The government has two reasons for keeping alive the idea of a dangerous Brotherhood. First, as we repeatedly see in the novel, Party members (not to mention Proles) live in miserable conditions: they eat bad food, drink bad "Victory" gin, live with rationed food (for example, the chocolate ration is cut during the novel), live in small apartments with broken elevators and backed up toilets and wear shabby overalls. The inner Party members, in contrast,...
The government has two reasons for keeping alive the idea of a dangerous Brotherhood. First, as we repeatedly see in the novel, Party members (not to mention Proles) live in miserable conditions: they eat bad food, drink bad "Victory" gin, live with rationed food (for example, the chocolate ration is cut during the novel), live in small apartments with broken elevators and backed up toilets and wear shabby overalls. The inner Party members, in contrast, live well, as we see when Julia and Winston visit O'Brien, who has a servant, comfortable living quarters and wine, something Julia has never tasted before. Having the Brotherhood to blame for these economic problems, and more importantly, having the Brotherhood to direct people's anger and aggression away from the Party's abuses, is a way for the Party to keep power. If they hadn't invented the Brotherhood, people might more quickly perceive that the Party is an empty sham. If they didn't run Two-Minute Hates often targeted at the Brotherhood or its proxies, people might quickly direct their anger at the Party. The Brotherhood functions as a scapegoat.
Second, the state needs to justify its constant surveillance of its own citizens. What better excuse than an "enemy within," working to topple the government? "Protecting the people" gives the Party the perfect cover to act as a police state to terrorize and control its citizenry for its own ends: crushing dissent and keeping power.
No comments:
Post a Comment