You may think I really have nothing to do by writting something about this phenomenal novel.
I have to admit that 1984 is one of my favourite. It consists of politic, philosophy, culture, and wars. It just indulges my imagination to wonder there are only three states in the world. God, where is diversity? It is a real Inferno to live in a very big states controlled by a remorselss tyrant who wants to be nicknamed "Big Brother". Why does hypocrisy have huge control over human?
However, stop mocking Oceania government. Just start to think further about Oceania. There are three main groups in Oceania society. The Proles, the majority, is the poorest and most miserable who only knows how to survive today and extol Big Brother. They actually have power, but it seems that this Oceania government has found the way to defeat their needs of expression freedom. Even the government nearly suceeds in order to control the whole reproduction of the Proles. It's very unlikely that a breakthrough like French or Russian Revolution will occur, for the Proles theirselves don't have anything to complain. They don't know that they're treated as a living animal. They don't have the idea of any better form of society. Their knowledges are limited by severe censorship, restriction, and the future Newspeak. If they have nothing to complain about, then Oceania is a perfect society of them. they know only one vision: Oceania has always been in war with Eurasia/Eastasia (not sure which is correct) and with the great guidance of Big Brother, they will win and conquer the world. Can't we say that Oceania is, realtively, a utopia for them, the hapless Proles?
I also want to talk about the limitation of the language. In Oceania, people aren't expected to be smart and professional; they're supposed to be stupid for the rest of their life. The Inner Party (the most powerful caste - the government) chose limitation of language which resulted in "Newspeak". I won't tell many things about this, except that "Newspeak" really causes deep frustation. Its basic idea is to destroy the number of words used in the language so people will not have media to express theirselves. Moreover, for those who never know the original English ("Oldspeak") will be the true product of Newspeak. For example, the word "freedom" will be removed from the language, so people will not have any idea of freedom. It seems that English will be dead easy if this method is applied, but if only you see one single sentence of Newspeak.... I can't understand it all. The confusing uses of preffix and suffix will replace the beauty of English vocabulary which covers a huge range of words from various sources. You will not find 'malicious', 'onerous', or even 'woefull'; they're replaced by 'plusungood' or 'doubleplusonegood'. The second concept is to use the same word with different meanings, which leads to "doublethink". For example, the Party's slogan "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY" can be logically explained if one dare to think further. At the end of the day, it's not strange if Newspeak only has about 200 words in its dictionary.
Of course, it's a torture for mankind to have a language so simple as that. Culture will automatically disappear and setback of human civilization will begin. However, this does not apply for the Party - the Government who controls everything, who has the privilege to violate any laws they create; they are the law. The people will most likely have reduced intellegence level and great depression so they won't be able to rebel. However, if they have no desire to rebel against the government even no dissatisfaction over the situation, isn't that a utopia for them?
To understand Newspeak means that you have to acquire the ability of 'doublethink', the concept that Emmanuel Goldstein, a Jew who's the leader of the Brotherhood, a secret society against Big Broter, creates and applies. For example, the meaning of word freedom can be explained by using simple equation: two plus two equals to four. Freedom is freedom to say two plus two equals to four; if that's granted, all else follows.
Besides Newspeak, the most frightening ministry in Oceania, Ministry of Love, plays a great rule to keep Oceania society loyal to Big Brother. Its victims are those who oppose the Party and most of them are the Brotherhood member. The victims are tortured physically and psychologically until they adapt the Party's every word as the truth, even when the Party member who tortures say that 'two plus two equals to five'. It's an elegant way of brainwashing; after that, the victims will 'love' Big Brother again. If those surviving victims have 'love' in their mind for their government, isn't that a utopia for them?
All those examples show that human mind is very relative and prone to change 180 degrees. When we have this concept of 'utopia' with us, what we imagine is actually our own desires. We have desires because we have expanded knowledge of something and we believe that it can be achieved. If our government is like the Party, who finds the way to control human desires, hence our concepts and perspectives will follow. There is no passion and desire anymore, only needs which are controlled for political means. There will be no struggle inside our mind, no jealousy to see the others have more. There will be no such thing called 'love' in human relationship, for 'love' is only for Big Brother and the Party. You lose your rights to choose and now you also lose your rights to think. However, when you can't think properly and in complex context, won't you be happy for there seem to be no problems ahead for you? Isn't that utopia?
I realize that a real utilitarian utopia society will have enough problems in it to make a dystopia out of it. There will always be differences among the men in the society, and this wil eventually lead to clash and conflicts. Hence, why don't we think otherwise? In order to create a realistic utopia, we have to construct it based on the ideas of dystopia? Isn't this a cruel contradiction? Probably, it's not if you still have normal human mind. You may argue by saying 'of course I can be fooled but the truth is still the truth'. That's right, but how do you struggle? You may risk your life and challenge death but leave no useful ideas for the people left behind to continue the fight. This is a perfect society for those who govern, and seems to be a perfect society for those who are governed. Now, you have only one choice in this kind of utopia: be a leader or be a follower.
And nothing's better. This's a Utopia right, how can there be something better than the perfect?
Isn't this the real Utopia?