A Man-Trans-Woman-Others Who Hated The World 1984 ? Of Love War Peace Hate

In a dirty prison cell, there lived a man who dedicated his whole life to isolating himself from the world. As opposed to most prisoners, he wasn’t put there against his will. This man voluntarily lived in a prison cell, knowing that he could walk out anytime he wanted. Nevertheless, he never tried.

Show more

“Why should I?” he told himself every time this annoying voice tried to persuade him to leave. “The world is a disgusting place,” he uttered. “And in here, at least I’m safe”.

He was a loner, without a doubt. But he didn’t choose solitude because he loved his own company. He did it because he hated the world.

The Man Who Hated The World is a (motivational) short story about a man who suffers from severe existential angst. On top of that, he is tormented by an annoying voice that tries to persuade him to leave his cell. Even though he hates almost everything that the world has to offer, he does like the sea. Unfortunately, he is too scared to go out and visit.

Rather, he enjoys the safety of his cell, and his resolve is strengthened by the misery that overcomes the people around him. But is he truly as safe as he thinks he is?

The Meaning of War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength in Orwell's "1984" At the beginning of "1984," these words are presented as the official motto of the nation of Oceania: - War is Peace - Freedom is Slavery
- Ignorance is Strength — George Orwell, 1984

These slogans were created by an entity known only as “The Party,” which consist of those in charge of the country. The words are written in enormous letters on the white pyramid of the Ministry of Truth, which considering that they are obvious contradictions, seems to be an odd place to put them.

The fact that this motto is written on a government building for a department called the Ministry of Truth suggests that the author is trying to convey that these statements are somehow true for the society he has constructed. These are just the first in a series of contradiction written throughout the book and they serve to represent the nature of the society and how it is held together through the way in which these opposites function.

Orwell opened his book in this way on purpose in order to introduce the reader to the concept of Doublethink, which is what allows the people of Oceania to live with constant contradictions in their lives. Doublethink is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in one’s mind simultaneously.

The Party develops this ability in it’s citizens by undermining their individuality, independence and autonomy and by creating an environment of constant fear through propaganda. In this way, the Party breaks down their ability to think rationally and makes citizens accept and believe anything they tell them, even if it is entirely illogical.

The book is filled with similar contradictions like the ones seen in the opening quote. For example:

The Ministry of Peace oversees war
The Ministry of Love carries out the torture of political prisoners and serve as the police of Oceania
The Ministry of Truth is in charge of changing the content in history books and in the news to agree with the Party’s beliefs
These contradictions keeps the citizens constantly off balance, so they are never sure of themselves or each other and must rely on the party for guidance as to how to live their lives.

The fact that the national motto of Oceania is just as contradictory as these other examples emphasizes the success of the Party’s campaign of psychological mind control. The government has become able to maintain the apparent veracity of these opposing statements because the functions they serve which make them a reality in the society of Oceania.

What Is the Meaning of "War Is Peace" in 1984?
The first slogan is probably the most contradictory of the three. The people of Oceania believe that the saying War is Peace means that in order to have peace one must tolerate the horrors of war. It does not equate the two as the statement might otherwise suggest. The people fully believe that war is bad and peace is good.

Yet, as in real life, the people have come to the understanding that sometimes one must make terrible sacrifices in order to have a peaceful nation. The war does not take place on the soil of Oceania but instead, somewhere far from it so they don’t see the horrors of the battle, the destruction, the wounded and dead in front of them. They only hear about it through the daily announcements made by the Party.

While this contradiction may seem like a logical reality at first, it becomes less so when the reader realizes that there is actually no war occurring at all. It is a made up fiction created by the Party just to keep the people in line. It is intended to keep their attention focused elsewhere, so that they do not realize how the Party is controlling their every thought and action.

The motto War is Peace indicates how having a shared enemy unites the people of Oceania and helps them remain on a common course. It gives them something to worry about external to the way the country is being run, that is happening somewhere else. It helps to prevent them from becoming consciously aware of the obvious problems in their own society. This mentality, put in place for the benefit of the Party, gives the people someone other than the government to blame for their problems, making them easier to rule.

A state of constant war demonstrates that people are sacrificing for the greater good of the society, pledging their effort and money to the war, and devoting themselves to their country and government. From the Party's point of view, all of this is good in that the more people that invest in and commit to their nation and government, the fewer problems they will perceive.

This saying focuses the people's attention, preventing them from being consciously aware of the obvious problems in their own society, where they are being actively manipulated and controlled. If people find themselves having thoughts counter to accepted government rhetoric, they can quickly distract themselves by thinking about the war and worrying over the possibility of attack.

What Is the Meaning of "Freedom is Slavery" in 1984?
The second motto, Freedom is Slavery, represents the message that the party imparts to the community that anyone who become independent of society’s control is bound to be unsuccessful. A society that is based on free will result in chaos and the devolvement of the society. Since the slogan is commutative, if freedom is slavery then slavery is freedom. Here, the Party communicates the message that those who are willing to subjugate themselves to the collective will or the will of the society which by definition is the will of the Party, will be freed from danger and wanting what they can’t have. Society defines what is good, what is acceptable, what is desirable. Those who focus on those things and on fulfilling the will of the society will be free from despair and will lack nothing, at least nothing that society, or the Party, condones.

