Jeff Thorkelson
English 3150
Dr. Devries
10 December 2009
Theory Essay Revision
When the Industrial Revolution came about, man has struggled with an ever-changing social system. The idea of Marxism came about and decided to question these ideas put in place and to make people rethink the social structure. In Marxist ideology “what we often classify as a world view is actually the articulations of the dominant class. Marxism generally focuses on the clash between the dominant and repressed classes in any given age and also may encourage art to imitate what is often termed an “objective” reality” (Siegel). With this new Marxist movement, critics began looking at and writing different literary works to discuss the relationship between the arts, politics, and basic economic reality in terms of a general social theory. (Critical Approaches: Definition Of Marxist Criticism). One such novel that many have looked at through the Marxist lens is George Orwell’s novel 1984. Today, many “diverse views exist today as to the applicability and relevance of his work to current events. Certainly, the three great enemies that he combated Imperialism, socialism, and Marxism”(Rodden 217). Some literary critics believe that Orwell intentionally had Marxism in mind when writing the novel and some think he had a different reason for writing it. We will investigate deeper into the novel to see if Orwell was intentionally writing the book in a Marxist perspective or was he trying point out a major class difference during the time that he wrote the novel?
Since Marxism really focuses on struggles between the classes in society, we will first look at the way Orwell portrays the classes in his futuristic society in his novel. One way to look at this novel is by discussing if it is related with dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism is the theory that “history develops neither in a random fashion nor in a linear one but instead as struggle between contradictions that ultimately find resolution in a synthesis of the two sides. For example, class conflicts lead to new social systems” (Dobie 92).
Some theorists say that Orwell did not like the government that he was living under and thought that he had a strong dislike for its totalitarian ways. An article from the New Yorker discusses this distaste stating that “After the war, Orwell became most famous as a left-baiting anti-totalitarian…systemic change was necessary in order to make Britain a decent and fair country to live in” (Wood 54). Some clues of this can be taken out of the novel. There are three types of social parties presented in 1984. The Proles, or the lower class and normal everyday citizens, the outer party, who make up a small portion of the government employees, and the inner party, only 2% of the population and is the upper and ruling class. Our main character, Winston Smith, is part of the outer party who works for the party revising historical records. With a society that is presented in Orwell’s novel, we get the feeling right from the beginning that the inner party rules over everyone else. Even the party’s slogan “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” is oppressive because they are constantly being contradicted and controlled by the ruling party (Orwell 16). There is also a struggle with the ruling party because everyone is watched at all times. This is shown by the huge posters stating, “Big Brother is Watching You.” Screens in everyone’s apartments spew out party propaganda and constantly monitor every move the proles and outer party make. This distaste for the government can also be supported by a claim that Orwell stated saying that “”The mere efficiency of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. However horrible this system may seem to us, it works.” Only by shifting to a planned, nationalized economy and a “classless, ownerless” society could the British prevail” (Wood 54). Orwell is stating in this quotation that only a classless society would allow the British to prevail. Having classes only means that they system will only create problems and obstruct the true goal and needs of the country.
Orwell also shows his distaste for the government by having the government control everything that goes on is people’s daily life. In 1984, the government has complete control of the press and is able to change things that have already been printed. The government goes back to past papers and changes things that they do not agree with. Winston Smith’s job is to change these past articles to fit the party’s ideals when he states “Winston’s greatest pleasure in life was in his work. Most of it was a tedious routine…and your estimate of what the Party wanted you to say. Winston was good at this kind of thing. On occasion he had even been entrusted with the rectification of the Times leading articles” (Orwell 44). By this, it is showing that Orwell might believe that in the future, the government will have complete control of the press and will have the powered to change anything they want to fit with their own agenda. This is a main theme in the novel and is referred to many times. The government also controls how people speak by getting rid of words. This ensures that people do not have the mental capacity that they should have.
Some theorists on the other hand do not think Orwell had any Marxist agenda when writing 1984. Some theorist think that he was just predicting his vision of the future and did not have any political agenda or statement about how the world was run at that time. This can be shown through multiple quotations and writings that Orwell has written over the years through his journalistic and novelistic ventures. Orwell went through two World Wars and wrote about the power of politic and the impact that it has on people, but he also wrote how a socialist and Marxist government can essentially ruin the essence and strength of a country. Over the years, many theorists started writing how Orwell had not affliation with any political party or agenda. Most people were just confused and mixed up with his work. Columnist Louis Menand sums up this statement about this particular theory on Orwell’s stance when he states
“It has included, over the years, ex-Communists, Socialists, left-wing anarchists, right-wing libertarians, liberals and conservatives: every group in a different uniform, but with the same button pinned to the lapel—Orwell Was Right. Almost the only thing Orwell’s posthumous admirers have in common, besides the button, is anti-Communism. But they all somehow found support for their particular bouquet of moral and political values in Orwell’s writings, which have been universally praised as “honest,” “decent,” and “clear” (Menand).
