Slaughterhouse Five and 1984 - Essay Example

? Slaughterhouse Five and 1984 Introduction The 20th century witnessed tremendous political, cultural, and philosophical upheaval. Even as the century experienced tremendous complexity and social change, perhaps the most distinguishing factor was existence before and after World War II. This war not only drastically changed the geo-political landscape, but had ramifications that ran deeply into artistic and philosophical paradigms. While published directly after the War, George Orwell’s 1984 is a strongly modernist text. In this work Orwell presents a political satire set in the future context of Oceania. This city has given way to extreme an extreme collectivist and totalitarian regime known simply as The Party. Within this context of understanding Orwell presents a significant perspective on the nature of the human condition, warning future generations about potential threats to human existence. Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five is firmly rooted in modes of post-modern expression. This work follows protagonist Billy Pilgrim through a variety of wartime narrative explorations. Ultimately this novel’s depiction of the human experience is profoundly unsettling and destabilizing. Even as these texts demonstrate many contrasting concerns, at their core they both explore the essence of the human condition. This essay compares and contrasts Orwell’s 1984 and Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five in terms of their portrayal of what it means to be human and what the respective novels offer as the major threats to the humanity of humans. Analysis The exploration of the human condition and threats to humanity form the backbone of thematic explorations in George Orwell’s 1984. From the opening chapter of the novel broad ranging institutional perspectives on the nature of human existence and threats to humanity emerge. In these regards, Orwell divides the social and governmental structure into four main institutional categories: the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Peace, the Ministry of Love, and the Ministry of Plenty. The divisions of these institutions functions as an immediate means of articulating the main human concerns and a number of overarching threats to humanity. One further considers the nature of Orwell’s division within these categorical modes of government. In these regards, Orwell notes, The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names, in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty (Orwell, pg. 3). Here, Orwell plays on both the nature of language and satire in his consideration of modes of government. Consider the cyclical recurrence of The Party’s slogan, “WAR IS PEACE/ FREEDOM IS SLAVERY/ IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” (Orwell, pg. 1). In addition to further establishing the political message of the oppressive government apparatus, Orwell’s implementation of this mode of propaganda speaks to one of the fundamental threats to humanity existing in the linguistic realm. In these regards, The Party slogan where traditional words that were associated with virtuous practices, such as peace, freedom, and strength, are replaced with words that have traditionally been associated with negativity – war, slavery, and strength. This aspect of the novel, which is also exemplified in the naming of the government institutions as well as in a variety of other incarnations including Newspeak is significant in that it shows one of the fundamental aspects of the human condition is humanity’s access to reality through language. As these certain elements in language have become traditionally associated with positive values, a prominent threat to humanity becomes the potential of the government or political interests to co-opt these modes of language for their own political aims. The prominence of language to the human condition is further expressed through the Thought Police and the emergence of Newspeak. In these regards, one considers that the Party has attempted to systematically eliminate the use of certain words as a means of enacting further oppressive measures. Orwell builds from this elimination of specific words as a threat to humanity to the more pervasive threat of the Thought Police restricting specific modes of thought. One considers that while such a narrative device is largely confined to the realm of science fiction, for Orwell it becomes a metaphor for potential threats to human existence to a restriction of thought and critical thinking. Indeed, throughout the text Orwell also frequently explores notions of anti-intellectualism. Winston states, To begin with, he did not know with any certainty that this was 1984. It must be round about that date, since he was fairly sure that his age was thirty-nine, and he believed that he had been born in 1944 or 1945; but it was never possible nowadays to pin down any date within a year or two (Orwell, pg. 4) Here Orwell is implementing a hyperbolic presentation of anti-intellectualism as Winston has become so oblivious to his environment, as a direct impact of the Thought Police, that he is unable to clearly determine the date. On the surface this too appears to be an aspect of the novel that is restricted to the realm of science fiction, but upon further analysis one understands that such anti-intellectualism is a part of the modern human condition and a pervasive threat to humanity. In terms of incarnations of this anti-intellectual attitude in the modern world one notes the emergence of the Tea Party in the political realm. This political movement, behind leaders such as Sarah Palin, has systematically demonized notions of thought and curiosity in favor of what has been idealized as a sort of practical approach to society and politics. An even more explicit incarnation of such forms of thought restriction occurs in regions such as Texas where secondary school textbooks are regularly revised to reflect non-secular viewpoints, such as Creationism. Ultimately, through the Thought Police and Newspeak, Orwell’s text is satirizing such institutional perspectives and modes of censorship and is indicating that they constitute significant threats to human existence. A similar aspect of both Orwell’s 1984 and Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five