The Party embodies the idea of a paternalistic structure for those who live in Oceania. Hence, the idea of the Government surveilling it’s citizens being presented under the guise of “Big Brother.” Adherence to the ideals and rules are ensured by this individual, who is presented as a family member and who is supposed to only have the best interests of the people in mind.

In order to survive in this society, the citizens must ignore the clear reality that Big Brother is certainly not a family member showing concern, but is rather the government spying on everything the citizens do in order to control them. The Party even interprets facial gestures and nonverbal communication and the people can be tortured as political prisoners because of behavior interpreted as subversive.

The obvious contradiction here is that it is only by enslaving yourself to the government and whatever they condone that you are free from harm and imprisonment. Freedom in Oceania means the freedom to do and think what the Party wants without deviating from their rules and regulations.

What Is the Meaning of "Ignorance is Strength" in 1984?
There is also the need for the citizens to subvert their will and their awareness to accept the contradictions the government puts forth. They are expected to bury the truth and accept irrationality such as is demonstrated in the three statements. Ignorance is therefore strength as it is the willing ignorance of the people who ignore obvious contradictions. They fail to investigate such inconsistencies as a non-existent war with an ever changing enemy.

It is this ignorance that maintains the power of the government and the seeming coherence of the the society. It is only through ignorance that people can find the strength to live in a totalitarian society where the government oppresses them even while communicating to them how fortunate they are.

Members of the Party participating in "hate week."

What Are the Themes in 1984?
When first reading these three slogans, most people scratch their heads wondering how conflicts that can arise from equating two opposites. But the idea of contradiction is one of the main themes of the novel. In particular, specific themes include:

A shifting definition of freedom and enslavement
The nature of trust and true loyalty
What reality is and how it is affected by appearances
All of these themes are contradictory, yet they power the plot of the novel.

Shifting Definitions of Freedom and Enslavement
One idea presented in Orwell's book is expressed in the saying:

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The government has grown to become omnipotent, writing its own version of reality by changing the content of history books, and making the people too fearful to think critically.

The Party is so powerful that when it says 2+2=5, the people accept this and come to mindlessly believe it. When the Party declares that Oceania is at war with Eurasia, they distribute heaps of propaganda and edit records so that the people accept that this is how it is and has always been. When the government then says Oceania is at war with Eastasia and has always been at war with them, the people allow their reality to be changed and accept this as true. Not only that, but they accept that Eurasia has always been their ally.

Even so, the people do not perceive any of these contradictions as a type of enslavement. They willingly let the Party tell them what to think, what to believe, what to value, and how to act. They allow the government to change these ideals whenever they choose, believing the new propaganda as fact and repressing the previous reality.

The people must be aware on some level that they are accepting clear opposites, reversals of what is presented as fact, and revisions of history. Yet they have come to accept this as a small price to pay for safety from their assigned, feared enemy.

It is almost as if the government sometimes changes reality just because they can. There is no need to change a fictional enemy, as the entire war is made up anyway. Creating a new contradiction for the people seems sometimes to be done just because the Party is able to do so, and because it keeps the population on its toes. The government has not only come to rule completely, but has reached a point where it takes pleasure in enslaving people so they do, say, and believe whatever their master tells them.

The nature of the relationship between the Party and its citizens is very much like slavery. The people must serve the government, and any attempt to “escape” with independent thought is brutally punished. The people are valued only insomuch as they benefit the government.

In 1984, Winston, the protagonist, and Julia, his lover, secretly attempt to escape from the mind control of the government in a room they rent above Mr. Charington’s shop. They believe the old-fashioned room has no telescreen, a device through which the Inner Party surveils the population.

But in fact the room does have a telescreen hidden behind a painting, and Mr. Charington is actually a member of the thought police. The notion of freedom cannot be maintained as Winston and Julia are attempting to define it. They cannot be free just because they remove themselves from their normal environment and go to a different room. There is no escape.

As the book comes to a close, Winston’s idea of freedom has changed. He no longer has a sense of individual self, he has, in essence, become selfless, a part of the greater society. Now, he is not only compliant with the Party’s dictates, but he wants to be compliant. He loves Big Brother and has no difficulty rejoicing when he hears about a tactical victory in Africa. The author then states that he slips back into a blissful dream where he perceives himself to have a soul as white as snow as he confesses and reports more people to the thought police.

The novel ends by saying that the long hoped for bullet entered Winston’s brain. This does not mean he actually died, but that the independently-minded Winston, whose idea of freedom was freedom from Big Brother and the dictates of the Party, died. This suggests that Winston was willing to give up all that he had fought for and accept being subservient, controlled, and manipulated.

