1984 vs. Brave New World/Handmaid's Tale
Shortly after we started reading 1984, we discussed in class which dystopia we would rather live in. My list had Oceania at the bottom. For me, my list would be: the World State, Republic of Gilead, and then Oceania. World State seemed the most "realistic" or imaginable place to live in because we can envision ourselves living in a society like that due to how much we currently rely on and use technology in our daily lives. Even though both World State and Gilead have drawbacks that limit my fondness of that society, there are certain aspects of Oceania that I can't imagine living in.
One of the main things I don't like about Oceania is how there is no freedom of thought. In Brave New World and Handmaid's Tale, when the people felt repressed and unhappy, they couldn't do anything about it without the fear of being killed. However, they at least had the freedom to dream what it would be like if they weren't being imposed on by a government that had certain interests. Although this doesn't make up for the fact that they are still being controlled, it at least alleviates part of the pain. On the contrary, even thinking something remotely rebellious in Oceania could get someone captured by the thought police and killed. Personally, I think it would be scary to live in a world where I would live in a constant state of paranoia, not knowing if I thought or dreamt something that was even remotely considered rebellious by the Party. It's frightening to think that the thought police could come for me at any time, especially since I would be unaware of what I was thinking about while sleeping.
Similarly, I didn't like the idea of telescreens - I felt that they were a frighteningly extreme invasion of privacy, even more extreme that the methods of control seen in Brave New World or Handmaid's Tale. Although I understand the need of constant monitoring, I thought it was nice when O'Brien was able to turn off his telescreen and do something "rebellious". That said, I do think this is better than having thought police because at least one can control their emotions and actions when in the view of a telescreen.
Something that I hadn't really noticed until I started comparing all three dystopias was how Oceania had goals that were vastly different from those of the World State or the Republic of Gilead. In both Brave New World and Handmaid's Tale, the government's main goal is to control the birth rate. Both societies have a complex society with many layers (the different castes in BNW and the Eyes, Guardians, Commanders, etc. in Handmaid's Tale) but Oceania basically has one main power (the Party) that is in control solely for the goal of maintaining control and power over everyone else. When we sensed a theme of controlling birth in two dystopias, the third one completely strayed from the theme. Likewise, the topic religion played a prominent role in both BNW and Handmaid's Tale but that element is virtually missing in 1984. Rather, the idea of religion is portrayed by Big Brother and the Party is often equated to God and religion since it can control the mind, body, and spirit of its people.
Which dystopia would you guys rather live in?
- Neha
Out of the three, I would rather live in the World State. Although they only achieved it through the means of soma, the society valued happiness to some extent. In contrast, I don't think there were any character in 1984 or The Handmaid's tale who was happy whether they were a high official or a lower caste member.
ReplyDeleteI would also rather live in the world state. Compared to the other two, the world state sounds like a vacation. If you get lucky enough to be an Alpha, you're set. You're not really ever gonna get in trouble, and if your mind wanders to the possibilites of a society, you can just take soma, forget about it, and be "happy." There is no constant surveillance or threats to your life. You do not work under people, you work for the state. Not to mention there are ways to entertain yourself, no matter how ridiculous they are.
ReplyDeleteI would prefer living in the World State. There you are "happy" and life seems easy enough, especially with the help of soma. Even if you're of a lower caste you're still "happy. I agree that living in Gilead would be better than living in Oceania. At least in Gilead there was a chance I could be an Aunt or a Martha which I think is better than being a Handmaid . Then Oceania does sound pretty scary because you're not even safe in your own home and your own kids could turn on you.
ReplyDeleteI would also prefer to live in the World State. At least there is some sense to be happy even though the sense of happiness revolves around a drug and is artificial for the most part. In 1984 and the Republic of Gilead, its like the governing bodies are trying to make your life as miserable as possible and everything is designed for the supposed "greater good".
ReplyDeleteI agree with Krishna Sandhya Subbiah. I wouldn't have much of a problem with living in the World State because Soma would make life quite bearable and, in my opinion, is a very ideal substance to have in a society.
DeleteI started off disagreeing with you that 1984 was the worst dystopia of them all (I would have picked Gilead, probably) but you kind of convinced me here. I hadn't really thought of how horrible it would be to not even be able to retreat to the peace and quiet of your own thoughts. Though on the other hand, I still think Gilead might be worse in terms of the grotesque things that happen on a regular basis within it.
ReplyDeleteGreat comment! I understand the points that you have brought up, but I still feel that Gilead is the worst to be honest. I understand how the telescreen monitoring might be prohibitive, but I think personally that living in Gilead while all of these sickening events are transpiring would have a heavier mental toll.
DeleteI agree with your analysis - Oceania's controlling nature and its violations of privacy made it the least appealing society to me. The constant threat of execution also provided a fear that exceeded even the atmosphere of Gilead. And as others have said, the World State really wasn't that bad - it achieved its goal of stability, and it supposedly kept its citizens happy, which I would value more than the means by which it maintained that happiness.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to live in one of these societies forever, I think I would agree and put the World State first, but at the same time the World State is the only one of these societies where we are never given a single clue by the book itself to suggest the ultimate fall of the dystopia, or the possibility of a world existing outside of it. In both 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale, the ending sections of the book imply (or outright state in the case of The Handmaid's Tale) that the dystopia we see eventually falls, and to me, in some sense, the possibility of change feels more positive than the unchanging happiness of the World State (though I'd still prefer to live there if there was no possibility of societal change).
ReplyDelete-Sasha
I would also prefer living in the World State.
ReplyDeleteYour blog post was nicely detailed and really outlines the terrifying intrusion of privacy that Oceanic society has that the other two worlds do not. Similarly to incidents that have occurred in real life, the most frightening thing is when the controlling party tries to control your very thoughts. At that point, if they succeed, you are no longer yourself, an individual, but merely another cog in the giant political system. Terrifying.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think 1984 is the worst society to live in. In the other societies you at least have freedom to think. In 1984 what you think is literally a crime. (i.e. thoughtcrime). Offred's characters is based on the fact that she can think by can't attack. In Brave New World they are conditioned to have these extreme opinions that are deeply ingrained in them. Overall I would want to live in Gilead because at least I would still know myself.
ReplyDelete- Anna
I think I would want to live in BNW because I wouldn't live under constant fear. In Gilead I would live under the constant fear of execution and in Oceania I would live in fear because of my thoughts. What I find most ironic about BNW is how it has achieved everything the Oceania want: complete control over the behavior and thoughts of their citizens. Oceania treats those who don't adhere to the system as seriously viable threats while BNW simply ships them off to their supposed island.
ReplyDeleteI think between Oceania, the World State , and Gilead, I would choose to live in the World state. While there are some aspects of the society that I don't totally agree with, I think the people living in Brave New World's universe are somewhat happy, even if it is a kind of engineered happiness. if I ever had any problems, I would just be able to take soma and feel better. While it may not be healthy and doesn't really solve my problems, I would choose it over the alternative options.
ReplyDelete