articulation of the human experience is that both protagonists have difficulty determining what year it is. As demonstrated above, Orwell’s 1984 indicates that Winston believes that the year is 1984, but he only has a vague recollection if this is reality. In Slaughterhouse Five Vonnegut writes, “The date on the license plate was 1967, which would make Billy Pilgrim forty-four years old. He asked himself this: 'Where have all the years gone?” (Vonnegut, pg. 19). This statement occurs after Billy Pilgrim experiences a time-shift and jumps ahead in time to 1967; in this instance he has lost recollection of the year. While both authors implement this literary and narrative device their underlining intention in doing so are not the same. For Orwell, Winston’s inability to remember the year is indicative of both the intrusion of government into the construction of history and reality, as well as a satire on the anti-intellectualism that allows this occur. This is a presentation of reality as highly ordered and even of a government structure that operates to co-opt thought as a means of developing their own historical trajectory in agreement with Big Brother and The Party. For Vonnegut, Pilgrim’s inability to remember or make sense of the year is indicative of a perspective on existence wherein the year does not matter because the notion of time and historical progress has been shown to be entirely erroneous. This vision of reality is almost critical of Orwell’s. As Orwell embraces the importance of intellectualism and critical thought, through its questioning of time and historical progress Vonnegut’s text has indicted the very nature of intellectual thought as proposing any understanding or constructive approach to reality. A prominent threat to human existence in 1984 is the reimagining of history. This theme takes on a wide variety of incarnations. Perhaps the most explicit reimagining of history occurs through the Thought Police. While Orwell’s implementation of the Thought Police assume a variety of uses, in the context of the eraser of history one notes that the government has systematically gone about doing away with books, newspapers, and other forms of cultural expression. Winston also only has a brief semblance of the specific date and year. When examining Orwell’s implementation of this narrative device one considers the seminal statement that the winners are the writers of history. In addition to expressing the potential threat of political interest groups or governmental agencies to rewrite history in their favor through taking control of the cultural apparatus, one considers the nature of such philosophical considerations as a fundamental aspect of the human condition. Even as historians claim objectivity in their work, the nature of articulating and understanding history is always subject to interpretation. When one considers major Western societies, such as the United States or the United Kingdom, the claim to virtue through reference to history is a prominent political policy; one considers the United States democratic mission in the Middle East. Still, as Orwell’s text indicates, the nature of history and virtue are greatly subject to interpretation with the interpreters operating within a government and institutional structure that is intent on promoting its own interests. In these regards, Orwell’s text does not simply articulate potential future threats to humanity, but demonstrates that many of these concerns are already operating in within the context of the modern world. While Orwell’s text demonstrates that one of the primary threats to human existence is the re-writing of history, Vonnegut’s text explores this notion from a different paradigm. While Slaughterhouse Five does not explicitly discuss the nature of historical progress it does implicitly explore this notion through Pilgrim’s alien abduction by the Tralfamadorians. During Pilgrim’s abduction he witnesses an inscription on a locket on the neck of the person he is intended to mate, Montana Wildhack. The locket states, God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference.” Among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future (Vonnegut, pg. 66). This exploration of existence contrasts a human world where history progresses in a linear fashion, with the Tralfamadorian understanding of reality as cyclical. While both Orwell’s and Vonnegut’s texts investigate the notion of re-imagining history, it’s clear that they do so among contrasting planes of understanding. For Orwell history remains linear, yet is susceptible to subjective modes of interpretation. For Vonnegut, time is cyclical. Still, both novels seem to present a dichotomy in this understanding. Consider that while Winston accepts the linearity of history, the Party regularly engages in a re-imagining of time and history. This dichotomy also occurs in Vonnegut’s text where human kind is depicted as accepting the linear nature of history, while the Tralfamadorian’s have adopted a paradigm of reality and history as cyclical. These are profound insights into the human condition that in a sense seem to be saying that while humanity accepts time and social reality at face value more knowledgeable outside entities hold a privileged perspective on the human condition. Ultimately, while both novels present different paradigms, it’s clear they are both imploring humanity to assume greater responsibility in investigating their existence. Throughout the novel Orwell explore what it means to be human in Oceania through a number of literary devices. One of the most prominent such techniques is the use of color symbolism. While Orwell’s implementation of color symbolism is subtle, its collective affect allows the reader to experience a powerful vicarious understanding of what it means to be human under totalitarian conditions. Numerous times throughout the novel Orwell implements grey as a descriptive adjective. Describing the children’s clothing Orwell writes, “Both of them were dressed in the blue shorts, grey shirts, and red neckerchiefs which were the uniform of the Spies” (Orwell, pg. 7); and then describing an individual’s expression, “what most struck Winston was the look of helpless fright on the woman's greyish face” (Orwell, pg. 9). For Orwell the grey comes to represent that one of the