In today’s complex world, it can sometimes feel as if having others take responsibility for making decisions for us would be freeing. We wouldn’t have to struggle with different options or accept the consequences of bad decisions and situations we can’t control. For different people, different degrees of autonomy, responsibility, and consequences contribute to the way freedom is defined. Some may feel free when they have more control over their life, even if it means they have more responsibility. For others, the stress of responsibility hampers their sense of freedom.

More choices may be construed as freedom, while numerous options may paralyze. Thus, freedom may be perceived in different ways by different people. As we see with Winston and Julia, this is even true in the dystopia of 1984.

Trust, Loyalty, and Betrayal
The twisted nature of trust, loyalty, and betrayal is a recurring theme in the novel 1984. Winston is betrayed by Mr. Charrington, O'Brien, and Julia. He also betrays Julia as well as himself. Yet the novel explores the nature of trust and how it plays into loyalty and betrayal. Without trust, there can be no loyalty or betrayal, and trust is almost non-existent in the novel. The characters can never know if they are being observed, either in person or through the telescreen.

It is also impossible to know who is a member of the thought police, and even those who are not part of the thought police often betray others by turning them in. On multiple occasions those closest to one other–such as spouses, siblings, parents, and their children–may betray each other. Yet this is what is expected of the members of this society. Citizens report one another with zeal.

Prior to their arrest and torture, Winston and Julia believe the only true betrayal is the betrayal of the heart, as this is the only kind of betrayal they have control over. They learn that they actually have no control over this type of betrayal either, as in the end they have no choice but to betray each other and themselves. What establishes their loyalty to each other is trust in something outside of the Party and Big Brother, but this idea is eventually broken.

They aren't traitors, though, until the Party makes them traitors through torture, when they confess to betraying the entire society and are forced to further betray anyone toward whom they may feel loyalty. The Party seeks to eliminate potential betrayal at the root by getting rid of all trust and loyalty.

So, the contradiction exists whereby trust and loyalty to other citizens is deemed bad, while trust and loyalty to the Party is deemed good. Moreover, betrayal of the Party is deemed bad, while betrayal of others is deemed good. The irony is that when all loyalty toward other citizens is destroyed, no true loyalty toward the Party can exist either. Still, loyalty based on fear and manipulation is satisfactory to the Party.

Winston believes that despite knowing they will turn against each other and tell the Party what they want to hear about each other's sins, as long as they continue to love one another this will not be betrayal. This is an idealistic and naive viewpoint, since he clearly tells Julia that, once they are captured, there will be nothing they can do for each other.

Truthfully, they can remain loyal to the other by not giving up information. But neither of them consider this an option. When you cannot put another over yourself, or stop yourself from saying something that could harm the other, true or not, not only can there be no trust and thus no loyalty, there can be no love.

The Appearance of Reality vs. True Reality
In the novel, O’Brien tries to teach Winston about the nature of reality under the Party through torture, manipulation, and fear. Winston attempts to hold onto his belief that there is a true reality that cannot be controlled by the Party, especially in relation to the past, which is fixed and a part of people’s memories. O’Brien points out that the Party controls all documents as well as people’s thoughts, so the Party truly can control the past.

This absolute control leads to the assertion that whomever controls the past controls the future, and whomever controls the present controls the past. O’Brien is arguing that the Party’s version of the past is what people believe, and what people believe is truth even if it has no basis in true reality. This is related to the Party slogans in several ways.

O’Brien wants Winston to let go and allow himself to be torn down so he can be reconstructed as a citizen that is loyal to the Party. This ties into the reversal of the traditional idea of freedom and enslavement, as it is only in allowing oneself to become enslaved by the Party, by fully accepting it and its ideals, that one can get rid of the stress and strain involved in fighting against it.

Once one accepts the Party, they no longer have to worry about what to think, how to act, or what to do with their lives. It is all done for them, and they are free from the burden of self-determination. By waging war against self-determination one can find peace. The easiest way to do this is through ignorance, which provides a person with the ability to accept anything the Party wants them to believe. This allows them to be a model citizen, and in this world, that is a strength.

Concluding Thoughts
In today’s world we all too often fail to notice that we are allowing ourselves to be enslaved as well. Sometimes this is due to propaganda and the lack of alternative information that is easy to obtain. Other times it may be do to shear laziness and the failure to seek the truth or to let ourselves realize that we are contributing to our own slavery such as when we turn over personal information online without thinking twice.

We register brief outrage when learning of the government’s intrusion into our private lives such as with hidden wires that allow them to access our mobile conversations and data. But we just as quickly let it go without demanding redress, with the excuse that we can’t do anything about it or that that the company in question must deal with it. We let government officials change reality with false facts and fake news and again give lip service to our anger and disbelief but allow them to remain in office saying that is what politicians do and we have to accept the bad with the good.

In other words. we are letting those who lead, those in power, define our reality, at least in part. This is done through whatever means will help them retain power as opposed to what is in our best interests. We accept propaganda that reverses itself similar to the war propaganda in 1984. For instance, whether Libya is our staunchest enemy or ally has depended on if there was benefit to one vs. the other at the time.

