Oppression in Oceania vs Sedation in BNW
When asked in class whether we would prefer to live in
either BNW or Oceania the majority said they would prefer to live in BNW. I
find this preference not surprising because in BNW its citizens are not under
the constant threat of violence and execution that exists in Oceania. However, I believe that if I didn’t have to
live in either of the dystopias but had to choose one to exist in the world I
would prefer that Oceania exist. My rational behind this decision is that even
though it is harder to live in Oceania it might be an easier target to
overthrow for the future of the next generation because the Inner Party simply
has not mastered what the BNW has: the creation of a self-perpetuating
totalitarian state through addictive self-gratifying sedation.
BNW is brilliant in how it uses human desires to maintain a happy
complacent population. Instead of trying to restrict an individual’s behavior BNW
encourages its people to pursue their base human desires by conditioning
everyone to pursue gratification by surrounding themselves with others and soma.
On the other hand the Inner Party continuously attempts to restrict people’s behaviors
through the establishment of various organizations such as the Anti-Sex league.
Both dystopias desire to control the private and personal aspect of their citizens’
lives, however, one uses fear and violence which must be continuously
reinforced while the other uses “happiness,” a much more powerful method of
control because people desire happiness.
BNW also better ensures that its population is unreceptive to
the ideas of bad actors. In BNW the social structure is engineered so that
those that think differently like Bernard are less able to act upon their ideas
or for those ideas to get radicalized into the overthrow of the government.
Whenever Bernard expresses his feelings, he experiences something similar to
peer pressure pushback from his own community. However, the Inner party faces a
continuous battle of finding out dissidents and vaporizing them because these
radical ideas can quickly spread in Oceania.
While Oceania definitely isn’t an enticing dystopia to live
in, Oceania’s structure is much more susceptible to overthrow than BNW because of
the constant tension between the Inner Party and everyone else. In BNW there is
very little chance of radical change simply because how the society is in a
constant state of happiness with no apparent class tensions. I think our
preference of BNW is very telling of how easy it is for a dictatorship to rise when
it manipulates its people by giving them a sense of happiness, even though in
reality it is depriving people of the truth. It seems that as long as people
are content with their personal needs, people are less willing to take risks to
make a change even if it’s better for future generations.
If you did not have to live in Oceania or BNW but had to choose
one to exist in the world which one would you prefer?
-Sarah
I totally agree with your interpretation! However I would rather live in Gilead if that was an option. In Brave New World and 1984 the government's control is very focused on wiping out individuals that THINK differently to the power structure. While in Handmaids Tale this happens too I feel like it is much easier for Offred to act pious and then be rebellious inside her own head. In Oceania and the New World Order it's like thinking is the real crime. So if given a choice I would wanna live in Gilead where I would have freedom to think.
ReplyDelete- Anna O.
I also would rather live in Gilead because, above all, I value the ability to think what we want. Even with all the extreme surveillance and regulations, I think it would still be manageable as long as I had the power to control my own thoughts. This was one of the main reasons I didn't like Oceania - I didn't like the idea of telescreens knowing what people were thinking of, even unconsciously.
DeleteYeah exactly! To me 1984 is the scariest society to live in. It's not just they're trying to control your behavior they're trying to control your very thoughts and freedoms. It is the most extreme type of oppression. But in Oceania you have enough self awareness to be capable of thoughts of freedom. In Brave New Order the society is so brainwashed that they can't think of freedom, which is somewhat better.
Delete- Anna O.
I"m wondering what it would be like to live as a prole in 1984. It honestly sounds more normal than anything else because you're under less constant scrutiny and more free to just live your life. I guess you're still being lied to and manipulated by the government, but if you have yet to realize it yet then you'd probably be fine. Maybe that's kind of morbid haha
DeletePersonally, I would rather have the dystopia from 1984 exist as well. This is because the proles are useless. Considering Oceania would take the place of a country, like Russia or China, they wouldn't pose much of a threat, if not any at all. Other than the control they have in their own country, they are weak and completley outnumbered. This is expecially true if we could gain the support of the proles. Contrast this with the New State, that could potentially manufacture an army fully expendable and made for the sole purpose of being soldiers. That is a scary thought especially since they will forget everything new they learn after taking soma, allowing the outside to not affect their judgement at all.
ReplyDeleteI would personally prefer living in BNW because I would at least have the illusion of happiness and I would believe that I wasn't being oppressed instead being blatantly oppressed. Even though many people in the otehr two dysoptias did seem to believe that they were in a perfect society, I think overall BNW was probably the happiest of the two.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose between being an epsilon and prole, I would prefer living in BNW as I would not be subject to the fear and violence those in 1984 are. Although the lower classes of BNW enjoy less freedoms than the proles of 1984, they are in a better socioeconomic situation amd enjoy a higher standard of living in a world not dominated by war. The World State cares about the well-being of its citizens, providing them with a variety of ways to please themselves. On the other hand, the proles of 1984 live in extreme poverty and are wholly dependent on the manipulative Party for their basic necessities. This is not a healthy situation as the proles basically have to work for extreme hours at end in order to live to see another day. Even if I turn out to be an epsilon minus, I would rather live under the pretense that my life is perfect than live in poverty and suffer through it as a prole.