Columnist for the New Yorker, James Wood, also wrote on Orwell’s 1984 on this perspective and mentioned that “Orwell feared what he most desired: the future. But it is too easy to gloat over his contradictions to point out that he wrote so well about the drabness and the horror of totalitarianism because he himself had a tendency toward drab omnipotence; or that the great proponent of socialist collectivity liked rustic isolation” (Wood 54). Orwell wrote what he wrote because of his fear of the future. Orwell was essentially obsessed with his own weakness of not being able to live forever so he feared the future because of it. Wood believes that all of his writings on dystopia and totalitarian government are just his way of dealing with the future and what will come of the future. This could also be seen within the novel because the government that Winston Smith is a part of in the novel essentially stays the same at the end of the plot. Nothing changes to the structure of the government and things go on as they did at the beginning of the book. Even from the last few sentences of the novel, we get this. Winston had just gotten finished at the ministry of love and the novel states that “it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother” (Orwell 297). Winston comes to realize that the government he lived in was fine and that everything would be ok because of this realization. The whole time throughout the novel, Winston was rebelling against the party and he ended up getting caught and tortured because of it. Winston then learned that it was ok to follow what the party says and he did finally at the end. So in a way, this can be seen in a way to some that it is an anti-rebellious novel. The novel is somehow against Marxism and Socialism and is telling the reader to oblige by the parties rules.
Orwell himself also wrote about the weaknesses of socialism and how in a modern world, it is weak and will not hold true. In Orwell’s essay “The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius” which is published in the book Why I Write, Orwell states that “at certain levels of civilization it does not exist, but as a positive force there is nothing to set beside it. International Socialism is as weak as straw in comparison with patriotism” (Orwell 11). This particular piece of writing was written in 1940, eight years before 1984 was published. Even though many things were going on in the world to influence him towards socialism, one being the British involvement in World War II, he still writes how Socialism is not the way to go. As Orwell put it, socialism is weak and will eventually fall. Orwell also discusses in this essay how every person differs and that it is impossible for people to be the same. In the very same essay Orwell discusses how “it was thought proper to pretend that all human beings were very much alike, but in fact anyone able to use his eyes knows that the average of human behavior differs from country to country. Things that could happen in one country could not happen in another” (Orwell 12). Orwell states in this claim that human behavior is always different and changing depending on where you are and where you come from. In 1984, the claim is that sameness is promoted and that everyone is to be controlled by the government in every aspect of his or her lives. Even if they think in a way that the government does not like, they are punished or sentenced to death, but when Orwell makes a claim like this in other works, we can assume that he does not believe in both.
If we look at both sides, we can come to a conclusion that George Orwell was not a Marxist. From a close reading of 1984 it might seem that Orwell is promoting a Socialist and Marxist agenda, but he is actually doing something different than what is presented on the surface. As mentioned before, Orwell was very interested in his own future and the future in general. With all the chaos that was going on in the world at this certain position in time, the world seemed like it was in utter turmoil. There had been two world wars in his lifetime and who knows when there would be a third. These events drastically changed his perspective on writing and politics and influenced the way he wrote no doubt, but Orwell did not intentionally make 1984 Marxist or Socialist with the sole purpose of doing so. Orwell was just worried that this was the way the world was going to eventually end up if we kept on the path that we were going towards. The book was a warning sign for the United Kingdom and the world that if we do change the way we are living, the world will turn into this horrible place like Oceania is in the novel. Government to him was to basically serve and protect the rights of the people, not to enforce a ton of laws on them and also not to let everyone run rampant. Orwell was also a big believer in the individual and that the individual is what’s most important, not a government. In his essay “Politics and the English Language” he states that “one cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time on can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase…into the dustbin where it belongs” (Orwell 120). Literary Criticist Scott Lucas wrote in his article “The Scoialist Fallacy” that Orwell was greatly misunderstood and was a martyr to the wrong party. For this argument that Orwell was not in fact part of this party is when Lucas reassures us that
Orwell is in the lineage of “English” socialists simply because of the belief that “only in a more egalitarian and fraternal society can liberties flourish and abound for the common people”. Nasty old Marxism is marginal to this philosophy: no need for messy concepts such as redistribution of income or common ownership of property. He was human, his most endearing characteristic. For there is nothing peculiarly socialist about being decent (Lucas).
With this being said, we can see that Orwell’s beliefs do not match up with the traditional Marxist philosophy. Orwell was just a decent human being that cared for the welfare of the people and had no prior agenda to take down the government. He believed in the common man and not the old Marxist philosophy.
Although both sides of the debate do have a valid argument for their claim, the one that seems like the right fit is that Orwell was not a Marxist. A lot of Orwell’s writings and discussions on politics support that Orwell believed in a central government that was strong and firm, but was also not as involved as a dictatorship was. So Orwell was not in fact a Marxist, but he was a man of great power and had a lot of influence on politics. His writings are a warning to future generations about their livelihoods and that if we do not cherish and protect what we have, we might lose it. 1984 is still as relevant today as it was when it was written, if not even more so. Our world is constantly changing everyday and more of Orwell’s predictions are coming true. These changes make his writings even more important today because we are moving towards the Oceania depicted in the novel. So you see, Orwell was not writing the novel through a Marxist or Socialist perspective, what he was really trying to do is warn us that if we let government have too much power, it might take over our lives, but he was not writing to get rid of all forms of government.
Works Cited
Dobie, Ann B. Theory into Practice: An Introduction to Literary Criticism. Thomson, 2002.
Lucas, Scott “The socialist fallacy.” New Statesman 129.4488 (2000): 47. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
Menand, Louis. “Honest, Decent, Wrong.” The New Yorker 27 Jan. 2003.
Orwell, George. 1984. New York: Penguin Books, 2001.
Orwell, George. Why I Write. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.
RODDEN, JOHN “Orwell’s Significance for Intellectuals Today: “A Presence in Our Lives..” Midwest Quarterly 50.3 (2009): 216-231. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.
Wood, James “A FINE RAGE.” New Yorker 85.9 (2009): 54-63. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