fundamental cores of the human condition is free expression, individuality, and independent thought. When these fundamental aspects of humanity are threatened humans experience a pervasive sense of gloom and despondency, as evidenced in the grey clothing and facial expressions. This color symbolism of grey is further contrasted by Orwell’s description of Winston’s dream-imagery. Winston states, “The landscape that he was looking at recurred so often in his dreams that he was never fully certain whether or not he had seen it in the real world. In his waking thoughts he called it the Golden Country” (Orwell, pg. 17). In these regards, one considers that in terms of color symbolism Orwell has implemented grey to describe situations that are emblematic of the totalitarian social structure, and has used gold to describe Winston’s idealistic vision of society. Ultimately, this color symbolism indicates that happy and functional human existence occurs under a free and liberal democratic structure. As Vonnegut’s text begins one notes that it is punctured by literary devices wherein the author directly addresses the reader. This is a technique that is not witnessed in Orwell’s text and further establishes Slaughterhouse Five as concerned with the presentation of the human experience as disjointed and complex. Vonnegut relays the story of Dresden as a means of indicating his intention in constructing the text. He concludes this direct address by stating, “It begins like this: Listen: Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time. And ends like this: Poo-tee-weet?" (Vonnegut, pg. 22). While this statement contains an element of ironic humor, in beginning the novel by informing the reader about the novel’s conclusion Vonnegut is also indicating that there is no order to the narrative, just as there is no order to modern existence. While in 1984 Winston’s experience is characterized as being overly restricted by a totalitarian regime, the protagonist in Vonnegut’s novel, Billy Pilgrim, experiences an opposing human existence. In Pilgrim’s existence the spastic narrative structure exemplifies an inability to find order in one’s self and surroundings. This is an articulation of the human experience as existing on nearly the opposite spectrum of being than Orwell’s presentations in 1984. No longer is totalitarian order a threat to humanity; the threat now emerges in a society that is unable to find order or agree on a unified notion of progress. One considers that Pilgrim’s name is even allegorical on this disjointed perspective of humanity. Another prominent aspect of the human condition that Orwell explores throughout 1984 is the notion of love and sexual relations. Orwell explores this concern in a variety of narrative contexts. One of the first techniques Orwell implements in these regards is through Winston’s diary entries. While Winston writes about a number of concerns, one prominent investigation is Party regulations concerning the sexual act. Winston writes, “The only recognized purpose of marriage was to beget children for the service of the Party. Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema” (Orwell, pg. 79). Here Orwell is indicating that the Party has taken control of human romantic relations and attempted to remove all joy from the sexual act. This aspect of the text’s narrative is powerful in its depiction of one of the cornerstone elements of human existence, namely romantic relationships. Even as the text indicates that the party is not attempting to restrict love, the restriction of enjoyment in the sexual act comes to represent the oppression of one of the basic elements of the human spirit. In breaking down relationships to those that are only without joy, the Party has recognized that human instinct often leads individuals to value their relationships over the state’s interests. Indeed, one witnesses such occurrence already taking shape in China where the government has passed measures restricting the amount of children that a family can conceive. For Orwell this restriction constitutes one of the major threats to human existence and should serve as a warning to governmental intrusion into personal lives. As Orwell’s text advances it develops from concerns with words, to thoughts, to relationships, to ultimately the structure of society through government. Orwell perhaps most pervasively accomplishes this meditation on human existence through the figure of O’Brien. During early portions of the text O’Brien is positioned as a potential supporter of the Brotherhood. Orwell then reveals that O’Brien is actually a prominent Party supporter. This narrative device has a number of implications for potential threats to human existence. One understanding is that it demonstrates that while the government may outwardly appear to represent one mode of thought, in actuality it is concerned with another. In this respect, Winston’s failure to recognize O’Brien’s true nature is symbolic of humanity’s same inability to recognize the duplicitous nature of many actions. As O’Brien’s true nature is further developed he reveals what is at the core of the Party’s intentions, “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power” (Orwell, pg. 293). This statement is not only central to the text, but is also central to the human condition. In these regards, the Party’s blind pursuit of power is a metaphor for modern government policies that seek to increasingly assume control over human rights. While individuals might assume that such concerns are indicative of far-off or foreign governments, Orwell is ultimately warning society against the implementation of such policies even within modern democratic structures. Whereas George Orwell’s 1984 concerns itself with both internal aspects and socially created elements of the human condition, Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five functions as a powerful satire on the unhinged power of government. Another overarching contrasting element between the texts is Vonnegut’s narrative structure. Orwell’s narrative is largely relayed in a traditional style where one thing follows another. This narrative is indicative of Orwell’s modernist perspective on the human experience as ordered and categorical, where the potential for life to veer into extreme forms of totalitarian control is readily