We can accept that a nation is our friends one day and our enemy the next, largely by allowing ourselves to remain ignorant. We fail to learn everything we can about the situation, instead, simply believing the position the government tells us to believe. We allow ourselves to be led to wage war on what we know to be reality that is based on manipulated collective memories of events.

This may seem like peace since we don’t have to work to undercover the truth of situations, but it is taking the easy way out and allowing others to define our past, present and future. The only way to find true freedom, peace and strength is to refuse to blindly accept whatever we are told just to keep things simple and non-confrontational.

We need to come to the conclusion that it is time to wage war on such automatic acceptance of manipulated reality. We can take a stance and follow our words with actions, demanding there be consequences for those who attempt to feed the public lies dressed up as alternate facts or who rewrite history according to their own best interests. This is ultimately what will lead to true strength, the abandonment of ignorance and ultimately freedom and peace.

Related Questions
What Are the Four Ministries in 1984?
Ministries in 1984 are the departments of the government that maintain the status quo. Each of the ministries has a different responsibility. The four ministries and their functions are as follows.

Ministry of Truth
Alters official documents to reflect the artificial reality dictated by Big Brother. Distributes propaganda, controls the flow of new information, and alters documents from the past to make them align with the present.

Ministry of Love
Enforces the rules of the government by carrying out surveillance of Oceania's citizens. Employs the thought police to spy on and capture potential offenders. Carries out the imprisonment and torture of political prisoners.

Ministry of Peace
Carries out all matters of war, including the creation of armies and the creation of weapons.

Ministry of Plenty
Carries out the production of goods like food, clothing, appliances, and equipment.

What Is Facecrime in 1984?
Facecrime in 1984 is committed when a citizen of the Party reveals that they are committing thoughtcrime through the expression on their face. It may also be something that indicates abnormality such as a nervous tic, a look of anxiety, muttering to oneself, for example. Anything that suggests someone has something to hide.

Facecrime can be detected using telescreens, a citizen spy, or a member of the thought police.

What Is Thoughtcrime in 1984?
Thoughtcrime in 1984 is committed when a citizen of the Party thinks "deviant" thoughts, which would include any thoughts that have to do with individuality or freedom. A citizen can be charged with thoughtcrime for simply thinking about thoughtcrime.

Thoughtcrime is detected with telescreens installed throughout Oceania that have both microphones and cameras. Thoughtcrime can also be detected by the inflection of one's voice or the micro-expressions of their face (called facecrime). Members of the thought police, an organization within the Ministry of Love, or a citizen spy may catch someone committing thought crime which leads to the individuals arrest and interrogation.

What Is Doublethink in 1984?
Doublethink in 1984 occurs when a person knows that something is not true, but believes it to be true anyway. One example of the citizens of Oceania using doublethink is if Big Brother were to say that 2+2 equals 5. While mathematical fact says that 2+2 equals 4, through the use of doublethink, 2+2 can equal 5.

Doublethink is a fact of life in Oceania, and must be used everyday in order to survive. The best citizens in George Orwell's dystopian universe are those who have mastered the art of doublethink.

What Is Duckspeak in 1984?
Duckspeak in 1984 occurs when someone speaks without thinking, like a quacking duck. In Oceania, saying that somebody is using duckspeak can be interpreted as either good or "ungood" depending on who is speaking and what they are saying.

If a citizen is saying something in line with the parties ideals then it is good. If they are carelessly saying something against the Party doctrine then it is "ungood" and results in their arrest and interrogations.

What Does it Mean to Be Vaporized in 1984?
To be vaporized in 1984 is to be captured by the thought police for a crime and eliminated. Being vaporized means you not only cease to exist, but have never existed. Once you have been vaporized by the Ministry of Love, the Ministry of Truth goes to work removing every trace of your existence.

Often, those who are vaporized are not even told of their crimes. Instead, they are simply abducted one day, taken to the Ministry of Truth, tortured until they admit to some wrongdoing, asked to implicate others, and vaporized. The cycle continues endlessly, and keeps citizens vigilant when it comes to enforcing Big Brother's rules and ideologies.

In one scene from the book, Winston, is his job at the Ministry of Truth, has to edit an article from the past about a man who was recently vaporized. Since he is now considered an unperson, Winston fills the hole left by this man by creating an entirely fictional character, a decorated war hero. Other departments in the Ministry of Truth go to work making a face for the man, taking pictures of him in professional studios that make it look like he is in some far away, war-torn land. Once this work is finished, the real man is gone, replaced by a fictional one.

What Is an Unperson in 1984?
An unperson in 1984 is a person who has been vaporized and no longer exists (and has never existed). This is the term the Inner Party uses to refer to those they have had removed from society through vaporization.

A large part of Winston's job at the Ministry of Truth is to fill the gaps in history that are left in the wake of unpersons.

A Different View of Women in Orwell's "1984" Women in 1984
Though some critics acknowledge that in a few of his writings, George Orwell's portrayal of women is sympathetic and relatively modern given the era in which he was raised, in the novel 1984, he largely presents misogynistic and stereotypical views of women.

