1. The date 1984 has now past. There has been no Third World War, no Western Revolution, and totalitarian systems are not more but less common than fifty years ago. Given this, to what extent is Nineteen Eighty- Four still valid as a piece of satire and allegory?
It is inevitable that this question could become just a discussion of contemporary politics and society rather than of the literature of the novel itself. Try and look for constant themes of human experience within Nineteen Eighty-Four: Winston's struggle with the nature of reality and perception; the power of torture on the human mind; the nature of love against oppression; the yearning after a Golden Country.
Try to avoid too much of the application of the ideas within the book to a conspiracy theory reading of the modern world. Nothing can change the fact that it was written when it was, and without the benefit of clairvoyance. With this caveat in mind, there are certain aspects of the modern world that Orwell's satire can still throw light on:
Traditional totalitarianism regimes still do exist, even if they are becoming the exception rather than the rules, and Orwell's perceptions apply to any regime which seeks to confine individual liberty on any level.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was written from within a capitalist system that Orwell also criticised throughout his life. Advanced capitalism holds within itself elements of totalitarianism: the pervasive collusion of nations in the colonisation, exploitation and inculcation of its capitalist norms onto traditional ways of life. For all the defeat of totalitarianism, socialism has still yet to be achieved in any meaningful sense. We are constantly bombarded by slogans and startling new 'facts' about how the world is, with little or no access to the sources of the truth. CCTV is widespread, and our own 'telescreens' pump a stream of propaganda at us. Whilst it may not be uniform or from one Party, it still works to shape our perception of reality. History is still manipulated by the victor, the status quo is still maintained through a cultivation of fear of the 'heretic'.
Examine Goldstein's 'Theory of Oligarchical Collectivism' (The Book). How much still seems relevant to the distribution of power and money in today's society? Do we live in a democracy or an oligarchy? Think in particular about Goldstein's exploration of a non-inherited system of power: 'The essence of oligarchical rule is not father-to-son inheritance, but the persistence of a certain world-view... Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same.' Think also about the interchange of the High, Middle, and Lower strata of society as outlined by Goldstein. Now we are told that we are all 'middle- class', and the middle class strive for personal gain, who is left to strive for equality?
In the Appendix to the novel, Orwell himself gives examples of Newspeak-style words: Comintern, Nazi, Gestapo, Agitprop. Think how language continues to be used to obscure access to the truth. What are 'real terms'? Why are trains 're-timed' rather than just 'late'?
Just as Orwell identified, Doublethink is still a key feature of any ideology, particularly an extreme one. Consider sources of doublethink - political rhetoric, religion, commercial advertising, journalism.
2. 'If there is hope it lies in the proles.' Is there hope?
This question is best approached with more direct relevance to the text, rather than too much discussion of the class structure in the real world.
At 85 percent of the population, sheer number would seem to be on their side, as is their freedom from many of the restrictions imposed on Party members. 'The proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose to they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning.'
More than that, they seem to have little going for them. How much does the Party discourage any level of active thought amongst them? How much does it need to?
The proles are held back not least by their own apathy. On witnessing a fight over some saucepans, Winston asks 'Why was it that they could never shout like that about anything that mattered?' They are preoccupied only by football, beer, the Lottery (which nobody ever actually ever wins), and occasionally stirred up into a basic patriotic fervour by mass- produced songs and 'enemy' Steamer rocket bombs that are no doubt actually launched by the Party itself.
When Orwell attempts to ask an old prole about the past, all he remembers is that beer was cheaper and tasted better. There is an implicit idea here that life was actually not much better for the working class under the previous system of capitalism. Proletarian force may have been harnessed by the middle classes to effect the Western revolution (see Goldstein's examination of High, Middle, and Lower strata), but this was in the interest of the emergent Party, not the masses seeking equality. Think of some real world examples of this phenomenon.
'Until they become conscious they will never rebel,' writes Winston in his diary. 'and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.' Is this true? Do Oceana's proles need to know why they are rebelling to rise up against the conditions imposed upon them? To what extent are Oceana's working a more subjugated breed than their real world counterparts? Does Orwell's apparently patronising vision of the proletariat betray him out as an old- fashioned sort of socialist who believed that the educated middle classes were needed to lead the revolution? Or are the proles allegorical rather than representative of the real world working classes?
Given that, according to O'Brien, within the Party system, the proles will never rebel, is there another form of hope left to them? Perhaps the only hope there is in the proles is the very limited freedom that they already posses. They may be 'middle-aged at thirty and dead at sixty, and despite the Party's attempt to paint them as animals, their world seems much more human than Winston's existence. Like the old woman singing as she hangs out the washing, they are still able to feel in a way denied to Party members. But theirs is still a life of drudgery and suffering, and Orwell himself knew there was no romanticism in a life of poverty.
Winston's final declaration before he his arrested is that there must be hope: 'Sooner or later it would happen, strength would change into consciousness... in the end their awakening would come.' But O'Brien maintains the opposite: 'The proletarians will never revolt, not in a thousand years or a million. They cannot.' Who do we believe? Who do we want to believe?