1984 discussion

[bec]

What do you think of this quote:
"Where there is equality there can be sanity." (p229)

It makes perfect sense when you read it once but the more I look at it the more I realise I don't understand it.

Why should sanity be dependent on equality?

[lishan515]

Winston is constantly worried that he is a "minority of one" - a "lunatic"
He creates an axiom: if 2 + 2 = 4 then everything else follows - hence the freedom to speak the truth - a fixed unalterable fact
I don't have my text on me but there is a debate about the nature of the Party - as a "collective solipsism" - that is basically "we think therefore we are" vs "I think therefore I am" and basically means that the Party creates a constructed truth and if everyone believes what the party things then it becomes fact.
Hence the idea of "where there is equality there can be sanity" - that freedom of thought etc allows the individual to rise above the collective INsanity of the party
As O'brien later says - if he says he is floating and Winston thinks he is floating then he is floating
- reality is thus suggested to be constructed internally => and thus if the party "control the matter inside the skull" they control reality

I think that is why Winston says sanity is depedant on equality (/I hope the above makes sense)

[bec]

Nice, lishan.
Is equality really synonomous with freedom, or solidarity though?
The Party has constructed a reality with the "collective solipsism" paradigm but even if they are "insane" (although they construct the society so that the only "sanity" is that which is believed by the "immortal, collective brain")  what has that got to do with equality?
Reading it again, I think they are referring to the proles: there can't be sanity unless the proles rebel, and there is therefore societal equality.
Does that sound right?

[lishan515]

Ah that is a good point.

I think therefore you are on the right track with the idea about the proles.

Winston thinks that: "the proles and animals are free'; the proles are human and Party members are not
Hence the proles could represent humanity while the dehumanising effect of totalitarianism brings inhumanity and consequently lack of sanity.
The proles live mostly free lives in that they are allowed to retain traditional loyalties (such as a family unit), have traditional morality (ie they are horrified by violence), have access to memory (although as is evident with the Prole in the bar - like with anybody memory is unreliable) and do not live in constant fear (beyond the fear of bombs exploading)

As for the notion of equality: it could be literal equality (ala pure socialism; clearly INGSOC - isn't pure socialism); it could mean equality before the law; equality in taxation etc or the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4.

I think equality and freedom are intricately linked - although by no means are they synonymous.

Orwell when he is writing this text is disillusioned with all political systems - he was once a communist - yet he is concerned by Russia and Stalin and the nature of a society controlled by a small group of people  

In terms of the statement: I think it suggests that sanity cannot persist under an authoritarian state as individuals lose rights... but as you say (and I agree) if the party becomes the "immortal, collective brain" - the individual is forced to stand up against it and individual sanity can be considred insanity => "a flaw in the pattern"

I agree to a certain extent to your statement that "there can't be sanity unless the proles rebel and there is therefore societal equality"

However I think that it wouldn't be the proles who will rebel - but internal corruption
This idea is discussed in the the Book and in the political act contained within sex => that natural instincts etc will corrupt
Also the idea that power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely) - ACTON
and thus natural insticts etc will not a allow a state completely based on hatred to persist
But then again I think O'brien - is so convincing and the fact that they can manipulate the internal thought processes - make this seem really remote...

What do you think of the appendix?

Anyway - hehe my 1984 revision for the day

[bec]

I agree with everything you said, pretty much.

There are a couple of things I don't agree with about the proles though - you talked about how proles are free. I know Winston says this, but I don't think readers are supposed to agree with him - we are meant to see (I think) that Winston sees what they have as freedom because he himself is so oppressed, and, in comparison, they are free. And indeed they might THINK they are, because they "are not permitted to have standards of comparison [so] they never even become aware that they are oppressed", but they aren't. The most symbolic part is when Winston watches the red-armed prole woman singing, but even though singing is so indicative of freedom, she is singing a song written by the Party. Her freedom is like a "subset" of real freedom, if you want to put it that way, because her life is so restricted by the Party.

Also, you said that proles are horrified by violence. Are they? I had a look in the book and I couldn't see any evidence, would you be able to post it up if you have a quote or something? They don't seemed too fazed by the bombs that are constantly exploding around them, so maybe they are desensitised?

I like your theories on how or if the Party will be overthrown! I think it probably can't be ("the party is invincible" and all that jazz) but at the same time, there are little references to internal corruption, like Julia's claim to have slept with 100s of party members. So as you suggested, sex could be Party's downfall - hence their conscious decision to try to eradicate it.

This is good, a good way to revise - other people who are reading this and not posting, add your bit!

Edit: I forgot to ask, Lishan, what do you think is good about the appendix?

