Why Were We Taught About 1984?
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- A reflection on Orwell's popular novel, 1984, and whether our emphasis on it is entirely warranted. Within, I talk especially about Huxley's highly relevant dystopia, Brave New World, and its prescient view of the modern world.
I will say critical things, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for Orwell. That said, he must be appreciated in proper context, as providing a particular dystopian vision. Mindlessly repeating "literally 1984" whenever people you don't like have power, I dare say, not the proper context.
Maybe "literally 1984" will eventually become so coated in irony that we integer overflow back into sincerity. Only time will tell.
00:00 Intro
02:32 An Overview
05:24 A Brave New World
09:38 Back to 1984
12:38 How does it Begin?
15:03 Outro
#videoessay
That’s my thinking. We live in a Brave New World not 1984
Orwell (Snitchwell) was paid to write "Animal Farm" and "1984" by the same people for whom he compiled a list of "subversives".
We live in glass houses (surveillance). Maybe Zamyatin's "We" is the dystopia in which we live.
in the west it's a mixture of both and it also depends on the country. look at china or north korea. would you say they live in a brave new world or 1984?
@@JugglernautNr9 that's a fair point
We live in Utopia, where the sheep eat men.
Something i disliked deeply about the book is that it makes people confident not in their critical thinking skills, but in their innate common sense, making them think the enemy of truth is external, visible, and intrusive, rather than internalized, invisible and everpresent. So when education and hegemony become the common sense, and also become pleasant and rational, then they have no reason to question the hegemony, and may even think that any critique of the hegemony is "new speak" or "literally 1984" seeking to make them ignore their common sense
Whenever someone says "hegemony", I know they are a pretentious twat.
Why do you dwell on crap like this when there are much deeper things to contemplate. Talk about mindless consumption. Try some positivity. Interconnected consiousness,electromagnetic propulsion,things like that,man..
Common sense without saying should settle this matter in a matter of seconds in a matter of speaking no matter what matters,etc,etc,matters,matters,madhatters
Your point about reacting to a minor evil as if it were the devil itself leading us into further evils is very true. Never thought of it in that way
Another problem worth addressing is the phenomenon of the Literary Canon. The canonical dystopian novels are 1984 and Brave New World, plus recently The Handmaid's Tale. All discussions of the dangers to our society, this broadcast incuded, devolve into a discussion of which of the two (or three) dystopias imagined decades ago we're heading to, like one of those though-limiting multiple choice questions to which the answer can only be A, B or C.
So we're more likely heading toward a mix of all three?
@@OmegaWolf747 Or something new. Ben Elton's Blind Faith is a dystopia based on our current society, for example.
We actually live in clockwork orange
My naive guess as to why we can still study 1984 and books like it are because the powers that be believe/feel that if they allow the truth to exist somewhere, that they are no longer culpable for their actions because we, the people, are now 'informed' and are therefore tacitly allowing the crimes they commit to continue if we don't/haven't objected to them.
Yeah it is a form of freedom that is enough to create the idea of this being consented into, but not enough freedom to actually change the system. The critique of the system legitimizes the democratic nature of the system without endangering it
They also use books like 1984 and Brave New World to instill false consciousness in the population. People are taught an incorrect reading of the book (to paraphrase the video, "authoritarianism is when the government looks like 1984. And the more it looks like 1984, the more authoritarian it is") so that anyone who starts preaching a different interpretation, or criticizes authoritarian tendencies not present in the books, is mocked and ridiculed for not upholding orthodoxy that everyone learned in high school. Even worse, they will essentially accuse anyone who breaks othodoxy of BEING and authoritarian who wants to do all of the exagerated things depicted in 1984.
Agreed. 1984 is viscerally more horrifying, but that's all the more reason people would rebel en masse against it. BNW is more seductive; more irresistible. Like the Matrix, you might not even realize you're inside such a thing. tavi.
I'm beginning to think people have only read two books. Why in God's name do we need another essay comparing 1984 to brave new world?
i want subscribers
@PennedLionsPen fair, here's some free engagement. I really held back because I checked your view count before I posted, i don't like the idea of shitting on a small channel. I like brave new world, but Orwell is something of a hero of mine. I assume that's why the algorithm recommend this to me. I get more or less this same essay recommend every other week or so. You made a point, but so did everyone else, including Huxley himself, though it is more true now than it was in his time. You have a knack for turning a phrase, and apparently, intelligence enough to understand what will attract views. However, subscribers will come more with novelty than safe bets. Maybe in a year or two, you can find a more unique angle and take another pass at this one.