In examining the characters of the book, these critics argue that there aren’t any positive portrayals of women in the novel 1984. Because of this, it has been suggested that the novel presents what is primarily a masculine ideology held by Orwell. Yet a closer look at the female character in the novel, and how Winston and the Party react to them, shows that the women in the novel are actually presented as the ones who will maintain society and allow for hope in the future.

Female characters that have been pointed to as having an important impact on the story include Julia, Winston’s mother and several of the lower-class Prole women. However, others have argued that these are not exceptions to the stereotypical portrayal which trivializes women. These individuals argue that Julia doesn’t really direct or impact the plot at any point and the others are unimportant as they are minor characters.

On the surface, this position could be seen to have merit. Julia is presented as shallow, generally uninterested in any type of intellectual pursuit and she falls asleep in the middle of seemingly important conversations. The other characters are, in fact, minor characters appearing only in a single scene or a few scant memories of the protagonist. Yet each of these characters, regardless of how many pages they appear on, has a major impact on Winston, and presents an ongoing theme of the ways in which women influence men and the world around them. Although it may seem that the author himself holds negative views of women or that he is deliberately portraying female characters in a prejudicial manner, the nature of the description related to them shows their importance.

Julia's Character
The first description of Julia in the novel 1984 begins with what on the surface may seem to be attractive characteristics. However, this is quickly overshadowed by transitions into a description of how undesirable the protagonist, Winston Smith, finds them.

“She was a bold-looking girl, of about twenty-seven, with thick hair, a freckled face, and swift, athletic movements. A narrow scarlet sash, emblem of the Junior Anti-Sex League, was wound several times round the waist of her overalls, just tightly enough to bring out the shapeliness of her hips. Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. He knew the reason. It was because of the atmosphere of hockey-fields and cold baths and community hikes and general clean-mindedness which she managed to carry about with her. He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones.” (p. 23)

Julia, who is a member of the Junior Anti-Sex League, is exactly the type of girl that Winston can’t stand. She is pretty, seemingly chaste, and, at least outwardly, loyal to the party. Yet it becomes clear that Winston’s strong reaction to Julia results from his longing for her and his feelings of hopelessness due to his certainty he can never end up with such a girl.

The Party, the totalitarian governing body, does not encourage love matches and sex outside of purely functional relations between man and wife for the sole purpose of procreation is a punishable offense. In a society that uses constant surveillance, referred to by the frequent statement, "Big Brother is watching," to monitor its citizens and trains even the children to turn in family members and friends for offenses against the government, risking rebellion for someone who doesn’t appear trustworthy would be suicide.

Even this opening, consisting of a seeming distasteful description of Julia, points to the power she has over Winston. He may have strong negative feelings towards her to the point he wants to rape and kill her in the beginning, but the ability to elicit such strong feelings speaks to the strength of her influence over him. Whereas Winston is overwhelmed with feelings of desire for her and other women, he won’t take a chance and approach any of them and instead subjugates his desire into hatred.

Julia, on the other hand, lives life according to her desires and finds ways to be with the men she chooses to be with while avoiding capture. She has the strength to do what she wants and in the process even manages to defy the Party which she hates as much as Winston does.

Not only is Julia not a weak character in 1984, but she also seems to have more going for her than Winston. She is more perceptive and sensible than Winston and understands the Party better than he does even if she doesn’t care about the politics behind it. She is more clever and is more cunning in the ways that she rebels against the Party. While Winston expresses his wishes about the Party's possible downfall in emotional terms, wanting to attack the Party at its very heart, Julia sees this as a fantasy.

Instead of focusing on unrealistic goals, she finds ways to get around the Party doctrine without calling attention to herself. This can be seen as a more mature response to a system that is in complete control when there is no real resistance movement that can be looked to for possible deliverance from the oppression.

Winston’s antipathy for women results from him blaming them for letting the party turn them into sexless beings who are expected to have sex only to have children but to never enjoy the act. The party has also tried to get rid of the feminine qualities of women such as affection and caregiving. For example, children aren’t meant to be nurtured, just raised to be obedient to the Party. The fact that Winston is angry at women for letting this happen to them underscores the power and ability he subconsciously believes them to have. He feels they should have somehow prevented this from happening.

Julia, however, doesn’t follow the Party’s rules, instead breaking them at every turn. She is clever enough to appear to be obedient externally but also finds ways to live according to her desires not those of the Party. She gives Winston hope, and he begins to imagine a world where he can think and do whatever he wants after they overthrow the Party. Julia also validates his beliefs and his feelings. She has a strong impact on Winston’s life, outlook and actions.

The Prole woman in 1984 is described unflatteringly as, “Swollen like fertilized fruit and grown hard and red and coarse” (p. 181). However, it is this sturdy nature that both Winston and Julia admire. Winston also notes that despite all the work the Prole woman must do, she is constantly singing throughout, something Winston finds hopeful. It represents the “Vitality the party did not share and could not kill” (pg.182).

