On 1984 and Power, Revised and Extended--now 30% more pretentious!
"Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power".
--George Orwell, 1984
"Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing."
--O'Brien, (Richard Burton), 1984 (1984)
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!"
--Schoolhouse Rocky, School House Rock
Power is as power does--it is, according to George Orwell, its own object, a means to its own end; power is only as good or bad, real or imagined, as it is allowed to be: power--the power of people, places, systems, governments--can take no greater hold than it is given.
That is, until it becomes powerful enough, in and of itself, to take.
Such is the issue at the center of Orwell's 1984 : Big Brother, a power so great, so terrible and foreboding, takes and creates an essentially co-operational, comprehensive power where none but the most individualistic, rudimentary powers should exist; the power allowed by the population has been extended from that of a typical government to a totalitarian, vaguely socialist dystopic thing wherein all but the most useless, typically observational nonsense is controlled and manipulated as those in power see fit: Big Brother shapes and creates "truth" as a means of asserting near-total power, revising and updating history in order for self-gain, destroying and developing the English language and linguistic constructs in order that this power not be questioned.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the implementation and use of Newspeak; in basing language on concepts, instead of conceptual knowledge and the “known” (e.g., in substituting "unwhite" for "black"), concepts themselves are eradicated--limiting what should be essentially limitless, knowledge based on conceptual constructs: language becomes, instead of a series of representative sounds and symbols, a symbolic ideology (Todorov 82). This, the author seems to suggest, is certainly disturbing, creating new means for totalitarianism through words and ideas. Indeed, according to the German linguist and philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, a word cannot exist without an idea to make it concrete; by eradicating an idea (i.e., the concept of “black”), the word for that idea becomes essentially meaningless; although the word “black” may exist, it can’t mean anything so long as the conceptual “unwhite” continues to exist in its place. Although the two seem to be different names for the same thing—here, a simple color—the basic constructs behind them are different, the second of which is certainly troubling; a word based on the opposite of a concept, as opposed to a concept in and of itself, is based on a preconceived ideology (namely, that one must understand and know white in order to understand and know unwhite) that will not necessarily follow typical constructs and will, as such, entirely replace the latter concept. This is, of course, not limited to the fictional world of Oceania; language is constantly evolving, adding and eradicating words—and, thusly, concepts—while changing and shaping the meanings of others; language, in itself, means differently based on the way it is used—which, in turn, is based on the ways in which society uses it, which is largely based on authority.
This is true of Orwell’s Oceania, and the totalitarian government that runs it. The assertions that “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Knowledge is Ignorance.” Certainly, denying any sort of metaphor in the slogans presented by Big Brother, the word presented ("Freedom"), through the word "is," becomes its opposite ("Slavery")--that is, the term itself takes on a new meaning, in direct opposition to what the reader understands it to mean, and, thusly, the binary presented by the word[s] (Freedom/Slavery) disappears: the two words now mean one and the same.
Indeed, Wittgenstein, in his On Certainty, suggests that, in order for a concept to exist, it must have some sort of word that means it ; there can be no freedom is the word freedom does not exist, because, without the word to define it, the concept itself can mean nothing; by changing the very concept of the word "freedom," (here, to mean "slavery"--to the residents of Oceania, Freedom IS Slavery) freedom itself cannot exist--indeed, it has taken, through language rules/tactics as theorized by Wittgenstein, a contradictory meaning that, eventually, will be the only meaning--Freedom, through the power of language, will itself eventually come to be Slavery: any knowledge concerning “freedom” as a concept in itself disappears, existing, now, only as the absolute opposite of a concrete concept—that is, slavery. It is with this, then, that knowledge constructs, and the overall capacity for and, perhaps, ultimate understanding of knowledge, diminishes; the ability to know falls short.
By limiting the overall ability for knowledge, the capacity to learn, too, diminishes; man becomes what he is told. This is certainly evident in Radford's film adaptation of Orwell's novel, wherein Winston, upon being tortured, submits to Big Brother's gospel, admitting that “2+2=5,” when, throughout the film, he has been adamant about the fact that the correct answer is, indeed, four; as his will is broken, Winston becomes an extension of the system he so loathes; as he is tortured into submission, he becomes a part of Big Brother and totalitarianism.
Indeed, by the end of Orwell’s novel, Winston has become everything he has despised: another arm of a corrupt, totalitarian system, drowned by the power he has finally been forced to accept.
