Another Look at Orwell’s 1984
A closer look at the resurgence of 1984 after the NSA scandals and older ideas.
That whole NSA thing got swept under the rug real quick, huh?
Who still remembers Edward Snowden? Where’s that guy living again?
I think it’s time for us to revisit some of the dystopian elements of 1984 and see if they still interface with our society.
I’ve heard somewhere that Orwell predicted that we’d all be monitored by video cameras, but that he couldn’t predict that we’d do it out of our own free will, or our botched healthcare system.
With that, let’s start thinking about some of these ideas.
Introduction
The book, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity by author Richard Rorty offers an ambivalent account of liberal ironism with its resignation over the reality that the world we live is made of contingencies of which we have little or no control over.
Furthermore, the work continues to crusade against ‘foundationalism’ or the notion that our beliefs, behaviors, and beliefs are founded on and justified by reference to some rock-bottom beliefs that can never be doubted or questioned. Rorty also offers a brilliant and fresh reinterpretation of the George Orwell’s 1984 (which remains a central figure in modern politics), especially regarding chapter 8 on O’Brien.
This article argues that Rorty uses the relationship between O’Brien and Winston to demonstrate to us that there may be no objective truth out there in the world and that the truth and moral fact can be changed by power.
O’Brien and Winston
In Orwell’s 1984, O’Brien is portrayed as a mysterious figure throughout the novel. Winston, the protagonist of the book, describes O’Brien as a big and brutally-faced man. He feels that he has a connection with O’Brien, who convinces him that he against the Party and is part of the Brotherhood. Winston views O’Brien as a great leader who is opposed to the Party and believes him by following his gut. The author leads us to believe that the two characters are the same only that O’Brien has the courage to take action and make a change.
However, we discover in Book Three that O’Brien is not a member of the Brotherhood but that he has, in fact, led Winston to believe in him and his ideas.
In this regard, O’Brien is not on Winston’s side as we thought he was. The narrator tells us that Winston thinks,
“O’Brien was a being in all ways larger than himself [Winston].” But despite this feeling, we also that Winston believes that “[O’Brien] was the tormenter, he was the protector, he was the inquisitor, and he was the friend” (Orwell & Dunster, 2012; p. 79).
Winston seems to have an ambivalent relationship with O’Brien. He has a lot of respect for him, but he also despises him the same way he despises the Inner Party. As the narrator tells us, Winston, therefore, has mixed emotions towards O’Brien.
On the other hand, it is difficult to tell what O’Brien thinks of Winston. Most of the book does not reveal any important view that he may have about Winston. O’Brien seems to show some indifference towards Winston. There is an instance where O’Brien feels he should change Winston, but he shows some admiration for him.
Winston hears a voice murmuring in his ear,
“Don’t worry, Winston; you are in my keeping. For seven years I gave watched over you. I shall save you; I shall make you perfect” (Orwell & Dunster, 2012; p. 92).
This statement reveals that O’Brien thinks that Winston has something special. O’Brien wants to take more time so that he can change Winston to the core of his existence. Perhaps this is the reason why he tortures Winston so that he can change his beliefs completely.
Truth, Cruelty, and Moral Facts
Rorty uses the relationship between O’Brien and Winston to demonstrate to us that there may be no objective truth out there in the world. The central notion that Rorty is putting forth about the relationship between the two characters is whether there is something that is, in fact, true, as compared to what we merely deem to be true or seems to be true.
Rorty asserts that he does not think that there are any plain moral truths in the world. There are no:
“…truths independent of language, nor any neutral ground on which to stand and argue that either torture or kindness are preferable to the other. (Rorty, 1989; p. 173).
Rorty is arguing that the liberal argument that cruelty or torture is evil may not necessarily be true. According to him, moral truth is a relative concept about which everybody has his or her definition and beliefs.
Through O’Brien’s interaction with Winston, Rorty believes that the same ideas or things that make human equality a reality are the same ones that can lead us to endless slavery. He states that what years of philosophy, history, science, and poetry hold to be true may not necessarily be true.
Rorty writes that what we see as “crazy, misguided, seduced by a mistaken theory, or blind to the moral facts” may not be dangerous and immoral but possible (Rorty, 1989; p. 174). O’Brien’s intelligence and intellectual skill, which would have otherwise been a tool for achieving good, can also be used to commit unspeakable things.