Winston also equates the woman’s singing with freedom as members of the Party never sing. The Proles make up a large majority, 85 percent of the population of Oceania. Winston believes that if the Proles were to become fully aware of their plight that they would rebel and bring down the Party.

The Prole woman’s build, stocky and broad, is a symbol of the ability to reproduce and keep the society going. Winston and Julia view her as beautiful as she will be able to give birth to future generations of children who will become rebels against the Party. So in addition to presenting this woman as strong and resilient, as Julia was presented, the Prole woman is also presented as being able to remain happy in the face of difficulty and able to not just help ensure the survival of her generation but also generations in the future. The fact Winston and Julia see her children as intent on overthrowing the Party, speaks to her effectiveness as a mother and as having the ability to influence her children to do what is right for all members of the society.

Winston's Mother
Winston’s mother in the novel 1984 is the woman who most clearly encompasses true inner humanity. She is governed by “private loyalties,” the antithesis of Party values. Her nature is described by the statement, “It would not have occurred to her to that an action that is ineffectual thereby becomes meaningless.” “A completely helpless gesture, an embrace, a tear, a word spoken to a dying man,” are valued in their own right as they represent individual relationships. Winston remembers a time when women showed affection for affection's sake alone.

In a dream, Winston remembers his mother making this kind of embracing gesture, and associates a similar gesture with the mother in the film who is trying to shield her child from bullets. These gestures are associated with nobility and purity in Winston’s mind. They emanate from the strength, nurturance and protecting nature of women, that Winston sees as being embodied by his mother.

In another memory of his mother, Winston remembers playing a board game with her on a rainy afternoon, right before she disappears. The memory includes his younger sister and it is a happy memory of laughter and playing together just to enjoy each other's company. It is clearly his mother who is holding the family tightly together and binding them into a cohesive unit. The family members' love and care for each other have aspirations other than just pleasing the Party or gaining brownie points by turning people in as revolutionaries to be tortured. She establishes an atmosphere where affection is shown for affection's sake alone. Her very disappearance speaks to her strength and influence; if she was not seen as a threat to the Party, they would not have taken her.

The Prole Mother in the Movie and the Prole Woman in the Theater
One day Winston goes to see a movie which shows a young boy and his mother being attacked. The mother instinctively puts her arms around him trying to comfort him covering him up as much as possible as if that protects him from the bullets. The love this mother feels for her child completely outweighs her own instinct of self-preservation and she doesn’t consider her own danger, only that of her sons. She automatically puts herself in harm's way despite there being no chance either of them will survive the situation.

This further builds on the memories Winston has of his mother, as it shows the direct connection between parent and child which comes before every other need. It also is an example of how people have the ability to be selfless, despite the Party's efforts to reinforce a type of selfishness by suggesting that it is right for people to do whatever it takes to increase the chance of their survival. This is ironic in a society perpetrated on the idea that everyone must come together under a common umbrella of Party loyalty first without thought to their own needs.

Winston feels conflicted when watching this scene as part of him longs to be able to experience and express these types of emotions yet he knows that such thoughts are a betrayal of Party values. He recounts this scene in his diary showing how strongly it affected him, along with an account of a Prole mother who becomes furious at what the movie showed and that it was shown to children.

This woman’s reaction underscores the Prole mothers’ focus on protecting their children and putting them first even to the mother’s own detriment. This outburst occurs when the theater is filled with Party members, which poses a clear risk to the mother that she will be taken into custody. Yet her first impulse is to protect other children from seeing the violence and deaths portrayed in the movie. The Proles’ family relationships make them more compassionate and able to overcome their natural selfish instincts and this is, in large part, due to the women.

Summary and Conclusions
Most of the critical analysis of Orwell’s novel 1984 to date, views the author’s portrayal of women as stereotypical and misogynistic. There has been much discussion of the female characters in the book and they have been largely viewed as weak-willed, shallow, unintelligent and willing to just do what they are told. Yet, a closer look at these characters can actually uncover a different way of interpreting their roles in the book and what that says about women in general.

Julia is a pragmatist, knowing how to operate within the society's limitations, accepted rules and laws. She has devised a system to appear to the Party observers as the obedient, law-abiding woman who openly supports Party policy, as demonstrated by her participation in the Junior Anti-Sex League. She understands what Winston doesn’t, mainly that they can’t overthrow the entire government and so she learns how to pursue what makes her happy while limiting the risk of being caught. Ultimately, she is caught due to her relationship with Winston.

The Prole woman below his window sings regardless of the situation she finds herself in. This establishes the simple yet powerful nature of these women and suggests an inner strength shown that establishes resiliency, no matter what the circumstance. Winston believes that the Prole women are the only hope for the future of not just Oceania but the entire world.

Winston’s mother establishes the nature of women, a nature that is defined by compassion, affections and a strong commitment to family cohesion which is not determined by the Party. His memories of her despite her disappearance many years before show that her influence over him was actually stronger than the Party’s. This dedication to family was further developed through the Prole woman in the movie who put her child’s welfare before her own, and a similar impulse in the mother in the theater who put herself at risk to speak out against the movie’s content.