@@alenbacco7613 I had no notion of this as a safe bet - I have watched zero other videos on this. Figured I'd throw my hat in the ring with something I found interesting. I do agree that I should have spent more time clarifying my real appreciation for Orwell, but it's a bit late now. Thanks for the constructive engagement by the way! Your first comment was a little mean.
I doubt most people have even read those two books.
While "1984" is absolute depressing and horrifying and for a while seemed to be a real possibility how totalitarian regimes come to and hold power, the idea of universal "newthink" and "doublespeak" that is centrally enforced doesn't seem to be enforceable on a global scale. That being said, regimes like that in North Korea or even in the former GDR might give a glimpse how a real "1984" might look like. We of course now have a different kind of dystopia, one that isn't centrally controlled but also more internalized and insipid.
This is the first video from this channel I have watched. This critique of the endless pleasures of modernity reminded me of anarchist-primitivist critiques of modern society. If you haven’t listened to them yet, I recommend giving the Uncivilized podcast a listen to.
I'm not familiar with that podcast, but I do have a healthy appreciation for the Romantic ideal of anprim philosophy - thanks for the comment!
Excellent video, spectacular script, beautiful delivery. Subscribing for more. great work
My favorite bumper sticker says FUCK BIG BROTHER.
1984 was Snitchwell's autobiography. He was the guy who came to love Big Brother, in the form of the woman to whom he betrayed his former "comrades".
IN the end, the life of Snitchwell proves that you can take the boozhie out of the public school but you can't take the public school out of the boozhie. Once an imperial cop, always an imperial cop.
On the subject of the avoidance of pain. I know HG Wells is problematic in his own ways. But the movie of Things to Come has a wonderful statement to the effect that Utopia is not a world without death and suffering, but a world where death and suffering are worthwile. There is a difference between dying from dysentary or war, and dying while trying to accomplish skmething great or noble, like flying to the moon.
Its not our current threat but that doesn't mean its eliminated as a possibility for all time. People really should be reading numerous dystopians, all of them are warnings of current trends that may well lead to a bad outcome if nothing corrects it. The trick is to be on guard against them all, rather than disregarding the one because another seems closer to today's reality. Unfortunately people will have to seek those novels out for themselves, schools just aren't going to, other than the ones you mentioned.
I appreciate a lot of the sentiments here about the misaligned values of the people and the state (schools), but also think there are some missteps worked into the conclusions. The premise that 1984 is taught while Brave New World is not taught may be mistaken, my understanding is that quite often they are paired together directly (often used in the same sentence in popular culture). A sloppy parallel: Undesirable outcomes may result from a change in temperature; the fact that you may be more likely to freeze while being told you might burn does not invalidate either possibility.
More bothersome: 'should' and 'ought' are loaded concepts that just about ruined the whole essay for me. Countless people have spent lifetimes tying to identify these things, let alone pursue them. (12:05) Buying into freedom as 'the ability to do what one ought to' smuggles in preconceptions of morality. Both of the given dystopias, by way of different means and aesthetics, disrupt the individual's ability to identify and pursue their own goals - whatever those goals may be. From my point of view, the world itself carries out many of the same violences on everyone that exists inside of it. Freedom itself could be illusory or only attainable to degrees, never as a whole in itself... the BNW dystopia could be described as the result of fetishizing freedom, society promising itself the impossible. It is one of the foundational stories of our society that freedom = good.
Thanks for the hard work, it's a well-crafted video.
I agree that Brave New World is often taught, and I say so in video - that said, 1984 gets more of the spotlight, especially if we're talking "normal" (where AP English students probably read both). Also, as regards opposite extremes, you can say "we are focusing too much on staying warm" when it's 85 degrees Fahrenheit (like 30 C or so I think) - even while acknowledging that warmth is important. I was careful to note that I appreciate Orwell in the right context - and that I was chiefly raising a concern about popular perception.