ReplyDeleteI think I disagree with your criterion for what constitutes the "better" dystopia. I think that you are saying that Oceania is better because it is more "overthrowable". I would rather characterize BNW's society as better just to live in - without regards to overthrowing the world order. The soma would put everyone in a euphoric state all of the time which I see as much better than fearing for one's life constantly.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I find your points compelling, I agree with Albert. Even if I did not have to live in the society, someone would have to and I would not wish it upon anyone to have to exist in the Oceania society and feel the constant fear and apprehension the citizens in 1984 experience. Also, although Oceania's government is an easier target to overthrow compared to the one in BNW, there are still many barriers someone would have to get through to effectively tear down the government. The largest obstacle I foresee is being able to organize the numbers of rebels that would be needed to overthrow the government.
DeleteThese were my thoughts exactly. As an individual just trying to live my life, I’d MUCH rather live in BNW. Whether or not a rebellion is possible in either situation, it takes more than one person, and in Oceana especially, you’d have to be extremely tough mentally to oppose the Party. I’d rather have the relative freedom and higher standard of living in BNW.
DeleteI am not sure I understand you, but from what I can tell, it seems that you would prefer for Oceania to exist purely because it can be overthrown more easily than BNW?. If so it makes sense, if both worlds are terrible to live in, one would choose the one more easily changed. I also agree with your point that Oceania is more easy to overthrow, as it works actively against human nature, while BNW works with human nature. However if we were to choose which one we truly wanted to live in, I think most would still choose BNW, purely because its just a happier and easier life.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the world of 1984 seems much easier to overthrow from the outside, but disagree on what world I would prefer to exist. Oceania has the bomb, and clearly enough to eliminate its rivals, which probably renders a military solution impossible, and we know that supporting resistance groups there is extremely difficult. As such, I'd prefer a state similar to the World State, because at least its citizens aren't miserable.
ReplyDelete-Sasha
DeleteI agree with Sasha: while Oceania is less entrenched than BNW society, it would be very difficult to overthrow because its society is reliant on warfare to survive and resistance groups would not work. While BNW isn't great, there is less torture and life seems more pleasant for the people there. Oceania actively has bad intentions for its people, and so I think I'd rather have BNW exist.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but I don't think it would be easy to overthrow Oceania, it may just be easier than overthrowing BNW, and that's what makes the difference for me. I would rather have BNW exist in the world because then, at least nobody is suffering. Nice post though!
ReplyDeleteI agree, I don’t think Oceania would be very easy to overthrow. If I were to live there, I would probably want to overthrow it but wouldn’t know how. Therefore, my life would be constant torture. Living in BNW would be much better because at least you think everything is good
DeleteI think this is a really interesting point. In 1984 we already saw existing resistance groups that were working to overthrow Big Brother. I doubt that sort of thing would be successful in the World State. If I had to live in one world, I think I would choose the World State just because they're people do seem happier in general. However, I do agree with you point that it would be much easier to create an uprising against a society like Oceania.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I agree that although the World State seems like a more desirable place to live, if my goal was to overthrow a dystopian society and establish a real utopia, my bets would be on Oceania. As you said, the World state is impenetrable. Also, there is no undercover organization that wants to overthrow the World State. As far as we know, the only people that want to overthrow the state are Bernard and John. However, in Oceania, there is the Brotherhood, which I think has the potential to bring about a revolution.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is more of a chance to overthrow Oceania. However, assuming that I can't safely overthrow the government I would rather be controlled by drugs and be happy. But I would hate both a lot.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think I'd rather have fake happiness than live in a society where I constantly have to fear for my life. It is kind of like the matrix in the sense of living in ignorance instead of participating in the actual matrix.
DeleteI would choose to live in Oceania as well, for the same reasons you stated. But if one dystopia was to forever exist on the planet without ever changing, I'd choose BNW because its not as harsh a society (or a confusing one, for that matter. At least no ones telling you "War is Peace" and encouraging you to doublethink all the time).
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your point that Oceania is easier to overthrow than the World State were it to be placed in our world, however I would say that in the context of both books both societies are basically so entrenched that they are essentially impossible to overthrow. For the record, I would rather live in the World State (Soma > Room 101 thx). I think that the World State has the benefit of being centuries ahead of Oceania, so that they were able to harness better technology to achieve both societies' goal, the control of people's minds. With this better technology, they don't have to use as much heavy-handedness to achieve this goal as Oceania does. I think it's interesting to wonder whether Oceania could have been what the World State was centuries earlier (I happen to think it's sort of plausible).
ReplyDeleteThe thing about BNW though is that I feel that life in BNW isn’t so bad that I’d feel the need to rebel. Particularly because with soma I feel like every day would feel great and as if I’m living in a utopia. I feel that living in BNW would be a lot more about enjoyment than overthrowing it. Life in Oceania on the other hand would be a living hell. To be under constant surveillance, and to have everything I do be restricted would drive me insane. It would probably make me feel that it’s worth risking my life to escape the dystopia I would live in. Personally, the choice is clear. I would 100% live in BNW.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. Oceania might be easier to overthrow for a future generation, but I would rather live in a world where I thought I was happy. I also wouldn’t want to be under constant surveillance. It does sound like hell.
DeleteI think I would most want to live in BNW. Even though the citizens don’t really know the truth, at least they think that they’re happy. I guess I could live in Gilead if I were a man and a commander. If I had to be a handmaid, I would not want to live there.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your interpretation from a 3rd person, all knowing perspective, but I think that if i was actually living in one of the two, I would much prefer the world in Brave New World, just because I would be happy in some sense, even if it is drug induced and artificial. Life in Oceania just seems miserable for nearly everyone.
ReplyDelete