The Reservations and the Proles
Between the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World, we see two groups considered entirely irrelevant and harmless to the running of society, and yet with the potential to affect change throughout said society. These groups are the proles of 1984 and the “savages” on the reservations of Brave New World.
In both cases, these groups have been allowed by an otherwise deeply restrictive society to continue with their previous modes of conduct almost in their entirety. Both groups are allowed to continue their previous practices and modes of production. In Brave New World, the “savages” are permitted to continue marrying one another and having children born, while the society around them has moved entirely to artificial reproduction. Similarly, the proles of 1984 are permitted to marry, divorce, have sex without wanting children, and so on, while the members of the party, those considered a part of the “civilized society” of 1984, are encouraged to avoid having sex for any purpose other than reproduction.
In both groups, elements of the world before the emergence of the “new order” remain. The “savages” of Brave New World are allowed to continue practicing their syncretic religion, either an element of the previous culture or a combination of various cultural elements and beliefs. They continue to produce traditional spirits and clothes, and hold on to novels and literature which has long since been suppressed by the World State. The exact same is true of the proles of 1984, who are allowed to continue going to pubs, selling antiques and other items, and even, theoretically, as Winston points out, practice religion if any of them wanted to.
The two groups are allowed to continue their previous activities because they are considered harmless. To the World State of 1984, the native reservations pose no threat: the only reason they have not been eliminated entirely is because, as stated in the book itself, they are simply not worth the effort (and possibly not the emotional trauma caused to the citizens of the World State by real violence) to drop anthrax bombs on or simply use soma gas on them. To the Oceania of 1984 too, the proles are not a serious concern. They are sufficiently controlled by the lottery and the constant alteration of the past, and so can be trusted to continue acting as they have always done.
Yet, at the same time, the greatest possible threats to both societies can be found within the groups that they consider harmless. John the Savage, along with Bernard, presents a far more serious challenge for the authorities of the World State than anything else they regularly face. John specifically is the greatest challenge, Bernard can be sent to an island and exiled, but John continues provoking the various castes of the World State until he ultimately commits suicide. Similarly, Winston considers, probably rightly, the proles the only group who would be able to challenge Oceania if they were able to organize. The proles are basically ignored, not under constant surveillance from telescreens, and therefore able to organize.
-Sasha Rushing
-Sasha Rushing
I believe that the proles in 1984 pose a greater threat to its society than the the "savages" do to their society in Brave New World. The "savages" are completely separated from the society in the reservations. In contrast, the proles play a bigger role in their society, providing a lot of the labor required to produce the commodities needed to keep the society in 1984 running. If the proles were to rebel or go on strike, their society would quickly become dysfunctional.
ReplyDeleteIt's also really interesting because in both cases it seems as though the governments' idea behind leaving these groups of people alone and isolated from society is that they are somehow less intelligent than the rest of the population. Though they could pose a huge threat to their respective societies if they were to rebel or attack in some way, the governments seem to believe that they won't because they are just too stupid to. It would be really interesting if the proles do rebel in 1984.
ReplyDeleteI think that the proles are more dangerous to their society than the "savages" because there are more of them and they still play an active role in their society. Also, the time we are at now, the government in 1984 isn't as in control or perfected as the World State so the proles have a better chance of changing things if they rebelled. Proles would also have people from the brotherhood or other people in the party that disagreed with the government on their side if they all decided to rebel, while the "savages" just have themselves because almost everyone else is happy with how everything is going.
ReplyDeleteI agree and I think a big part of the difference between the proles and the savages is that the savages lived in a false sense of happiness. Soma played a big role in the World State, essentially forcing people to repress their true emotions and display a facade of happiness instead. However, in 1984, it's very clear that some people aren't quite satisfied or happy with the way things are, which would be cause for them rebelling against the Party.
DeleteI also agree with the comments made diferenciating between the roles of the proles and the savages in both novels. On another note, I find it interesting that both stories contain and highlight outsider groups that live more "noramlly" and even have the potential to rebel. From an author's perspective, I am curious about the purpose of including these entities. Is it to give the reader promising or false hope about the dystopia? Perhaps they're trying to make a point about the limits of control? Regardless, as we continue to read I'm anxious to see what, if any, influence the proles have on Oceania in 1984.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else, I also believe the proles are much more dangerous than the savages from BNW. The proles are an abundantly larger group of people with the freedom to socialize among one another right next to the stronghold of Oceania, while the savages were made out to be a small group HEAVILY restricted to a small area controlled by militaristic forces. They also do not have access to anything harmful to the New state. Hopefully this leads to something actually happening at the end of the book, because unlike with BNW, the pieces are set for something big to happen in 1984.
ReplyDeleteThe proles seem much more likely to cause damage to the world state just because they are much closer and involved in society compared to the savages that are geographically isolated from their "higher" society. At the same time, however, I think that the savages are more capable of messing up the world order. I can't quite see how the proles would bring themselves to revolt especially because of the alteration of history. The alternate history that they learn could instill good will towards the higher society and make them less likely to rebel. In both scenarios, I don't see the population revolting.
ReplyDeleteI could definitely see the proles being more likely to revolt than the people from the reservation in 1984. Or at the very least, I could see a revolt from the proles being more successful. They have a greater advantage in numbers, and I think society severely underestimates their capability. However, I also don't think it is very likely that either group would necessarily revolt. I think both groups kind of like where they are in society to some extent, because they don't have to abide by the strict rules of Oceania or the World State.
ReplyDelete