The Danger of the Proles

So far in 1984, the two things that have stood out most to me are how little the proles are monitored compared to those like Winston and how controlling the government in Oceania strives to be, even changing the language so that there are no words left that could incite ideas harmful to Oceania, like “rebellion.” On top of those two factors, as we know from what we’ve read so far (up to chapter VIII), some people in the proles might know the true history of the world and how it has changed since Oceania’s beginning, not the falsified stories that Winston has contributed to himself. Despite all this, the government of Oceania, as mentioned before, still fails to force the same extremes forced onto those near the upper echelon onto the proles. They believe the proles pose absolutely no threat, but even Winston has mentioned how if the proles somehow found motivation to rebel, they could take on Oceania (foreshadowing?). With all these factors considered, it makes sense that someone from the proles will eventually realize the wrongs of the government. It makes sense that even with all the measures in place, like newspeak, someone will come along who will reinvent the ideas of rebellion and will want to be a part of a comparatively better society. Unlike Brave New World, where the lower classes were engineered to be mindless in some way, the proles of Oceania seem more unmotivated than anything. They still have the potential that someone within the upper circles would have. In fact, they probably have even more potential because fiction is not shoved down their throats their whole lives, not nearly to the same extent it is for party members. They pretty much also have the free will to exercise what Winston calls “thoughtcrime,” enabling them to discover new ideas that are their own. I really hope these factors come together and Winston leads a rebellion against Oceania or something, because if this book ends like Brave New World did - with no change whatsoever - I’m going to be super disappointed. What do you guys think? Do you think the upper echelon is being reckless in allowing partial freedom to the proles? Do you think there will be serious consequences for that disregard later on in the book?

-Ahmad

Comments

  1. Kristine WangApril 7, 2019 at 2:18 PM

    I think that if there are more people like Winston who want to overthrow the government, the proles could potentially be used as a weapon against the Party. The proles have the numbers; they just need someone to lead them. For this reason, the government may have made a mistake overlooking the danger of the proles. However, I do wonder how many people are motivated enough to plan a rebellion and involve the proles considering the likelihood of being caught and killed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Irina April 7, 2019 at 8:01 PM

    Rather, I think that while the proles have potential as a group to overthrow the Party, the question is if they have the motivation to do so. After all, the Party pretty much leaves them alone. How is their life so different compared to the previous government? If there was not much negative change imposed upon the common people when the Party took over, then they will not see much of a need to overthrow the government. Which is probably why the Party leaves them untouched and unmonitored.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sparsh S.April 8, 2019 at 3:03 PM

    I can only think of a few reasons why the proles haven't elected to rebel against the Party yet, one being the fact that they don't know how to. The Party effectively accomplishes this by keeping the proles uneducated and instilling loyalty and trust in them to Big Brother, who is their only source of food and work. Even if the proles may be oppressed, they don't realize it in the first place, thus eliminating the need to rebel. As much as I want the novel to end in the overthrow of the Party, I don't see it happening as the proles are essentially just a single, mindless mass intent on one thing: surviving. As long as the Party manipulates the proles into thinking Big Brother is the only way to achieve this, they will be content and lack the ambition necessary to rebel.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kevin LiApril 9, 2019 at 10:46 AM

    The proles seem to be a subconscious mass labor force, similar to an Ant colony. They just go around working blindly following their leader. The proles have been brainwashed to the point where they probably don't even know how to think for themselves, and as a result they cant rebel against the government. They don't even know what rebelling is. In order for a rebellion to happen, someone needs to go out and start mass educating the population without getting caught, and with the "past" constantly changing, it is impossible. I don't see a rebellion occurring within the book, but I can see perhaps an escape from the society.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AlbertApril 13, 2019 at 8:38 AM

    I just thought of something tangentially related when reading your post when you talked about the limitation of speech. I remember reading something that said that in Russian there is no word for privacy. I think this goes to demonstrate how words can reflect culture but also culture can drive language. The culture in this case - the need to control the masses - drives the eradication of any deviant language. I thought that Russia's case was interesting because something similar is occurring in our world.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Minji ChoiApril 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM

    I'm not sure if the proles are capable of starting a rebellion on their own. It seems that they have come to a point in just accepting what has come of society. From what we can see from Winston's conversation with a prole in the bar, it seems that they are actually unaware of the injustice that is taking place because the government is doing a good job at deceiving them, or they've given up completely. I do, however, think that Winston will take action. He's shown rebellious tendencies from the beginning of the book, and as soon as he saw an opportunity to actually be a part of a viable rebellion, he took it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Amina GApril 15, 2019 at 8:19 PM