As regards is/ought, I believe in objective morality, which means what you "ought" to do "is" real - immaterial does not mean unreal. Without immaterial Truth, what does anything even mean? What does it mean if Truth is untrue?
I find my assumption more reasonable than any alternative, and I base my conclusions off of it. For instance, I conclude that freedom, in referring to something archetypally good, must entail the right to do as you ought, not simply to follow your whims, because the latter is not good.
In the interest of brevity, I'll leave it there. Thanks for the comment!
Thank you for made this understandable storytelling:)
No one ever seems to penetrate _1984._ I'll just make some sweeping claims and I think I can defend them:
Our 2-Party system in the US is entirely synthetic. It doesn't line up to any natural division, and no one seems to notice this. People have a default, biological-behavioral scheme, and they define themselves negatively as "not them" rather than defining themselves constructively or purposefully. Instead, it's all reflexive. If everyone's bestial, unexamined need is to have an other against which to define themselves, then you technically only need 2 parties, and so no one notices.
Sane, healthy people only get into politics because a single issue actually affects their lives. People who dwell in party politics are, by definition, neurotics. Maybe 90% of partisans are undeveloped and 10% may or may not be developed but are there to feed, opportunistically, on the neurotics. They become leaders. Just stop and think, to be a partisan you have to start by imagining almost exactly half of the population has all of the virtue and wisdom, and the other half all of the malice and error, and that this division lines up with what is printed on their voter registration cards. That's straight up batshit. Again, no one questions it _because it feels good to them._
In _1984,_ Winston is a Party member who hates the Party and yet he wants to remain in the Party. It never occurs to him that living freely as a townie, outside of the Party, would be a better life. It's revealed that his family was destroyed by war and his psychological need for belonging is what keeps him there. He never questions it... until he does. And when he does, O'Brien gives him the book to help him feed his newly-emerging sense of independence. O'Brien isn't a villain, setting Winston up for a fall. He's someone who identifies Winston as a rare one who might just graduate into intellectual autonomy, and that's what he helps Winston to do.
Winston's liberation from his mind and his past and the Party is equivalent to a religious experience that liberates a person, but it looks the opposite of that - everything appears the opposite of what it is because Winston is an unreliable witness. He doesn't know himself, and therefore he doesn't understand anything else, either, except that he has a place and a rank in the Party, and it's the acceptance and approval he so desperately needs.
Every time you watch political figures or news shows, you're being invited to join the 2 Minutes of Hate. And people don't have to be asked twice. In real life, people are full of insecurity, anxiety, and will aim their fear and hatred at whomever they think they can, and if they are _rewarded_ and feel a sense of _belonging_ when complaining about The Other with their 'tribe', they are indulging in the 2 Minutes of Hate. _1984_ is exactly where we are, only it is so close to us that we can't see it.
The reason people don't immediately understand that Winston is unreliable is because, like LGBTQ+ Pro-Hamas protesters, the reader reflexively identifies with an underdog through resonance. Young people and particularly those who feel put-upon, alienated, who do not identify with their own social elites and who feel powerless, reflexively identify with the underdog in any conflict where one side clearly has more power than the other. Has nothing to do with dispassionately reasoning through things. It's all immediate, emotional resonance. "That's me, too! The one who is put upon!" And Winston is not put-upon. He establishes early on that he's a liar and lies to everyone so he can keep his "position". He, like other Party members, is a miserable, undeveloped, weakling having no strength of will or character and no vision. All he knows is he wants stuff.
lmao, had me until the “lgbtq+ pro-Hamas protestors”. That’s not what it’s about. Israel is the problem in Gaza; Hamas is the result.
I don't think you know what "Neurosis" means.
@@Polit_Burro Yeah, it means people who get into party politics for essentially social reasons, and thereby suffer from an acquired and quite cultivated form of retardation, in this context. We'll use a different word just for you. It also means people who are struggling with issues and exteriorizing them onto the political landscape.