[lishan515]

See I disagree re the idea of them not having freedom
I think as with all things it is a relative concept 

Comparatively they are free – as you note possibly their freedom is accentuated because of the Party’s own oppression

I think I mean in respects to freedom a more personal type of freedom versus a political one; the Proles are essentially allowed to live their own lives albeit superficial ones (the lottery = the focus of debate and tin saucepans => really mundane focus- which is probably due to lack of education and enforced poverty)

The idea of family I think is the most potent difference – and I think it is freedom to form such bonds which make them “free” as such
Winston, I think sees something heroic in the idea of family – I think because of his own memories and shame and because he yearns human interaction and someone he can talk to (ie O’Brien becomes that someone when he becomes both torturer and friend)
The Prole woman is allowed to sing in a unrestrained manner similar to the Thrush in the woods => her voice, like the Birds is a curiosity to Winston as he is forced to monitor his facial expressions so as to not show any hint of discontent

As for the lack of standard of comparison idea – it is true books have been censored but I think there is suggestion made that there current situation is similar to the situation before – the lower classes during the 1930/40s were in dire poverty which was accentuated by the war

The example of horrification of violence is in Winston’s first diary entrance and the image of the explosion – chapter I or II 
There is a prole woman who screams out something like this is not right (again my book is not near me) - and Winston and the Party members excuse it because she is a prole
And I would agree the whole aim of the war is to desensitise them to violence/ place all Oceania in perpetual fear and evoke the necessary “patriotism” when required

The torture scene is so convincing – you really get hung up about and believe O’Brien
I think however you fall into a trap
Clearly Winston cannot be the “only man in Europe” => as clearly he can’t be the only one with rebellious thoughts
- if he was – then what’s the point of newspeak and surveillance
And the fact that you have someone like Julia who has access to the black market and that in the relationship the power of the party is completely disregarded means that the ancestral instincts will take over

Re the appendix: I don’t how to take it. My teacher claims it is part of the text. It describes the language and talks about 2050 and uses a past tense – hence I wonder whether subtly he is suggestion that the Party cannot last due to the inevitability of violence and hatred to destroy itself…

I don’t know just a thought

[Faraz]

I actually believe that yes there are others in the outer party that have committed "thoughtcrime"

But not many have the balls that Winston had.
Both Julia and Winston are rebels and (both have balls) but we can see how having balls impacts their lives. Winston constantly thinks about the down fall of Big Brother, Julia on the other hand just cares for what affects her, and the party had not stopped her from doing what she loved "sex".

But we can ask our selves why wasn't Winston unpersoned like all the others?

And the answer is that he was unique, he was one of the kind. Not that O'brien cared for him and all that jazz, why would he? he didn't even know Winston, and having a glass of real wine wouldn't make much difference either.

Winston was unique to the party just like the last three survivors of the original party.

Syme for example was intelligent and most likely had committed thoughtcrime, but he was unpersoned. Not released like Winston.

[transgression]

But not many have the balls that Winston had.

What sets Julia and Winston 'above all else' (or so to speak), is their ability to rebel and with a clear conscience of doing so - of knowing that what they are doing is wrong. Whilst, others like Parson dislike the Party but do not have the capability of rebelling. An example of this is when Parson shouts, "down with BB" in his sleep, without realising he did, and then praising his daughter for turning him in. This symbolises the extent of the dire totalitarian system, and how even the most fervent party members do not, and can not get away.

But we can ask our selves why wasn't Winston unpersoned like all the others?

I believe that Party allowed Winston to continue his rebellion, and his forbidden lustful relationship with Julia, to put in his 'mind' a sense of "hope". The comparison to the bleak setting and the golden country, the new wonderful changes that occur when he meets Julia paves way for this to unfold. But when all this is suddenly taken away from him, it creates a sense of doubt, and therefore, restricts Winston to believe that there could be anyone that can overtake the party.

However, another reason is for the Party to learn more about Winston, and what he ultimately wants to achieve. Sure, Mr. Charrington knew about the diary, and O'Brien knew about his eager want of alliance with the Brotherhood, but they didn't really know what he, Winston, wanted to achieve.
Also, during this time, the Party learns more about Winston. For example, they learn that he is frightened of rats, and therefore use it against him. They didn't and wouldn't have known this, otherwise.

"Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree"
I think he was not vaporised in order to remind him of what he had down. Take note of when the three traitors, Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford, broke down when they heard this song through the telescreen. Winston also broke down in tears when he heard this song playing in the chestnut tree cafe.
In a way, the chestnut tree represents the Party, and how it is "spreading" their force onto the the people - which in turn, reflects that no one can escape.

[transgression]

Re the appendix: I don’t how to take it. My teacher claims it is part of the text. It describes the language and talks about 2050 and uses a past tense – hence I wonder whether subtly he is suggestion that the Party cannot last due to the inevitability of violence and hatred to destroy itself…

I believe it's part of the text. To sum up the appendix: without language, individuals will not have the appropriate words to match up to their feelings or thoughts, thus restricts any form of rebelling

"Where there is equality there can be sanity."

majority = equality = sanity, but Winston is just a "lonely ghost uttering a truth no one would ever hear", = insanity, because he is not the majority.