Ultimately, in the novel 1984, women are not portrayed as weak-willed, unintelligent beings who serve the men and must fulfill their desires without having any desires of their own or experiencing any pleasure themselves. The strong effect that the female characters have on Winston can be seen as something other than a prejudicial presentation of women.

The intensity of Winston’s reaction to Julia, his belief about the singing Prole woman, his memories of his mother which haven’t been overwritten by the Party, his noticing and understanding the actions of the prole woman in the movie and the theater, all suggest that the women in this society had definite import. If the Party needs to be afraid of a group of people undermining their authority, it is the women who the biggest threat to their continued leadership. Winston’s strong reactions and the Party's treatment of women both strengthen this position.

How Has George Orwell's Novel "1984" Come True Today? In the novel 1984, written in 1948, George Orwell presents a dystopian society that was intended to be a warning about the future of our world. Although at the time the reality that was set for the novel was almost unthinkable, in many ways, our society has come to look quite similar to the fictional one Orwell created.

One way our real world and Orwell’s fictional world resemble each other is in the prevalence of surveillance, which has been detailed in the book The Culture of Surveillance: Watching as a Way of Life by David Lyon. This topic has been also been discussed in numerous papers and textbooks and a number of articles have been composed to examine these similarities (see related articles).

In addition to the unprecedented use of surveillance, there are several other concerns about the future that Orwell expressed in the novel 1984 that have come to pass. These include the state of perpetual war, the prevalence of language shortcuts similar to what is termed “Newspeak” in the novel, and the reliance on fake news or “alternative facts” as a means of controlling public opinion. The presence of these factors in our society is altering the way we think about the world and what we are willing to accept in how we are treated by our leaders.

Perpetual War
In 1984, Oceania is always at war. The enemy is seen to change across the timeline of the book, but the war never ends. Sometimes the enemy may shift in a moment without any kind of admission that this has occurred. For example, during a "Hate Week" rally, the Oceania’s allies suddenly change and the person giving the speech switches literally mid-sentence, and goes from reviling one enemy nation to reviling another. The place where the battles are occurring is never stated, it’s just somewhere far away.

Regardless of the vagueness in terms of the identity of the enemy and the location of the fighting, the people know that Oceania is in a seemingly unending war, with an associated wartime economy. They take these things for granted and don’t question even obvious inconsistencies, such as a country being an ally one minute and an enemy the next, with no explanation of how this came about.

This situation is paralleled in our reality today, as we continue to fight the War on Terror, a general war with the goal of stamping out terrorism and potential terrorism everywhere it might exist. We have seen alleged terrorist attacks since 9/11 in the U.S., Europe, the Middle East and South Asia, in addition to other locations. Since it is difficult to believe that the world will ever be completely free of terrorist plots, this war is one that could go on indefinitely.

We also have had a shifting line in terms of who our friends and our enemies have been in the U.S. For example, prior to 2006, Libya was considered an enemy of the U.S. and was on the U.S. list of terrorist-supporting nations. In 2006, full diplomatic ties with Tripoli were re-established, with a U.S. embassy established there, as a reward for dismantling their weaponization program. It was further decided to remove Libya from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism after it seemed the country no longer supported armed groups and countries that were involved in developing weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. began to refer to Libya as an ally with similar goals.

In May 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a travel ban for Libya which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in June of the same year. The U.S. also issued new rounds of trade and economic sanctions against the country. Libya began to be referred to as a terrorist nation even if it fell short of being added to the list of countries considered guilty of State Supported Terrorism.

In terms of a wartime economy, this is not as evident as when there has been rationing or other limits such as for gasoline or food staples. Yet, the taxes we pay are still clearly supporting the war on terrorism and our GNP is greatly affected by these efforts both of which undoubtedly will continue for the foreseeable future.

While the war on terror is obviously an important effort, there have been questions raised as to how necessary it truly is. Questions abound about whether the war is serving its purpose of making the U.S. look strong alongside the rest of the world. Some have questioned whether the continued involvement around the world in this "war" is more of an attempt to keep the American people focused on a common "enemy," even if the enemy isn't actually a single nation.

This is exactly what the Party is using the fake war for in the book 1984. If this is the case, even in part, then it is plausible the war effort against terror may never be brought to an end. It's likely there will always be terrorists, and that our continued involvement will be justified to unite us as a nation.

Newspeak
In the novel 1984, Newspeak is a language which includes words that are essentially cut off and shortened, then strung together to create new words. The intention of Newspeak is to limit the usefulness of language to get rid of words that allow people to think and speak about revolution thereby preventing them from revolting against the government.

This idea that language allows you to form ideas you otherwise couldn’t form was first proposed by Benjamin Lee Worf, and it became a pervasive belief. With research, however, it came to be understood that you can obviously talk about things you may not have a word for. While language may not affect what thoughts we have, it does seem to affect which thoughts we remember. So based on that, the assumption in the book that limiting all thoughts about revolution by getting rid of relevant words might be possible, but it would be through the process of memory not the thoughts themselves.