Bibliographia
Foucault, Michel. Discipline & Punish (1975), Panopticism. November 1, 2008.
http://foucault.info/documents/disciplineAndPunish/foucault.disciplineAndPunish.panOpticism.html.
Howe, Irving. 1984 – Utopia Reversed: Orwell’s Penetrating Examination of Totalitarian
Society. November 1950. November 1, 2008.
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/history/etol/writers/howe/1950/11/1984.htm.
Orwell, George. 1984, New York: Signet Classic, 2004.
Orwell, George. Why I Write. London: Gangrel, Summer 1946.
Rorty, Richard. The Last Intellectual in Europe: Orwell on cruelty. University of Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Todorov, Tzvetan. Symbolism and Interpretation, (transl. by R. Carter). Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press, 1982.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. On Certainty, (eds.) G. E. M. Anscombe & G. H. von Wright, (tr.) D. Paul & G. E. M. Anscombe, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1969.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
On 1984 and Power
Originally Published 11.04
Revised 12.01
"Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power".
--George Orwell, 1984
"Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing."
--O'Brien, (Richard Burton), 1984 (1984)
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!"
--Schoolhouse Rocky, School House Rock
Power is as power does--it is, according to George Orwell, its own object, a means to its own end; power is only as good or bad, real or imagined, as it is allowed to be: power--the power of people, places, systems, governments--can take no greater hold than it is given.
That is, until it becomes powerful enough, in and of itself, to take.
Such is the issue at the center of Orwell's 1984 : Big Brother, a power so great, so terrible and foreboding, takes and creates an essentially co-operational, comprehensive power where none but the most individualistic, rudimentary powers should exist; the power allowed by the population has been extended from that of a typical government (more on that in a bit) to a totalitarian, vaguely socialist dystopic thing wherein all but the most useless, typically observational nonsense is controlled and manipulated as those in power see fit: Big Brother shapes and creates "truth" as a means of asserting near-total power.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the implementation and use of Newspeak; in basing language on concepts, instead of conceptual knowledge (e.g., in substituting "unwhite" for "black"), concepts themselves are eradicated--limiting what should be essentially limitless, conceptual knowledge: language becomes, instead of a series of representative sounds and symbols, a symbolic ideology (Todorov 82).
By limiting the overall ability for knowledge, the capacity to learn, too, diminishes; man becomes what he is told. This is certainly evident in Radford's film adaptation of Orwell's novel, wherein Winston, upon being tortured, submits to Big Brother's gospel, admitting that “2+2=5,” when, throughout the film, he has been adamant about the fact that the correct answer is, indeed, four; as his will is broken, Winston becomes an extension of the system he so loathes; as he is tortured into submission, he becomes a part of Big Brother and totalitarianism.
Indeed, by the end of Orwell’s novel, Winston has become everything he has despised.
Bibliographia
Foucault, Michel. Discipline & Punish (1975), Panopticism. November 1, 2008.
http://foucault.info/documents/disciplineAndPunish/foucault.disciplineAndPunish.panOpticism.html.
Howe, Irving. 1984 – Utopia Reversed: Orwell’s Penetrating Examination of Totalitarian
Society. November 1950. November 1, 2008.
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/history/etol/writers/howe/1950/11/1984.htm.
Orwell, George. 1984, New York: Signet Classic, 2004.
Orwell, George. Why I Write. London: Gangrel, Summer 1946.
Rorty, Richard. The Last Intellectual in Europe: Orwell on cruelty. University of Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Todorov, Tzvetan. Symbolism and Interpretation, (transl. by R. Carter). Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press, 1982.
Revised 12.01
"Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power".
--George Orwell, 1984
"Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing."
--O'Brien, (Richard Burton), 1984 (1984)
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!"
--Schoolhouse Rocky, School House Rock
Power is as power does--it is, according to George Orwell, its own object, a means to its own end; power is only as good or bad, real or imagined, as it is allowed to be: power--the power of people, places, systems, governments--can take no greater hold than it is given.
That is, until it becomes powerful enough, in and of itself, to take.
Such is the issue at the center of Orwell's 1984 : Big Brother, a power so great, so terrible and foreboding, takes and creates an essentially co-operational, comprehensive power where none but the most individualistic, rudimentary powers should exist; the power allowed by the population has been extended from that of a typical government (more on that in a bit) to a totalitarian, vaguely socialist dystopic thing wherein all but the most useless, typically observational nonsense is controlled and manipulated as those in power see fit: Big Brother shapes and creates "truth" as a means of asserting near-total power.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the implementation and use of Newspeak; in basing language on concepts, instead of conceptual knowledge (e.g., in substituting "unwhite" for "black"), concepts themselves are eradicated--limiting what should be essentially limitless, conceptual knowledge: language becomes, instead of a series of representative sounds and symbols, a symbolic ideology (Todorov 82).
