So I'm reading '1984' by George Orwell (I recommend everyone else does the same) and I came across this passage which really grabbed my attention:
"In reality very little was known about the proles. It was not necessary to know much. So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern. They were born, they grew up in the gutters, they went to work at twelve, they passed through a brief blossoming-period of beauty and sexual desire, they married at twenty, they were middle-aged at thirty, they died, for the most part, at sixty. Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbours, films, football, beer and, above all, gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult. A few agents of the Thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few who were judged capable of becoming dangerous; but no attempt was made to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the Party. It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working-hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because, being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. the larger evils invariably escaped their notice."
The proles themselves are the lowest class in society within the novel which is set in the future and are basically classed as dirty untouchables who are oblivious as to what is going on politically. They are pretty mush sheep that do nothing to overthrow the Totalitarian society even though if they wanted to, they could. I find it quite chilling that it basically describes us, the general public, as we are now. Yes, it describes a very 1940's general public (as that is when it was written) but it still describes us nonetheless. Looking at the world today and relating it to that passage, it scares me that someone could have written it almost sixty years ago. It just makes me think, are we really that oblivious and naive?
The answer obviously, is yes.
3 comments:
You make a good point (and it is frightening), however, I think the people most likely to read this book of their own free will (not mandated by school) would probably not fall into this category of person. As I grow older, I find it demoralizing that most people seem content and consumed by the details in that passage without a broader awareness or care of the world or even city around them. While I know youth are idealistic, and sometimes impractically so, I'm not sure I could blend with the masses and pretend I don't care about bigger issues around me.
In my experience, it has seemed to me that more males have been complacent with sports, beer, and a good time, but maybe I don't know the most socially conscious/aware men. =)
I need to reread 1984, it's been a few years and I can probably gain some more insights (and be more depressed as I see the parallels to current decade).
Also, I've gleaned from your posts that you seem to like classics (I'm a pretty big fan too!). A recommendation is the book "them" by Joyce Carol Oates. She has an interesting writing style which is kind of irritating to read, but while reading it I didn't feel like an emotional observer, I felt uncomfortable and on edge with the characters. Not entirely pleasant, but a markedly different reading experience.
that book made me the bitter, jaded student that I am today, even though it was probably intended to get people to change things. I was young; it was traumatizing because I realized that its popularity hadn't stopped many of those things from happening in some form or another.
Post a Comment