    I also hope it all leads to a rebellion of some sort. The proles do have that power, though they seem totally unmotivated into actually doing anything about this. It was kind of surprising to me at the beginning, finding out that the proles know all this information, and they aren't being held back like the other nations are/being deceived. Winston seems very determined about some sort of rebellion, so I think that if he teamed up with the proles, something big would happen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sarah H.April 18, 2019 at 6:56 PM

    I also thought it was extremely foolish for a government that believed in power for the sake of power itself would overlook the proles, who just by sheer numbers pose the largest threat to the government. However, I think Winston misrepresented the monitoring of proles to the reader because we later find out from O'Brien that all the potential prole leaders are killed. In addition if the war is truly fake as Julia claims the bombings of the proles' neighborhood is just another way the government keeps the proles in check.

    ReplyDelete
  9. FaizahApril 18, 2019 at 8:45 PM

    At the beginning of 1984, I predicted that Winston would lead a rebellion of Proles to overthrow Big Brother's authoritarian regime. It just made perfect sense to me, given the large population of the Proles, but I also feel like they don't personally feel the effects of Big Brother. I thought Winston would be a good leader for a rebellion because of how badly he seems to want to change things. For the most part, Proles have kept to themselves and seem to enjoy the way things are, so I couldn't see them finding reason to suddenly start revolting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. UDblogApril 21, 2019 at 9:29 PM

    I agree that the Party is absolutely wrong to discount the Proles as a force in the world, even given the seemingly hopeless ending of the book. Why? Because, much like The Handmaid's Tale, we're given outside information which strongly suggests that, in fact, the proles, or someone else, do in fact eventually overthrow Oceania.
    -Sasha

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousApril 24, 2019 at 7:55 AM

    I also wonder if the proles will revolt. This prompts the larger question of if 1984 is realistic. In some ways the party does seem omnipresent and powerful, but the proles do pose an odd counterexample.

    ReplyDelete
  12. GrantMay 13, 2019 at 3:20 PM

    The question of the proles in 1984 is certainly an interesting one. A society like 1984 gives the proles no real life goals or motivations. For people in our world usually there is something motivating them, some life they strive to have or some change they would like to see. I think the society in 1984 deprives this from the Proles. Without this motivation or hope for change its unlikely they would be able to gather to revolt, let alone succeed.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hyperempathy: An advantage?

In  Parable of the Sower , we're introduced to the protagonist, Lauren, who looks and acts like a typical 15 year old girl, but later on we learn that this isn't the case. Lauren possesses the rare trait of hyperempathy: a psychological disorder that gives her the delusion that she can physically feel the emotions of others such as pain and pleasure. Using basic logic, we can deduce that having such a trait is disadvantageous in a world where anarchy and pain dominates. However, Lauren poses the question, "But if everyone could feel everyone else's pain, who would torture? Who would cause anyone unnecessary pain? I've never thought of my problem as something that might do some good before, but the way things are, I think it would help" (10.115). It's interesting to hypothesize how Lauren's idea of a society of hyperempaths would play out. Looking at its advantages, hyperempathy would supposedly be the cure to all of the negative aspects of society an
Read more

The Widespread Influence of 1984

While all of the books we have read this semester are very famous and well known, I would say that 1984 is by far the most. 1984 has had an effect on our culture unmatched by almost any other dystopian novel to date, having been bought over 30 million times since its publication. Additionally, the book has seen a large spike in sales in the last few years especially and is now possibly more relevant than ever. I think 1984 reflects our own society much closer than any other dystopian novel, and this makes the book much more impactful to us. There are two major things that i think resonate the most with modern readers of 1984: the surveillance of the population (at least the outer-Party members) and the constant manipulation of information. Firstly, the presence of the term ‘Big Brother’ in modern culture reaches much further beyond the book itself, and this is an example of how 1984 reflects our world; the fear of a totalitarian government watching over your eve
Read more

1984 vs 2019

In class today (Monday, April 1st), we discussed the similarities between the world of 1984, and our world in 2019. Several people mentioned that the futuristic tech (Relative to the 1930s) in the book is very similar to our modern day tech. Especially the television screen, which not only broadcasts information but also records information, similar to our computers webcams, and the amazon Alexa.  In the book, this tech is used to supervise people, and discourage them from acting against the state. People know that they are being surveilled 24/7, and this forces obedience in every aspect in life, as they have no privacy to do what they want. While this is not the case in 2019, some people are still being unwillingly recorded. I myself did not know of anything relating to this topic prior to the discussion we had in class on Monday, and I was quite surprised to see how many people covered or knew other people who covered their webcams. It for some reason had never occurred to m
Read more