By limiting the overall ability for knowledge, the capacity to learn, too, diminishes; man becomes what he is told. This is certainly evident in Radford's film adaptation of Orwell's novel, wherein Winston, upon being tortured, submits to Big Brother's gospel, admitting that “2+2=5,” when, throughout the film, he has been adamant about the fact that the correct answer is, indeed, four; as his will is broken, Winston becomes an extension of the system he so loathes; as he is tortured into submission, he becomes a part of Big Brother and totalitarianism.
Indeed, by the end of Orwell’s novel, Winston has become everything he has despised.
Bibliographia
Foucault, Michel. Discipline & Punish (1975), Panopticism. November 1, 2008.
http://foucault.info/documents/disciplineAndPunish/foucault.disciplineAndPunish.panOpticism.html.
Howe, Irving. 1984 – Utopia Reversed: Orwell’s Penetrating Examination of Totalitarian
Society. November 1950. November 1, 2008.
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/history/etol/writers/howe/1950/11/1984.htm.
Orwell, George. 1984, New York: Signet Classic, 2004.
Orwell, George. Why I Write. London: Gangrel, Summer 1946.
Rorty, Richard. The Last Intellectual in Europe: Orwell on cruelty. University of Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Todorov, Tzvetan. Symbolism and Interpretation, (transl. by R. Carter). Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press, 1982.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Group Project Presentation
Originally Published 10.03
Revised 11.26
Orwell's How I Write really is a fascinating essay--in it, he explains how the historical context of his youth and adolescence forced him to become a writer, how war politics and the rise/fall/failure of socialism made him into the writer he eventually became-and, most importantly, how a writer uses language.
(Well, not the last one, per se, although it's hinted at; for further writers-writing-about-writing-y goodness, check out Stephen King's On Writing. Truly, truly marvelous. Okay, continuing)
Fascinating, right? Or it would have been, had it been discussed; my contribution to our group presentation was, alas, mostly reliant on a journal article that, due to some confusion, was largely ignored.
Still, I managed a few things, to be detailed thusly; let us set my contributions to history correct!
Most importantly, I actually read the book and watched the film. That was a big day for me. From this, I found, read, enjoyed, and appreciated the Orwell essay I meant to discuss and tie into our journal article; this did not happen. Still, and most fortunately, I managed to talk a bit about the implications of Newspeak during the actual presentation, linking the concepts to Wittgenstein and the basic linguistic philosophy of Todorov.
It was neat, and a good presentation (I, for one, was beyond nervous, and am sure it showed); still, I wish I'd been able to discuss my part in a manner that would have made sense (i.e., in relation to the article). The background we'd acquired, in class and as a group, allowed for a more spontaneous contribution--but, having been so well prepared, I was ever-so-slightly disappointed by this slight.
Still, we were prepared, articulate, and knew what we were talking about, an unlikely (for me, at least) combination that made out presentation terrific.
Revised 11.26
Orwell's How I Write really is a fascinating essay--in it, he explains how the historical context of his youth and adolescence forced him to become a writer, how war politics and the rise/fall/failure of socialism made him into the writer he eventually became-and, most importantly, how a writer uses language.
(Well, not the last one, per se, although it's hinted at; for further writers-writing-about-writing-y goodness, check out Stephen King's On Writing. Truly, truly marvelous. Okay, continuing)
Fascinating, right? Or it would have been, had it been discussed; my contribution to our group presentation was, alas, mostly reliant on a journal article that, due to some confusion, was largely ignored.
Still, I managed a few things, to be detailed thusly; let us set my contributions to history correct!
Most importantly, I actually read the book and watched the film. That was a big day for me. From this, I found, read, enjoyed, and appreciated the Orwell essay I meant to discuss and tie into our journal article; this did not happen. Still, and most fortunately, I managed to talk a bit about the implications of Newspeak during the actual presentation, linking the concepts to Wittgenstein and the basic linguistic philosophy of Todorov.
