The COVID-19 pandemic and government lockdown have turned my leisure reading to old -almost a century old- science fiction/dystopian/horror novels, such as The Island of Doctor Moreau, Dracula and 1984. Looking back, I noticed a pattern in my choices: all these novels make references to religion and God, and the destiny of man, both as an individual and as a species.
Like Aldous Huxley, whose Brave New World is often compared with 1984, Orwell is no novelist, though brilliant essayists they may be. The plot and characters in their novels are so insipid that I can’t help wondering why they didn’t write an essay to make their point, but chose to write a novel instead. Characters in their novels seem to have no raison d’être whatsoever. Their supposedly tragic end evokes no sympathy nor pity in the reader, for they were never alive to begin with.
As Orwell writes, we know a society is dystopian, because we have a vision or memory of a normal society, just as we know a body is diseased, because we know how a healthy body functions. I suspect Orwell’s own preferred state is ultimately not that different from Oceania, the dystopian state he depicted in 1984. If Orwell had the super power to create a utopia with his imagination, I for one wouldn’t want to live in it, having already caught a glimpse of his notion of human nature.
Mass Surveillance
Mass surveillance was associated with Stalin’s totalitarian regime, but in fact it has been carried out in Europe and America too, as has become known. Personally, I think mass surveillance in and of itself is just as harmless as transparency. It becomes problematic and dangerous when the knowledge gained from such surveillance is controlled and utilized by a very small minority, without the oversight and consent of the majority. I wouldn’t mind if everything is brought out under the sun, it is what happens in the dark that worries me.
Thought Control
Thought control is far more dangerous than mass surveillance on many levels, partly because it is insidious. A whistleblower cane alert us to the reality of mass surveillance, but who can show us the deficiency and deformity of our thought world?
Tyrants have used various means of thought control throughout the history of mankind. I’m using the word “tyrant” in the Platonic sense, i.e., whoever doesn’t submit to reason is a tyrant onto himself and others. The most obvious type of thought control is violence: books are banned or burned, writers are exiled or executed, speakers are non-platformed and forced out of public square. A common type of thought control is deceit: bearing false witness, slandering, falsification of documents, falsification of history. The most insidious type is language control, as language is the necessary vehicle of thought, so manipulating language is the most effective and devastating way of thought control. It has the potential to transform human beings into beasts, no, even lower than beasts, when words have no correspondence with reality, they become meaningless, and thoughts become nothing but meaningless noise in people’s heads, like echoes in caves.
The End of Man
One interesting question Orwell raised in my mind is how to compare different societies or different states.
From an Aristotelian perspective, all things should be judged according to their purpose, their telos or raison d’être. For example, if a household object doesn’t serve the purpose for which it is made or purchased, it is no good. In his treatise On Kingship, Thomas Aquinas argues that a state should also be judged according to its end. Has it served the purpose for which its founders have built it? Has it served the citizens who have chosen to keep it in existence, abide with one another and abide by its laws?
To answer the question of the end of the state, one must first answer the question of the end of man. It is here that I find Orwell’s notion of human nature woefully deficient. Orwell’s man is a nowhere man. He lives for nothing and dies for nothing. He can’t complain of mistreatment by the dystopian state, because he has no notion of his just due. Even if he has some notion, it can be easily destroyed, for there is no ground for it outside of his feeble and fickle mind.
Related Posts: