth in all its forms.
Not only that, but they are surveilled every second of every day, with the little monitors that are so vital to their everyday lives containing monitoring equipment. Every inch of their houses are scanned, and anyone who shows dissent or does not conform to the thought patterns that the Thought Police (and by extension Big Brother) lay out are istantly snatched up and 're-educated'.
I'm sure everyone who has read 1984, or is otherwise even reading what I have described above, understands the dystopia being described. And what I find fascinating is that many people automatically associate this dystopia with a right-wing, capitalist state; and by doing so miss the entire point of the book.
EngSoc is the government central to the text, and it could not be more left-wing. It is a heavily state-centric form of government, and in addition it is socialist. Of course, this may be brushed off as a simple misrepresentation of socialism, but that is very wishful thinking. George Orwell was writing as a man who was watching the unfolding of the Marxist theory: he, more than anyone else, knew exactly what a 'socialist' ideal would be. And 1984 displays what such a dystopia would look like.
I would deal with the differences between captialism and socialism and why exactly such a government would be necessary to force socialism into a state of stability, preventing the economic collapse of the country, but that is not the point of this post. In fact, the major point of this post is to examine why people willfully ignore the socialist aspect of the book, and then misrepresent it in a way that supports their own viewpoints.
This question's answer is simple, because many people who misuse the text support socialism as an ideal, and any evidence that the ideal is not so ideal must either be ignored or discounted. This is much the case in the claims that the Nazi party of Germany were not socialists, as it is universally recognised that they were evil; so them being socialists cannot be possible as that would make socialism evil.
This type of wilful ignorance is a prime example of the Confirmation Bias. However, it does not explain what comes next. While, according to the bias, people should actively ignore the text and refute its validity, they do the exact opposite. The people who should hate it instead use it as some sort of weapon, citing it in comparison to their current government and how the government, while actually not following any of the practises laid out in the book, is similar to the Thought Police.
What accounts for this phenomenon? People misrepresent what is actually contained within a piece of literature in order to push their own agenda. The only explanation that I can currently give for something of this nature is that it is because of the book's notoriety. Before the current generation of pseudo-Liberals and the New Left were even born, this book was hailed as a masterpiece and a very good representation of a controlling dystopia. This opinion filtered its way down, and was automatically accepted by these same people who would misrepresent the actual point made.
Then, the few who read the book (as I am very sure that many who would cite it have not actually delved into the text) noticed something distressing. The author slanders their precious ideal, and makes socialism out to be requiring some form of dictatorship! Why, this cannot be, as socialism is a pure ideal; everyone is free, while the state controls everything and is the greatest good. Yet here they were, being presented with the harsh reality of what a socialist state would amount to, and they could not handle it.
The automatic reaction should have been to completey throw out the book as the ignorant ramblings of someone who could never understand The Glory Of Socialism. But this could not be done. Did not many of the greatest philosophers and thinkers praise this book? How could this be if it was portraying socialism in a negative light?
And then it begins. Their mind slowly parses what has been written as actually showing what the influences of the right-wing and conservatism will do to socialism. Yes, obviously the restriction of freedoms is because of the corrupting influence of that. So they begin to believe it, and as they do, they begin to espouse this outright set of lies. And this misrepresentation becomes popular, as their 'choir' loathes anything against socialism. And then, eventually, the popular thought process becomes that 1984 is actually a pro-socialist, anti-conservative text, and is quoted as such.
This process is both fascinating, and horrifying. Because if it can happen to a simple piece of fiction, nothing more than a social commentary, then what's to prevent it happening to history? Indeed, has it already happened? Even now, the Nazi party is spoken of as being some form of right-wing, captialist pigs. Stalin's communism was actually not real communism, that's why it failed. The crusades were initially started by the Christians and were nothing more than a bloodthirsty war, for no real reason. These, and more, are the warped versions of history that are being pushed as being real; and they are accepted by the people as being true.
As you can see, what started as nothing more than a post on how a book can be twisted to serve a purpose far from what it has been intended has turned into something discussing the distortion of history itself. And I consider it a beautiful metaphor for the snowball effect that will take hold because of these distortions. My parting message is this: analyse everything for what it is. Throw out your preconceived notions, ignore the 'popular opinion', and see it for what it really is. Only then can we continue to preserve the truth in all its forms.