It was neat, and a good presentation (I, for one, was beyond nervous, and am sure it showed); still, I wish I'd been able to discuss my part in a manner that would have made sense (i.e., in relation to the article). The background we'd acquired, in class and as a group, allowed for a more spontaneous contribution--but, having been so well prepared, I was ever-so-slightly disappointed by this slight.
Still, we were prepared, articulate, and knew what we were talking about, an unlikely (for me, at least) combination that made out presentation terrific.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Boulle and Plato
From WEB-CT
Author: Elizabeth Christiansen
Date: Monday, October 6, 2008 1:46pm
Boulle, it seems to me, has based the social construct of the Planet of the Apes, at least
in part, on Plato's Republic. There's a way to put this more eloquently than I will be able
to do, but bear with me:
Plato details three "classes" of humans, analogous to the human body: the head, the
heart, and the appetites. I forget the exact structure (it's been a long time since tenth
grade philosophy), but, basically, the heads rule the state, the hearts protect the state,
and the appetites basically eat, sleep, and procreate to continue the state.
I think I'm going to look into this before I post anything else; just wanted to get the idea
out there.
Author: Elizabeth Christiansen
Date: Monday, October 6, 2008 1:46pm
Boulle, it seems to me, has based the social construct of the Planet of the Apes, at least
in part, on Plato's Republic. There's a way to put this more eloquently than I will be able
to do, but bear with me:
Plato details three "classes" of humans, analogous to the human body: the head, the
heart, and the appetites. I forget the exact structure (it's been a long time since tenth
grade philosophy), but, basically, the heads rule the state, the hearts protect the state,
and the appetites basically eat, sleep, and procreate to continue the state.
I think I'm going to look into this before I post anything else; just wanted to get the idea
out there.
Ethnography: English 313
YET TO BE REVISED
I'm doing a sort of experimental bit on this thing, taking one observation (mostly objective, at the beach) and analyzing it in two different ways, on each of my blogs, in order to illustrate how the lens through which one chooses to view any individual act skews the construction/meaning of the act itself.
(Yes, that was a great sentence, full of insight and, errm, sense-making. Digs it and big ups.)
So.
Earlier today, my wonderful, delightful boyfriend and I went to Venice Beach, a veritable shithole--and, in essence, the perfect place to view humanity in its natural state (you know, you know, no, you don't, you don't know what I mean).
Halfway between the pier and the vendors that litter most of the stretch between Santa Monica and Venice, on the actual beach (surf, sand, salt 'n all), we found ourselves amidst mostly young couples, sparse and evenly spaced across the sands, few in number, largely similar: bikini tops, ironic beach t-shirts, California Rainbow (R) flip-flops, sunglasses, pullovers. Smiles.
Very young, very heterosexual. Very Southern California on a Wednesday afternoon.
The topography of the beach is similarly generic: a huge and mostly empty parking lot watched over by an attendant, a lonely lifeguard station sitting abandoned, vaguely rusted trash cans, omnipresent signs warning the reader that there shall be "NO SWIMMING/NO NADAR" (which really ought to read "NO NADANDO." Just saying). Sand. Mid-afternoon low tide, a few boats scattered in the distance in an area zoned safe for boating, not much else.
And then:
The Maverick: The Breaker.
Alex (mi novio) saw him first, walking his sand-filled Seven-Up bottle across the sand, a "break" from the monotony of the yuppies surrounding us, looking like he might "break" any who crossed his path in two, surprisingly reminiscent of Anthony Hopkins playing Breaker Ted Brautigan in Hearts in Atlantis, if Anthony Hopkins had long, grizzled white hair and a green speedo and an anklet and sunglasses and carried around a Seven-Up bottle. We watched him stalk across the beach, toward the lifeguard's stand, where he performed, to our unending amusement, a series of stretches and near-yoga poses.
The antithesis of monotony! The antithesis of yuppies!
And he was fuckin' crazy!
It's funny; It's culture.
(I'm assuming that everyone in this class will have a similar sentence somewhere in his/her post, and certainly don't want to be the only person without one. Also, I like semicolons.)
Apart from our Breaker, everyone has to wear occasion-approprate clothes; heterosexualty is overwhelming. Youth is important; employment, ergo capitalism, even moreso (Venice is never empty, except on weekdays, when humans are at work--the absence of culture here reveals more than its presence ever could). The parking attendant's booth, existing only to collect the $7.00 toll to park, has a human watching over it; the lifeguard station, which exsts, in theory, to save people, is empty (because, I suppose, you probably can't charge $7.00 prior to saving a life; it's bad for business.)
