1. Discuss how and why different audiences/readers may make different meanings of one text you have studied.
George Orwell’s dystopian narrative ‘1984’ can be interpreted in numerous ways due to differing historical contexts and cultural backgrounds in regards to political influences of differing governments. Orwell’s intent for his narrative ‘1984’ to serve as a warning to his readers towards the danger of totalitarianism and the possible consequences just after World War 2 can evoke different responses from various audience groups. To people living during a period in which tyranny was a reality, Orwell’s warning may evoke a response of fear and acknowledgement to the daunting reminder that communism could potentially become a driving force that permeates the way of life bringing about hardship and suffering. To others, such as modern readers in the 21st century, Orwell’s warning may simply be looked upon as a relic of the past with readers responding with a lack of understanding and appreciation of privileges granted to them. These numerous responses develop from different attitudes, values and beliefs promoted within differing contexts.
I think another point you could incorporate here is the way that the obedience/trust/distrust/relationship with politics was constructed in the text and in reality. Could people be drawing parallels even within democracy? I think that modern readers could possibly even gain more from this than the contemporaries. The New Yorker wrote this which might give you some ideas about how this relates to modern world! 
Vulnerable individuals living in the 20th century may have a greater understanding of Orwell’s warning about the danger of totalitarianism. Historically, tyranny was a reality in numerous countries such as Spain, Germany and the Soviet Union
At what point in history? "Historically" isn't succinct enough when we are dealing with contexts. . In these countries, people subjected to hunger and forced labor over time often began to accept their predicament as a normal aspect of life under a dictated reign in history. This is reflective of a passive attitude established in ‘1984’ to be one of obedience towards ultimate authority and the belief that citizens under a dictated should be subjected complete political power and authority regardless of personal will. This attitude and belief is often upheld by the majority of citizens in countries in which tyranny was prevalent during the 20th century and strongly resonates with the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin in particular. Joseph Stalin was a dictator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who ruled by terror and eliminated anyone who threatened his authority, changing the Soviet Union from a peasant society into an industrial and military superpower. Millions of his own citizens died under his brutal reign including millions of farmers who refused to cooperate with Stalin’s orders and were shot or exiled as punishment.
These last two sentences - no analysis, just description of context. I'm not sure how much of this your teacher wants you to give considering your response is supposed to respond to context, so perhaps see what your teacher thinks of this. In a HSC essay, if this sat on its own without being explicitly and immediately linked we would be suggesting it is wasted words. But, this is a different type of response and might warrant something else! This knowledge reinforces the passive attitude of obedience towards authority, the value of survival and the belief that absolute obedience will increase one’s chances of survival in a time of tyranny in history and in ‘1984’. The term totalitarianism is typically associated with tyranny and Stalin’s reign displays this idea clearly. Ultimately, the value of freedom and the value of life in the minds of individuals held captive by totalitarianism are eventually erased in ‘1984’. Eventually, citizens of Oceania only have one priority: to be obedient and survive. Orwell’s warning is therefore considered to be one of importance to individuals who fear the danger of communism being a potential driving force that permeates their own way of life bring about hardships and suffering as seen in Stalin’s reign. As a result, to individuals that are ‘free’ during a time of tyranny are motivated to value freedom and the ability to control their own lives. Furthermore, vulnerable people fearing the prospect of living under a dictated reign are likely to respond to Orwell’s warning with seriousness and fear.
On the contrary, individuals living in first world countries in the 21st century
are likely may to respond to Orwell’s warning with a lack of seriousness and appreciation towards privileges that are granted to them. Orwell’s warning can evoke such a response from this audience group because first world countries are typically associated with being a western country that is either capitalist or democratic in which numerous privileges are taken for granted as rights. Typically, first world countries in the 21st century provide its citizens with an unlimited access to universal freedoms and often govern using democracy. Furthermore, it is a assumed belief that people should have access to universal rights. It is from this belief that a spoilt and conceited attitude is established towards the value and belief of accessing these freedoms and rights.
Furthermore, communism is not perceived to be a driving force that can influence a modern reader’s way of life. It is instead considered to be a relic of the past rather than a pressing issue. I think that perhaps the "threat" of communism is a passed "threat." but I don't think communism in general is a relic of the past - and being specific about this is important because we are discussing context explicitly. Without a firsthand experience living under undesired situations such as under tyranny the true value of freedom, a submissive attitude to absolute authority and unrestrained beliefs cannot be fully appreciated without experiencing hardship and suffering. In addition, a modern reader’s possible lack of seriousness and fear towards Orwell’s warning in ‘1984’ reflects a mindset that pictures communism as a foreign idea will never happen in the reality and that freedoms are simply rights rather than privileges. As a result, a modern reader is likely to respond to Orwell’s warning to the danger of totalitarianism with a lack of seriousness and appreciation towards a wide access of numerous privileges due to a different cultural context.
I think your response can be broadened by reading the threat of totalitarianism beyond "communism" and instead just as totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can be aspired to outside of communism - and I think acknowledging this will expand your response. I suggested these two readings to broaden your perspective, thus richening your response. Reading One. Reading two. Furthermore, individuals whom lived in fear of oppression and tyranny stemmed from the aftermath of war and manipulation will inevitably respond towards Orwell’s dystopian narrative with seriousness and alertness as they are aware of the dangers and the suffering experienced by those oppressed by tyranny in neighbouring countries. As a result of contrasting historical and cultural contexts across various audience groups and individuals, responses and meanings towards Orwell’s warning in the narrative ‘1984’ are distinctly differ. The contrasting values, beliefs and attitudes promoted within varying contexts can influence and shape one’s interpretation of a text.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only) (Read 603441 times)