Historical context of 1984

1984 is one of the most visionary, compelling novels of the 20th Century. It still holds tremendous influence today among a broad swath of the liberally educated. 1984 resonates with fiction writers, politicians, and journalists alike. Fiction writers are drawn to its visceral, compelling image of a dystopian future, politicians to its various political messages, and journalists to its focus on the state's control of information.

The least visible fanbase for 1984, however, are historians. A discussion of history is often included in evaluations of the novel, especially by journalists and politicians. However, 1984 deserves an evaluation focused primarily on its historical context. Thesis: 1984, inspired by Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, illustrates the most disturbing political trends of its time, the forces that dominate our conception of world history. 1984's greatest value, though, is in its penetration to the forces shaping history, the corruption of human reason in pursuit of a perfect world.

Background

World War II

World War II demonstrated the catastrophic danger of industrialized nations empowered by technology in their pursuit of power and profit. Europe's wars were caused by Nationalism, the extreme advocacy for the interests of one's own nation over all other nations. Nationalism often expressed itself through the maneuvering of each European nation for power, a struggle which expressed itself first through economic competition and often ended in military conflict. Peace between these nations was maintained precariously through a complex set of treaties and alliances meant to establish a balance of power. (Mowat, 121-22)

The German nation outgrew the balance of power in the early 20th Century and the breakdown of this system led to World War I. (Mowat, 153). Germany's eventual defeat in World War I caused much popular resentment among Germans, promoting the rise of the highly nationalistic, right-wing, and Facist Nazi party in Germany the 1920's and 1930's. (Mowat, 486-87). The Nazi party eventually embroiled Germany in World War II, causing the allied nations, including the U.K. France, the U.S., and even Communist Russia, to fight Germany once again. (Mowat,492-94). Nazi Germany was not alone, however, as it was joined by other Axis powers, mainly a Fascist Italy under Mussolini, pursuing a New Roman Empire, and an ever-authoritarian Imperial Japan pursuing hegemony in Asia. (Mowat, 502; 691;709).

Nazi Germany was, as were the other Axis powers, effective at controlling and channeling the attention and energy of the German populace through authoritarian rule, generally termed as Totalitarianism. Totalitarian rule in Nazi Germany relied particularly on state-guided propaganda and suppression of political rivals. (Mowat, 496-497). Fascist Spain, under Francisco, also implemented a Totalitarian system of governance. Some actually delighted at the efficiency of Totalitarian rule in Italy, giving rise to the popular observation that "When Mussolini was in power, the trains always ran on time." (Mowat, 495)

The deadly efficiency of Totalitarian rule, however, was unable to cover the huge promises that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy made to their populaces in their respective rise to power. These promises of national elevation, exemplified by the Nazi rhetoric of Germany's long-deserved and long-denied "place in the sun," required the Germans to conquer or perish. (Mowat, 497). The Nazis knew that they steal global hegemony from Great Britain, though it sought to delay British entry into the war for as long as possible.

Great Britain supported its waning hegemony with strong friendships developed during World War I. Its major World War I ally, France, was ever eager to secure military support from Great Britain because it was Germany's most hated political adversary. (Mowat, 687; 709). Its other major ally, the United States, was distant, isolationist, and out of Germany's military reach, meaning it had little to lose from non-involvement and little to gain from involvement. (Mowat, 802). From the perspective of the Nazis, educated in realist political theory, this made it doubtful that the U.S. would enter the war.

Germany knew that direct U.S. involvement in the War would make a German victory virtually impossible and hoped that the U.S. would stay out of the war, which it did for the entire first half of the war. (Mowat, 801). Even when the U.S. decided to enter the war in 1942 in order to preserve the current global power structure, the Nazis chose to have Germany fight a futile battle, rather than admitting its inability to fulfill its promises of German hegemony. (Mowat,780; 802). Such an admission would have resulted in the Nazi's fall from power in Germany.

The Aftermath of World War II

Although the Allied powers defeated the Totalitarian Axis powers in World War II, this did not spell the end of Totalitarianism. In the after math of World War II, Totalitarianism survived through one of the major Allied powers itself, Russia. (Mowat, 818). The Communist party in Russia did not intend to gain power under Lenin through Totalitarian rule as Fascist Germany and Italy did. (Mowat, 433-34). Rather, in its implementation of Communism in a hostile diplomatic environment, Russia, under Stalin, adopted Totalitarian rule as an aid to achieving Communist rule. (Mowat, 445-46; 454).