apparent. Vonnegut’s post-modern narrative is diametrically opposed to this modernist structure. Instead, Vonnegut’s text is centered on the notion of an individual, Billy Pilgrim, who experiences time shifts. This chaotic narrative structure is indicative of a perspective on the human experience as chaotic and indefinable. These are opposing perspectives that are also indicative of the time of the texts’ mutual constructions as being written on opposite sides of World War II. Ultimately, this historical change comes to represent two fundamental paradigms that are the cornerstones of these texts articulation of human existence. Another prominent consideration between the texts is the understanding of death. In both texts the nature of death emerges as a prominent philosophical consideration. For Orwell death does not take on the normal connotation of cessation of life, but instead refers to a death of the human spirit. Consider Orwell when he writes, “Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death" (Orwell, pg. 27) and later “"If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened-that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death" (Orwell, pg. 43). This is a perspective on death as being linked to notions of thought provides great insight into Orwell’s articulation of the human experience. As the Thought Police overtake individual thought and seek to re-write history in their favor, Orwell is indicating that in essence they are extinguishing the human spirit. When considering death in terms of Vonnegut’s text it’s clear that death assumes a more traditional articulation. Still, Vonnegut satirizes the notion of death as a means of highlighting the human experience and the threat of too easily discounting human life. Throughout Vonnegut’s text the notion of death is not only thematic, but a central concern. Vonnegut makes cyclical reference to the phrase ‘so it goes’. For instance, consider Vonnegut when he writes, A German soldier with a flashlight went down into the darkness, was gone a long time. When he finally came back, he told a superior on the rim of the hole that there were dozens of bodies down there. They were sitting on benches. They were unmarked. So it goes (Vonnegut, pg. 67). Vonnegut’s implementation of the phrase ‘so it goes’ functions as a direct contrast to the somber and serious nature of death. While outwardly it appears that the author is devaluing this aspect of the human condition, in reality this phrase is a bitter satirical take on the ease through which wartime government’s are able to sacrifice human life. In these regards, Vonnegut is issuing a profound warning to generations and governmental agencies that too easily forget the value of human existence. As 1984 and Slaughterhouse Five come to a conclusion the authors work to explore the human condition through investigating meaning. In 1984 Winston and Julia have been take by the Party and subjected to potential torture. Their only means of surviving this torture is to indicate that they would rather have the other person receive the torture than themselves. While this seems a simple formulation it poses a challenging paradox at the novel’s conclusion. Throughout the novel Orwell has presented death as a giving in to the totalitarian regime and textured life in Oceania with somber despondency and greyness. The obvious implication is that humanity must fight against this totalitarian regime and assume increased individualism. Orwell plays on this conclusion through the conclusion where Winston is willing to inflict pain on Julia to save himself. Winston states, “You want it to happen to the other person. You don’t give a damn what they suffer. All you care about is yourself” (Orwell, pg. 321). This final narrative twist demonstrates that while Orwell’s text has profoundly warned against allowing too much government control, at the core of The Party’s philosophical grounding is the understanding that humans are innately selfish. Orwell leaves the reader with a conflicting choice on the nature of meaning. This is contrasted with Vonnegut’s text that concludes with an event that largely destabilizes notions of meaning. In these regards, after the German’s surrender Billy is said to be laying down watching the sky and rejoicing in the moment; Vonnegut then reveals that he is resting in a coffin on wheels outside of Dresden. This is narrative twist indicates that even the survivors of war have not achieved anything and are in a sense dead. Vonnegut concludes with the statement, “Poo-tee-weet?” (Vonnegut, pg. 288). This is a symbolic testament to the absurdity of the human condition. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has examined George Orwell’s 1984 and Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five in terms of their portrayal of what it means to be human and what the respective novels offer as the major threats to the humanity of humans. The essay demonstrated that Orwell’s text explores what it means to be human through an exploration of a totalitarian government regime in a future city named Oceania. Within this context of understanding, Orwell shows that language is fundamental to the human experience and that one of the potential threats to humanity is the co-optation of linguistic elements by political interests. Orwell’s text also demonstrates the need for society to assume greater intellectual responsibility as not doing so allows government entities to assume control over their thoughts and modes of existence. Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five presents a vision of the world as splintered and existential. The novel also explores the danger of war and not valuing human life to its fullest. This novel is a portrayal of the human as struggling to find a stabilizing meaning in an otherwise absurd world. In these regards, both novels present opposing views of the human condition in terms of the progression of time and history. Ultimately, while the novels hold some contrasting elements, they are both powerful in their exploration of being and their articulations of potential threats to human existence. References Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. New York: Templeton Press. 1993. Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhouse Five. Dial Press Trade. 1999. Read More