We only perceive by relying on the years of ‘foundational’ traditions and beliefs that it is so. But despite our beliefs, we cannot be certain that this is, in fact, so. In this sense, Rorty argues that the O’Brien-Winston relationship shows that the same things that give us human equality can also lead to human slavery.
According to Rorty, the truth is something that can be changed as we can be conditioned to believe anything. Torturers, such as O’Brien, can transform the truth or moral fact into anything by transforming the person, such as Winston, into anything. O’Brien seeks to change the core of Winston into something that Winston cannot recognize.
The point is to torture him so much that he can believe whatever O’Brien wants him to believe.
Rorty states that the worst thing one can do to another is not to inflict so much pain on them that they scream, but to inflict such pain in a way that “she cannot reconstitute herself” even when the agony is over (Rorty, 1989; p. 178).
The idea, according to Rorty, is to get her to say or do things, believe, and desire things.
You take their ability to use define and recognize truth for herself. In the process, you take away her humanity, and you transform her into an empty shell with which you can put whatever ideas and thoughts you desire. In this sense, as we see in O’Brien’s torture of Winston, the truth can be altered.
Whether Winston Could Have Done Better
I do not think that Winston could have held out better than he did because endless torture had caused him to be irrational and fearful. The reason is that the period he stayed at the Ministry of Love had shattered his mind and will. Even though he loves the Big Brother so much that his love precludes his personal needs, he still believes that the Party will kill him.
This death wish may mean that the central characteristic of Winston is his fatalism. The implication of this fatalism is that Winston rebels against the Party not because he wants to gain freedom, but because he desires the party to kill him. Though this notion may go against Orwell’s political intent for 1984, as it makes it irrelevant, it may explain why Winston does not hold out better than he did.
The philosophical importance of the reason why Winston could not hold out better is that physical pain can override human reason. Winston cannot think when he is faced with the swarm of rats that were released to devour his face.
The fact that Winston betrays Julia as soon as he professes his love for her demonstrates the idea that physical danger overrides rational thinking. Orwell seems to suggest that the concept of physical control is used by the Party to manipulate its subjects.
Since the Party has shown Winston that he is a prisoner of his body and nervous system, he cannot think or rebel. In that instance, he acts without the use of his brain as he uses the human instinct of self-preservation. He cannot do better than he did.
Whether One Can Maintain Freedom
One cannot maintain some form of freedom even in the most extreme danger. Physical danger, as Orwell seems to suggest, can make one lose their rational thinking. When faced with extreme harm, our minds lose their ability to think. Danger forces a person to accept and even believe incoherent ideas and falsehoods.
Everything becomes relative.
One can pull a mind apart and then place it aback together in new ways or shapes that one chooses. It is the breaking and the pulling apart that is important in the case of extreme danger and pain.
The torturer, through physical pain, creates the world where truth and identity are controlled by power. Goodness is made through inflicting pain to ensure that the torturer’s deepest desires are realized.
In 1984, O’Brien pushed Winston to the point where he lost any ounce of freedom that he may have. Making him believe that two and two equal five, for example, demonstrates to us that Winston had completely lost his freedom of the mind.
Rorty asserts that the belief that two plus two equals five is meant to act as the same breaking device as that of making him momentarily desire that the rats devour Julia’s face instead of his own (Rorty, 1989; p. 176). However, if the willpower of the victim is strong enough to be able to continue to think, he or she remains with their freedom, and the torturer loses.
The relevance of this answer is that the concept of freedom can change depending on the circumstances. In this sense, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. Freedom is relative, and the human body may sometimes overpower the human will.
Concluding Remarks
Richard Rorty’s 1989 book, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity defends liberal individualism and ‘ironism.’ it also offers an ambivalent account of liberal ‘ironism’ with its resignation over the reality that the world we live is made of contingencies of which we have little or no control over.
Rorty also offers a brilliant and fresh reinterpretation of the George Orwell’s 1984, which remains a central figure in modern politics.
The two characters, Winston and O’Brien, have a relationship that is both characterized by mutual respect and disdain. Rorty uses the relationship between O’Brien and Winston to demonstrate to us that there may be no objective truth out there in the world and that the truth and moral fact can be changed by power.
PS: If you’ve enjoyed my work and want to support me, you can become a Medium member using my link for a relatively low cost of $5 or so per month!
Further Readings
Orwell, G., & Dunster, M. (2012). George Orwell’s 1984. London: Oberon Books Ltd.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University press.