The use of non-standard language, abbreviations and new words have not been consistently shown to be related to literacy or language comprehension. However, it is strongly related to the amount of time a child spends reading which has been linked to literacy and comprehension. Texting and the creation of new language components and ways of communicating have also found their way into all forms of written language both formal and informal which has begun affecting public discourse. Additionally, the different rates of cell phone use and accessibility based on generation and socioeconomic status could lead to different segments of society having difficulty communicating with each other.

The difference between the novel and reality today is that the language alterations and truncations have not resulted from the deliberate intent of the government to control thought specifically. However, the shortcuts that have found their way into language in recent years have indirectly affected literacy and language comprehension and have directly affected communication and public discourse. They have also led to a generational and socio-economic standard divide in terms of communication which could result in differences in understanding.

Fake News
One of the main components of 1984 are the Telescreens that emit continuous government propaganda. Additionally, Winston is employed to edit news reports to reflect the propaganda the government wants the people to believe. He even makes up imaginary people as witnesses to validate this new reality. The government in 1984 is also engaged in trying to get the people to only believe what the Party says, not what they know what is really occurring based on the evidence.

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command,” (pg. 29-30).

These sentiments have been expressed by U.S. President Donald Trump in a speech to his supporters. The U.S. president instructed them to not listen to what they read or saw in the news.

“Just stick with us, don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news,” Mr. Trump told the crowd. “Just remember, what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

Even though the audience was filled with his supporters they did not appreciate the message and erupted in boos, unwilling to be manipulated to believe what they are told not what they know through proof. It is ironic that the President is accusing others of spreading propaganda as he is essentially saying to just let him tell them what to think not to decide for themselves. This is the basis of being able to spread falsehoods and manipulate others into believing what you want them to believe. President Trump has been accused of spreading false news before as well. His support of his cabinet appointments, the statement that his inauguration had the largest turnout in history and claims of voter fraud, all of which have been shown to be inaccurate, have been given as just a few of many examples.

In today’s digital age, fake news and alternative facts have become the new norm. In fact, it is so common on so Facebook that Mark Zuckerberg is working with experts to create strategies to fight it. Twitter bots are actively spreading fake news, even while other bots are being employed to prevent this. There is more information available than ever and yet we constantly have to question its veracity and validity. After hours of careful research, we still may end up with figures and statistics that are not accurate because they have been reported out of context. In other cases, numbers and facts have been completely made up.

In 1984, Winston is okay with the fact that he is altering reality by changing the information people are given about their world. This is because he believes in an objective truth that can stand on its own and doesn’t need any additional information to validate it. We are much the same today as we believe that somehow the truth will out. We aren’t overly concerned with the state of the Internet which allows anyone to post anything online for all to see whether it is truthful or not. We feel that either we’ll be able to tell what is true and what is untrue, or that eventually the truth will have to be disclosed.

Yet we can’t always tell real news from fake news, especially when both sides are accusing each other of being the ones who are purposely spread false “facts” in an effort to misguide the public. In the absence of readily verifiable evidence, when the leaders of the society are providing the information it is almost impossible to know what is real and what is made up.

Summary and Conclusions
In conclusion, while George Orwell’s novel, 1984, was clearly a work of fiction written in the late 1940’s, the reality he predicted has been seen to come true in a number of areas. Surveillance and loss of privacy is a common occurrence in modern times. The war on terrorism seems to be unending with changing enemies and allies, shifting locations and no identifiable battlefields. Language shortcuts used to more quickly communicate digitally with a few letters often expressing entire thoughts are influencing literacy and cognition and causing divides between different segments of society. Fake news and alternative facts are accepted as objectionable yet unavoidable, even when uttered by government leaders and even when the falsehoods are obvious.

Government leaders have always attempted to manipulate the truth in their favor, of course. Yet it seems in modern times that reality is allowed to be altered based on leader’s whims without effort to even conceal this any longer. When what is true one day is said to be false the next and vice versa, this could lead to a state of affairs in which ignorance is accepted as the status quo.

As more and more information is made available to us in real time the chance that anyone will be able to verify the sources and evidence will continue to decrease. Without an insistence on accountability and a culture where truth is valued and logic used for debate instead of propaganda we could lose the ability to tell reality from falsehood.

In 1984, Winston asks, “How do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”

The answer to this question may be a world where we accept what we are told without question as absolute truth, even when it defies rational thought. This can only result in a reality where, like in the novel 1984, we don’t try to counter even such obvious contradictions as “Black is White”, “2+2=5”, or “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.”

It is up to us to prevent others from influencing our thoughts and beliefs with propaganda and to insist that our leaders avoid using fake news and alternative facts as an easy way to win favor over their opposition. Leaders must have followers to lead. If we blindly follow individuals without demanding that they are worthy of our support, then we will be to blame for any further loss of truthfulness, privacy, and basic rights that could result. We are ultimately responsible for our leaders words and actions, as we are the ones who must evaluate what they say and who give them permission to act on our behalf.

Show less