Love will tear us apart

I couldn't resist talking about my least favorite passage in the whole book, one from the very end, so if you haven't finished the book yet stop now. 

This passage gets at what I consider to be the most fundamental value to absolutely everything - life, government, relationships, etc. Winston has been held in the Ministry of Love for what seems like ages. His sanity and health have relinquished him, leaving only his dearest beliefs. When nothing seems to break him but physical torture, O'Brian decides to put him to the ultimate test: room 101. Winston is about to face the greatest fear imaginable, but the book breaks from this for some interjection. I didn't believe the book when it spelled it out. I didn't want to at least. But he betrayed her. Love tore him apart.

There was never a time in Winston's memorable live where he was happier than when he loved her. There was never a time when he lacked more emotions for live than when he didn't love her. As Vonnegut says, what about such an apathetic existence could be considered life? I believe that one of the major themes of the book is the important's of such a degree of loyalty, not loyalty to a greater power, but to an equal. Throughout the book, the ever-propagating idea that subordination to the state is the only thing to live for is always correlated to Winston's unease with the state. The message is that human companionship - whether between friends or coworkers or lovers - should never be sacrificed for anything. Take the scene with Winston eating lunch with his coworkers. Every apparent detail Orwell wanted to point out is an explicit reference to this fundamental idea. Or the entire notion that children should be taught to betray their parents. Or even Winston's final memory of his mother, you know, the really emotional survival of the fittest scene. Compassion for others is a value that will lead to a greater sense of satisfaction and pleasure than its self-absorbed antithesis, shown in the passage and taught by Big Brother. This antithesis shows that Winston broke down to wanting only what directly interests him: instant gratification at the expense of others. I believe that if his greatest fear was a loss of his relationship with Julia, something incomparable to the tangible "fears" they torture people with in room 101, he would be, in Vonnegut's sense, alive.

Consumerism is another kind of big-brotherly love. A kind of lonely but hedonistic pleasuring love, apparent in the title of this article I found searching google for love. Since the dawn of the 20th century, the ever-growing "love" for brands and products has become a commonplace phenomena. The idea that a self-interested company, one founded for the purpose of profits by any means able, should be trusted above all else is our world's realization of 1984's Big Brother.

Handy-caps

The things that the government would handy-cap me for would be my hearing and speaking. I tend to have a greater ear for listening to specific types of sounds and pitches. I also usually show more coherence and comprehensiveness in my public speaking than many others. For this, the government would implement some sort of mechanism to my jaw to disable me from being able to articulate so many things I would wish to say, so that those who naturally talk at a similar rate to this would feel as though there is a more level playing field.  The government would also embed by ears with some sort of device to block out sound frequently enough so that I have a hard time hearing.

Propaganda: can it be a good thing?

Propaganda: can it be a good thing?

If someone or some institution is spreading propaganda, then chances are it's probably helping then. The motivations to create propaganda are usually goals or problems achieved or helped with propaganda's end result. The only time propaganda could be bad for anything is when those goals aren't aligned with the purpose of those institution's or person's that's spreading it. Propaganda could still be bad for anyone who doesn't share those goals; in general it's bad for the people affected by it, but beneficial to the one propagating it.

In America, the people have made it pretty clear in the Declaration of Independence that liberty is our highest cultural value. But what if that value was for a government to be sustainable, or stagnant, or powerful? It would make sense for these types of government to propagate ideas or lies in order to achieve that goal. Am I advocating these immoral dystopian societies? No, but it merely make sense for these types of places to be filled with propaganda.  In our own society, it would be deconstructive for the government to create some type of misinforming propaganda, but how about just an individual politician or group of politicians? Would it be good for them to propagate something for their goals using the government as a means? Even though their goals could be completely separate to the government's, it would still be good for them. However, politicians taking office only for their own benefit is very against (although very prominent) our government's existence; so yes, it would be bad for the government.

Propaganda being good or bad all relies on the goals of those creating it and those affected by it. In some cases, it could help both. But to answer the question of "When is it bad", it's bad for either party when the intent of the propaganda isnt aligned with their own goals.