In Oceania, the proles (proletariats) are the lower class of people, representing 85 percent of the population. Party members see the proles as naturally inferior, frequently comparing them to animals. Winston realizes that "if there is any hope, it lies in the proles" (69). Even though he hopes to verify the existence of the Brotherhood and succeeds in doing so, he notes that the few members of the Brotherhood within the Party would not have nearly as much power as the proles. They live under a different set of laws than Party members and there are rarely telescreen in prole homes. The proles, however, are too disjointed and distracted a group to actually notice that they are being oppressed and rebel against it. They live worrying only about their jobs, families, and the Lottery. Winston recognizes that there is a difference between staying alive and staying human and that, ironically, the proles are more human than members of the Party. They are not under the constant inspection of the Party, and can act somewhat freely. They can choose whom they marry and form real friendships without seeming suspicious. As Syme said earlier in the book, Old English would be completely replaced by Newspeak by 2050 in the Party but not in the proles. Newspeak limits people's range of expression by cutting down words and preventing people from having complex thoughts, making thoughtcrime impossible. The proles would still speak in Old English and thus be capable of expressing themselves and even having a larger range of emotions than members of the Party. In this way, the proles will continue to be more human than the members of the Party, although they are both being oppressed.
I like your comment about staying alive versus being human. This conflict seems to be central to many dystopian texts which remove the essence of living. In The Road, we see that surviving is truly different from being human as the characters descend into cannibalism. In The Handmaid's Tale, perhaps similarly to 1984, the characters are restricted from the "normal" human pursuits that give meaning to their lives. We seem to want to understand what gives significance to our existence, and whether existence is worthwhile without those things.
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting to think of whether the proles are “really” human. Let’s say that they are definitely more human than the Party members who are constantly being spied on and restricted – still, if the proles are too distracted and disjointed to notice their own oppression, how human are they really? Or perhaps that is still very human, to be focused on one’s daily minutiae rather than the larger scope of a political, society-wide injustice, but still it is troubling. To be oppressed enough not to notice one’s own oppression is a frightening idea. Yet it is interesting that in 1984, this obliviousness isn’t connected to a rise in technology where it is in many of the other texts – Fahrenheit 451 would be an obvious example. Orwell didn’t choose to focus on technology, yet the consequences he foresaw for the issues he did investigate (communism, fascism, propaganda) were approximately the same ones that many dystopian societies experience.
ReplyDelete