I don't think you can handwave this idea that a drive for a world that maximizes pleasure while reducing suffering is "bad".. because "addiction". Addiction is bad for many reasons, but not because it causes pleasure or reduces suffering.. its actually pretty much the opposite. Most addiction leads to suffering.. at least when its called an addiction. You wouldn't generally say someone has a serious addiction to jogging, despite the fact that it causes the release of endorphins, which are endogenous opioids. If someone could be given a drug that causes the same level of euphoria as heroin without having a negative impact on their health, relationships or mental wellbeing.. I think that is not obviously bad. Whether or not you want to "think like a human". Which honestly just sounds like a call to abandon logic. And really I get the sentiment, but I think people living in comfort like to romantize the idea of what it would be like to have lived a few hundred years ago.. without thinking about the actually reality of living in those conditions.
This kind of belief is an outgrowth of having absolutely no faith in the existence of truth. You will not cause the same level of euphoria as hard drugs without causing adverse effects because we are not built to be constantly sedated at all hours of the day. There exists a natural order, a truth that life is oriented around - and it is only within this frame that we should apply technology. Technology is a supplement to what is naturally good, meant to make it better, more authentic.
Technology is not a substitute for truth, a substitute for natural pleasure. Down that path is despair. Endorphins as an outgrowth of the naturally rewarding are fundamentally different from "I want to feel pleasure and so I'll just choose to release happy chemicals." It is a statement of ultimate pride to pretend that artificiality is not fundamentally different from what is prior and natural.
@PennedLionsPen "faith in the existence of truth"... are we talking about faith, or are we talking about truth? You can believe an objective truth exists and recognize you have absolutely no way of accessing that truth or verifying your beliefs. For all you know, you are a brain in a vat, perhaps living inside of a simulation made to maximize your pleasureable experiences.
The idea that some things are artificial while others are natural seems highly abitrary. Was it natural for humans to cloth themselves? Are certain human behaviors driven by influences outside of nature? Is the desire to survive unnatural? What about when that desire leads to the development of organ transplants?
@@derpnerpwerpAre you actually going to tell me that clothing, something found in at the very least eons of human history, is no less artificial than your phone? Just because I can't draw an exact line in the sand? This line of reasoning would have you conclude that there is no such thing as a beard, because, after all, there is an effectively infinite series of edge cases between "beard" and "not beard."
Also, assuming you believe in evolution, natural technologies are those we've had for long enough to adapt to them - like fire, clothing. Not computers. Organ transplants, designed to rectify a deficiency in someone's body, seem unobjectionable - replacing actual healthy organs with artificial substitutes because it's the "modern" thing to do is what I consider substituting artificiality for humanity. We should not accept every new, artificial technology without seriously considering its ramifications. And the Neuralink "feel eternal pleasure" button seems a bit problematic!
Its pretty straightforward, we are so detached from the original political context of 1984 (1946-47) that now fits into the "insightfull" category, which provides vague notions of something while remaining an icon. The status quo, neoliberalism or whatever you might call it, use 1984 as a tool to bash on anything that goes against the status quo, do you want to raise taxes or ask for more goverment control over worldwide companies? you get the 1984 card, the same way conservatives use the bible (or at least a really weird notion of the bible) to bash on everything they dont like.
wtf are you talking about
no the political climate of 1984 was 1984 it says it right there
The status quo is communism disguised as socialdemocracy.
I know at least for me In high school we were assigned this novel to learn about basics of like suppression of speech and why things like book burning is bad and freedom of speech is good just really basic stuff.
@@rickyrivera3623 They didn't tell you about the time the US government burnt the books (all of the books) of Wilhelm Reich, did they?
Hey, new subscriber here. Hoping that we'll have a healthy long virtual relationship.
if you think we live in a brave new world and not 1984 I double dog dare you to advocate for NAMBLA or something
Schools need to go back to teaching more Philosophy, History and Arts. And not so much Maths and Grammar. Learning calculus and spelling perfectly without critical sense or creativity turns people into machines
I still prefer J.G. Ballard.
So what you’re saying is that the worst communism isn’t as bad as the ideal capitalism?
Actually pretty based take for a christian, jesus would be proud!!
I wouldn't say "isn't as bad," (just that it's more of a likely threat to worry about). But both capitalism and communism, taken absent any guiding moral order, are materialist and fundamentally soulless - if we let dogmatic obedience to The Economy overpower our basic senses of Truth and Morality, we should not be surprised when we have a crisis of meaning. GDP is not food in any physical *or* spiritual sense.
Anti-Sex League = Gen Z's MeToo Movement