The Totalitarian Potential of Communism and Socialism

The ideological founder of Communism, Karl Marx, believed that society evolved through a progression of 4 discrete stages. First is the Tribal stage, where property is owned and tilled communally by extended family units. This is followed by the Feudal stage, where property is owned by a few individuals who compel the property-less to till the land for them. This is followed by the Capitalist stage, where the property-owners (those possessing the means of production, e.g. A factory) compelled the property-less (those without the means of production) to work for wages. This is followed by the final stage, the Communist stage, where all property, and its bounty, is collectively owned by all individuals and administered through the state. (Singer, 12)

With his theory of social evolution established, Marx predicted intense class struggle and revolution resulting in the collapse of the capitalistic system through society's abandonment of individual property ownership. (Singer, 12). The new political order and source of authority would be People's Committees. However, the potential for People's Committees to become Totalitarian through concentration of power in certain offices. Such a dynamic was not sufficiently provided for at the time Lenin started his Communist revolution in Russia in 1919.

The aforementioned potential for Totalitarian rule is indicative of Communalist social organization in general, including non-Communist forms of Socialism. The replacement of the old, self-interested Capitalist political authority with a Communalist structure of political authority, entrusted to watch over and make decisions for the welfare of society at large, produces an overreliance on the sole source of political authority and also leaves a lack of avenues for dissent. This is the reason that so many Socialist and Communist political authorities who take power as representatives of society at large devolve into Totalitarian regimes, where the decisions are made among secret power circles at the top. (Mowat, 446; 453-44).

The Rationalization of Individuals and the Bureaucratization of Modern Society

Unlike Marx, Weber believed that money, or "class" as he defined it, was just one of three factors, along with status and power, which determine social relationships and authority within a society. (Merton, R. 195) Weber predicted that the modern society, even Capitalist society, would promote increasing rationalization in the individual's experience with her environment. (Merton, R. 202). This was a result of the decline of the traditional channels of social authority, such as religious institutions, and their replacement by reason, or more accurately, rationalization, in guiding the individual's actions.

In modern society, the individual's behavior is increasingly motivated by rational goals influenced by organizational interests, such as efficiency, over traditional factors such as kinship (familial authority) or moral conventions (religious authority). (Merton, R. 203) Weber believed that this rationalization would lead to a bureaucratization of society, where individuals guide their actions through the rational calculation of objectives and the means to achieve those objectives. Weber believed that the institutions that such individuals tend to form will embody their own rationalist perspectives, producing a bureaucratization of society.

The bureaucratization of society produces new types of institutions, such as corporations and government bureaucracies, which maintain authority because they are perceived as the optimal means of achieving the societal objectives of economic growth and law and order. This can be seen in the proliferation and expansion of government bureaucracies, exemplified by the alphabet soup agencies of the New Deal and the various national security bureaucracies, such as the C.I.A. And the N.S.A. created immediately after World War II.

This tendency towards rationalization is also demonstrated in the selection of the "Best and the Brightest" leadership class and their idolatry of statistics. The Nation's "Best and the Brightest" were selected according to their academic and professional achievements and were appointed to key leadership positions in the growing government bureaucracies of the time. (Halberstam, Chapter 19-20) Such a tendency towards rationalization led to the appointment of a successful auto executive, Robert McNamara, as the U.S. Secretary of Defense. (Halberstam, Chapter 20). McNamara chose to escalate the war, focusing on the body count to measure the progress of the war instead of U.S. progress in achieving its ultimate military and political objectives. (Halberstam, Chapter 22).

Orwell's Experiences During the Interwar period and World War II

Orwell, an English native, was a promising intellect educated at elite educational institutions such as Eton. (40). Despite his sterling educational credentials, Orwell chose to work as a colonial police officer in Burma, where he first witnessed the brutal policing power an authoritarian political regime and its effects on citizens. (Taylor, 92). This regime was his own Britain's exploitative and authoritarian colonial governance in the British profitable, but peaceful colony of Burma. (Taylor, 97).

Orwell left Burma and Imperial service because of sickness, making a more unstructured life for himself in England as a journalist. (Taylor, 119). He lived, as a journalist in disguise, among the working class in the slums of London as well and marginalized coal miners in northern England, where he witnessed the brutal effects of Capitalist exploitation. (Taylor, 175). This experience caused him to alter his political position, now supporting democratic socialism instead of the Capitalist-dominated liberal democracies familiar to him . (Taylor, 192)When Orwell arrived in Spain to report on the Spanish Civil War in 1936, he witnessed the numerous injustices committed, quite routinely, by the Fascist, Totalitarian regime. (Taylor, 224-225). Orwell started to develop the notion that such atrocities were not the exception, but rather the rule for Totalitarian regimes.

The Writing of 1984

The rise of dictators such in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia/Soviet Union reminded Orwell of his experiences in Totalitarian Spain. Orwell's second-hand knowledge of these regimes, through periodicals and historical literature, confirmed the impression of Totalitarianism developed through Orwell's actual experience. (Taylor, 267). This synthesis of knowledge cultivated a political paranoia in Orwell, inspiring him to imagine a terrible future for the world under Totalitarian rule. (Taylor, 292-293). This visions was illustrated in 1984, which he wrote at the outset of the Cold War in 1949.

