We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3
Anomalies in human experiences often reveal profound truths
about the nature of individuals and society.
George Orwell’s tripartite satirical novel 1984 (1949) illuminates the
potency of love that is anomalous within a society that solely reveres the hegemonic state, exposing profound truths that challenges our assumptions within the ostensibly explicit division between the individual psyche and societal discourse. Retaliating against the panoptical surveillance prevalent in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, Orwell underscores the susceptibility of love to be manipulated and instrumentalised by totalitarian states to ensure conformity and unwavering political reverence. Contrastingly, Orwell didactically posits the protagonist’s anomalous desire for parasocial connection to glorify the doctrines of democratic socialism, glorifying the significance of love in withstanding oppression and necessitating the restoration of the societal collective to retain our authentic humanity. Ultimately, Orwell adopts a nihilistic tone as he portrays the futility of an anomaly of intrapersonal intimacy within a panoptical milieu that has invaded the individual private sphere, paradoxically exhorting readers for greater political vigilance to prevent such a similar fate.
Orwell deconstructs our assumptions of love as permanent and
emancipating as he portrays a society where parasocial connections have been instrumentalised, evincing the significance of individual intimacy to withstand societal oppression. Orwell subverts the permanence of the family unit in “‘You’re a traitor!’ yelled the boy. ‘You’re a thought- criminal! You’re a Eurasian spy!'”. The explosive tricolon of accusations elucidates how the father-son relationship has been inverted, distorting the paternal bond that is typically associated with love and respect into one that is defined with fear. Through this, Orwell warns us of the political oppression that belies ostensibly progressive societies, extolling the importance of intimacy to protect the human condition. Winston's loveless relationship with Katharine epitomises the extent of the Party's degradation of love, describing that "to embrace her was like embracing a jointed wooden image". Likening Katharine to an inanimate "image", Orwell highlights how the marital connection has been fragmented to ensure unwavering political conformity, underscoring the significance of protecting our interpersonal love to resist suppression. The Party has disfigured the human experience of love so significantly that Winston asserts “He would flog her to death with a rubber truncheon. He would tie her naked to a stake and shoot her full of arrows… He would ravish her and cut her throat” upon seeing Julia. The anaphora of “He would” works in tandem with the violent visceral imagery to accentuate how the Party have established hatred, rather than love, as instinctual, exemplifying the extent of the Party’s corrosive intrusion into the intimacy of individual human experiences.
Through the accumulation of bodily imagery in "the smell of her hair,
the taste of her mouth, the feeling of her skin", Orwell elucidates the sensual liberty Winston gains through his conviction of unrestrained love despite his existence within a milieu that has "[abolished] the orgasm". In doing so, Orwell extols the humanising power of love that enables isolated individuals to transcend current strictures and reconnect to universal sentiments of intimacy. Further, the hyperbole “the animal instinct, the simple undifferentiated desire: that was the force that would tear the Party to pieces”, portrays love as an inherently rebellious force that is able to undermine the regimentation of totalitarian states. Juxtaposed with Julia's "careless gesture", Orwell stresses the inviolability of sexual desire as a "simple" and "undifferentiated" "animal instinct" that trumps the finitude of Oceania's ostensibly panoptical reality-control, confirming how the collective experience of love instils hope for rebellion against oppression. Orwell epitomises love as a means to withstand systemic subjugation in the metaphor "Their embrace had been a battle … a blow struck against the Party”, exhorting readers to appreciate the complexity of love by deconstructing our assumption that sexuality is removed from the political sphere. The war metaphor ("battle … victory") delineates how Winston's experience of love contradicts the Party's doctrine which proclaims political loyalty as the sole connection between individuals, ultimately symbolising Orwell's belief within genuine interpersonal connection to supersede political manipulation.
Contrastingly, Orwell elucidates the fragility and futility of love in a
totalitarian society, exemplified in the chiasmic conundrum "until they become conscious they will never rebel and until they have rebelled they cannot become conscious". The high modality diction ("never … cannot") underscores Orwell's perturbation that hope and rebellion are quashed by disillusioning political hegemony, nihilistically forewarning readers of the inefficacy of hope to preserve the human spirit. Whilst Winston attempts to challenge collective subjugations, he eventually succumbs to the diametrically opposed character of O’Brien in the Ministry of Love, who claims that Winston will “never again…be capable of love…we shall fill you with ourselves.” The callous imagery illustrates the suppression of Winston’s freedom through his psychological torture, highlighting the Party’s intention to eliminate human relationships to seize power over the populace. Orwell deepens our understanding of humanity and its struggle for independence, reinforcing the innate need for collective solidarity to reclaim our autonomy. Winston exclaims to O’Brien in Room 101 to “Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia!” to underline a brutal paradox; Despite their rebellious affair, he pitifully reaches his nadir in Room 101, as his love for Julia transforms into complete adoration for Big Brother, marking the bathetic end of their love affair and ironically epitomising Orwell’s message of the need for collective experiences.