The yuppies (a nickname I just appropriated at Alex's suggestion; he's standing over my shoulder, reading this as I type it, and suggested that, as I have already shared our nickname for The Breaker, it might be appropriate to come up with a nickname for everyone who is not him--e.g., everyone else, including us, e.g., the yuppies. Te amo, Alejandro! Y besitos!) are a mark of contemporary Wednesday afternoon beach culture: mostly young, overwhelmingly heterosexual, appropriately clothed, smiling; the maverick is a mark of...well, everything else, Outsiders and Others and Other 'O' words I can't being to think of now that might describe someone living on the fringe of culture, who is marked as fuckin' crazy (sorry) because he isn't, well, young and smile-y and yuppified, as the culture of the beach tells us he should be.
I do want to say, though, that, had this not been a weekday, or had I been farther north or south, the yuppie culture predominant here would have been an anomaly; both the pier and Venice vendors look more like the Breaker than Alex or I (for now, at least, until we get all tatted up and pierced, and shave mohawks and wear leather clothes and BDSM collars and other shit that will make us unique, just like everyone else.)
I'm doing a sort of experimental bit on this thing, taking one observation (mostly objective, at the beach) and analyzing it in two different ways, on each of my blogs, in order to illustrate how the lens through which one chooses to view any individual act skews the construction/meaning of the act itself.
(Yes, that was a great sentence, full of insight and, errm, sense-making. Digs it and big ups.)
So.
Earlier today, my wonderful, delightful boyfriend and I went to Venice Beach, a veritable shithole--and, in essence, the perfect place to view humanity in its natural state (you know, you know, no, you don't, you don't know what I mean).
Halfway between the pier and the vendors that litter most of the stretch between Santa Monica and Venice, on the actual beach (surf, sand, salt 'n all), we found ourselves amidst mostly young couples, sparse and evenly spaced across the sands, few in number, largely similar: bikini tops, ironic beach t-shirts, California Rainbow (R) flip-flops, sunglasses, pullovers. Smiles.
Very young, very heterosexual. Very Southern California on a Wednesday afternoon.
The topography of the beach is similarly generic: a huge and mostly empty parking lot watched over by an attendant, a lonely lifeguard station sitting abandoned, vaguely rusted trash cans, omnipresent signs warning the reader that there shall be "NO SWIMMING/NO NADAR" (which really ought to read "NO NADANDO." Just saying). Sand. Mid-afternoon low tide, a few boats scattered in the distance in an area zoned safe for boating, not much else.
And then:
The Maverick: The Breaker.
Alex (mi novio) saw him first, walking his sand-filled Seven-Up bottle across the sand, a "break" from the monotony of the yuppies surrounding us, looking like he might "break" any who crossed his path in two, surprisingly reminiscent of Anthony Hopkins playing Breaker Ted Brautigan in Hearts in Atlantis, if Anthony Hopkins had long, grizzled white hair and a green speedo and an anklet and sunglasses and carried around a Seven-Up bottle. We watched him stalk across the beach, toward the lifeguard's stand, where he performed, to our unending amusement, a series of stretches and near-yoga poses.
The antithesis of monotony! The antithesis of yuppies!
And he was fuckin' crazy!
It's funny; It's culture.
(I'm assuming that everyone in this class will have a similar sentence somewhere in his/her post, and certainly don't want to be the only person without one. Also, I like semicolons.)
Apart from our Breaker, everyone has to wear occasion-approprate clothes; heterosexualty is overwhelming. Youth is important; employment, ergo capitalism, even moreso (Venice is never empty, except on weekdays, when humans are at work--the absence of culture here reveals more than its presence ever could). The parking attendant's booth, existing only to collect the $7.00 toll to park, has a human watching over it; the lifeguard station, which exsts, in theory, to save people, is empty (because, I suppose, you probably can't charge $7.00 prior to saving a life; it's bad for business.)
The yuppies (a nickname I just appropriated at Alex's suggestion; he's standing over my shoulder, reading this as I type it, and suggested that, as I have already shared our nickname for The Breaker, it might be appropriate to come up with a nickname for everyone who is not him--e.g., everyone else, including us, e.g., the yuppies. Te amo, Alejandro! Y besitos!) are a mark of contemporary Wednesday afternoon beach culture: mostly young, overwhelmingly heterosexual, appropriately clothed, smiling; the maverick is a mark of...well, everything else, Outsiders and Others and Other 'O' words I can't being to think of now that might describe someone living on the fringe of culture, who is marked as fuckin' crazy (sorry) because he isn't, well, young and smile-y and yuppified, as the culture of the beach tells us he should be.