With 1984, Orwell intended to write a terrifying dystopian novel, wishing to illustrate the worst imaginable consequences of modern social and political trends such as Totalitarianism. It was meant to alert readers to the continued threat of authoritarian rule in their own nations, even though its most dangerous model, Nazi Germany, had fallen. . (Taylor, 292; 342). Orwell wanted to convey the dangers of absolute political authority in general, especially in an age of advanced technology.

Analysis

Totalitarianism and the Policing Powers of the State

The ruling party of Oceania is clearly modeled on the Communist party of the Soviet Union. The Party is presented as a communalist political authority composed of its constituents, society's laborers, and working in the service of its constituents. In other words, the party is supposed to be the very embodiment of its constituency, literally and figuratively.

Just as communalism led to totalitarianism in the Soviet Union, the communalist Party apparatus in 1984 produces totalitarianism. The Party's hierarchical organization, with low-ranking members and high-ranking members, determined on the basis of their qualifications, service, and commitment, is a direct allusion to the party apparatus of the Russian and Soviet Communist parties. (Ch. 1, p. 6). Similarly, the hierarchical organization of Oceania's ruling party leads to a concentration of decision-making power and knowledge at the secretive upper echelons, leaving low-ranking members like Winston without knowledge or input. (Ch. 17, p. 121). This is demonstrated by Winston's ignorance of important Party operations, which eventually led to Winston's capture. (Ch. 18, p. 138).

The basic methods by which the Party controls the populace is inspired by Nazi Germany's own methods of Totalitarian rule. This is represented in Oceania by the policing powers of the state run by the Party. (Ch. 18, p. 136). It is most visible to American readers through the lack of due process of law enforced by a judiciary with certain powers and authority over the executive and legislative branches, exemplified as O'Brien's role as Ministry employee, spy, torturer, and judge of Winston's fate. (Ch. 19, p. 142; Chapter 20, p.158).

The Party's policing powers were also exemplified in its formation of a special police force to monitor the political opinions and actions of its citizens, the "Thought Police." (Ch. 1, p. 2). Orwell's "Thought Police" was no doubt inspired by Nazi Germany's own Gestapo, which was authorized to investigate cases of treason, espionage, and sabotage on the state of Germany and on the Nazi Party itself. (Mowat, 496). The Gestapo operated without judicial oversight, just as the Thought Police did. (Ch. 2, p. 15; Mowat, 496). O'Brien's imprisonment and torture of Winston without judicial review mirrors the Gestapo's practice of Schutzhaft, where imprisoned people without judicial proceedings using the legal procedure of "protective custody." (Ch. 19, p. 142; Mowat, 497).

Technology, Rationalization, and Bureaucratization

According to Orwell, Totalitarian rule will be enhanced by the technological advances of the future. For instance, the Party is able to monitor its citizens more effectively through telescreens, less demanding to operate than in-person monitoring. (Ch. 1, p. 2). The telescreens are not only meant for detection, they also promote deterrence by engendering a feeling among citizens that they are always being watched, expressed by the ubiquitous slogan, "Big Brother is Watching You." (Ch. 1, p. 1-2). Moreover, because of the party's control of technological innovations, citizens would rightly suspect that the monitoring technology revealed to them, e.g. telescreens, is likely not the only means of technology-enabled monitoring.

The party's monitoring activities are accomplished not only through high-tech methods like telescreens, but also through old-fashioned spying. Moles like O-Brien, a powerful party member who indicates that he is a covert operative for the Brotherhood, turns out to be loyal to the party after all, presenting himself as a possible covert operative in order to lure possible rebels like Winston. (Ch. 18, p. 138). The Party also used a network of informers, such as the seemingly senile shopkeeper Mr. Charrington, from whom Winston rents a room on top of the shop. (Ch. 16, p. 104-5).

In 1984, the cult of personality which characterizes the most enduring totalitarian regimes, such as Lenin's, Mao's, or the Roman Caesars, is employed in the service "Big Brother." The substitution of actual persons for a faceless, anonymous "Big Brother" represents the bureaucratic and communalist progression of Totalitarianism. In Oceania, the Party coerced the populace's adulation, trust, and loyalty towards "Big Brother." (Orwell, Chapter 1, p. 8-9). There were even "…demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week." (Ch. 5/p.32). This cult of personality was meant to secure the authority of the communally-composed and communally-oriented Party, symbolically represented as the faceless, powerful, benevolent, and vengeful "Big Brother." Even Winston, the dissenter, admits that, at times, "Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock against the hordes of Asia…" (Ch. 1, p.8).