I do want to say, though, that, had this not been a weekday, or had I been farther north or south, the yuppie culture predominant here would have been an anomaly; both the pier and Venice vendors look more like the Breaker than Alex or I (for now, at least, until we get all tatted up and pierced, and shave mohawks and wear leather clothes and BDSM collars and other shit that will make us unique, just like everyone else.)
The _____ Five Minutes of Film Ever
Originally Published 11.20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI9OYMRwN1Q
"The thing about my baby," Michael Jackson explains,"it don't matter if you're black or white." In what must be the most inspiring five minutes of film ever recorded, the 1991 music video to his platinum hit "Black or White," Jackson dances across the globe, examining intolerance and race relations. From the southern plains of Africa to the snowy steppes of Russia to his own backyard, the racial dichotomies of "black" and "white" are essentially capitalistic, and as suggested by Jackson's imagery and clever storytelling, ultimately solvable only by the open minds of future generations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI9OYMRwN1Q
"The thing about my baby," Michael Jackson explains,"it don't matter if you're black or white." In what must be the most inspiring five minutes of film ever recorded, the 1991 music video to his platinum hit "Black or White," Jackson dances across the globe, examining intolerance and race relations. From the southern plains of Africa to the snowy steppes of Russia to his own backyard, the racial dichotomies of "black" and "white" are essentially capitalistic, and as suggested by Jackson's imagery and clever storytelling, ultimately solvable only by the open minds of future generations.
Wittgenstein
From WEB-CT
Author: Elizabeth Christiansen
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:17am
I've been particularly interested in the use/power of language in 1984--particularly
Orwell's use of seemingly contradictory language in the slogans presented by Big Brother
("Freedom is Slavery," et al); the messages these, well, messages perpetuate seem to
rule each other out.
In the simplest terms, though, they make a lot of sense; denying any sort of metaphor in
them (difficult, yes, but work with me), the word presented ("Freedom"), through the
word "is," becomes its opposite ("Slavery")--that is, the term itself takes on a new
meaning, in direct opposition to what the reader understands it to mean (we are,
remember, denying metaphor and looking only at the literal), and, thusly, the binary
presented by the word[s] (Freedom/Slavery) disappears: the two words now mean one
and the same.
Wittgenstein, in I forget which writing (sorry) suggests that, in order for a concept to
exist, it must have some sort of word that means it (italics on the "mean," I wish Icould
format this)--there can be no freedom is the word freedom does not exist, because,
without the word to define it, the concept itself can mean nothing; by changing the very
concept of the word "freedom," (here, to mean "slavery"--to the residents of Oceania,
Freedom IS Slavery) freedom itself cannot exist--indeed, it has taken, through language
rules/tactics as theororized by Wittgenstein, a contradictory meaning that, eventually,
will be the only meaning--Freedom, through the power of language, will itself eventually
come to be Slavery.
Just an observation.
Author: Elizabeth Christiansen
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:17am
I've been particularly interested in the use/power of language in 1984--particularly
Orwell's use of seemingly contradictory language in the slogans presented by Big Brother
("Freedom is Slavery," et al); the messages these, well, messages perpetuate seem to
rule each other out.
In the simplest terms, though, they make a lot of sense; denying any sort of metaphor in
them (difficult, yes, but work with me), the word presented ("Freedom"), through the
word "is," becomes its opposite ("Slavery")--that is, the term itself takes on a new
meaning, in direct opposition to what the reader understands it to mean (we are,
remember, denying metaphor and looking only at the literal), and, thusly, the binary
presented by the word[s] (Freedom/Slavery) disappears: the two words now mean one
and the same.
Wittgenstein, in I forget which writing (sorry) suggests that, in order for a concept to
exist, it must have some sort of word that means it (italics on the "mean," I wish Icould
format this)--there can be no freedom is the word freedom does not exist, because,
without the word to define it, the concept itself can mean nothing; by changing the very
concept of the word "freedom," (here, to mean "slavery"--to the residents of Oceania,
Freedom IS Slavery) freedom itself cannot exist--indeed, it has taken, through language
rules/tactics as theororized by Wittgenstein, a contradictory meaning that, eventually,
will be the only meaning--Freedom, through the power of language, will itself eventually
come to be Slavery.
Just an observation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
