Resch UtopiaDystopiaMiddle 1997

Utopia, Dystopia, and the Middle Class in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four
Author(s): Robert Paul Resch

Source: boundary 2 , Spring, 1997, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1997), pp. 137-176
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/303755
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/303755?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
boundary 2
This content downloaded from

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Utopia, Dystopia, and the Middle Class in George Orwell's
Nineteen Eighty-Four
Robert Paul Resch
Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has b
written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for demo
socialism, as I understand it.
-George Orwell, "Why I Write"
The collapse of Stalinism and Fordism, the end of the cold war
the brutal Gleichschaltung being imposed on humanity by a now un
meled capitalist world order underscore the need for a return to
Orwell's famous dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Such an eff
particularly timely for a Marxist tradition heretofore so engaged in
cal polemics with Orwell's cold war appropriators that it has hardly
the task of providing a Marxist theoretical analysis of the novel itsel
cold war polemics have focused on the empirical validity and histori
plicability of the concept of totalitarianism or on the personal integ
Orwell and his credentials as an honest witness to the important eve
his time. Both admirers and detractors alike have tended to assume Orwell's
notion of totalitarianism to be straightforward and thus unworthy of any par-
boundary 2 24:1, 1997. Copyright ? 1997 by Duke University Press.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
138 boundary 2 / Spring 1997
ticular theoretical reflection.1 Both sides also seem to have fallen under the
spell of Orwell's persona and a narrative prose style aiming at the clarity of
a windowpane.2
I propose a different strategy. Utilizing concepts of ideology, liter-
ary production, and utopian discourse developed by Pierre Macherey, Terry
Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, and Louis Marin, I will investigate the ideologi-
cal "deep structure" beneath the surface narrative of Nineteen Eighty-Four.3
I will be concerned, in other words, with Orwell's "democratic socialism"-
specifically with the binary opposition of socialism and totalitarianism that
constitutes its utopian and dystopian poles4-and with the absolutely cru-
cial, yet curiously unrepresentable, place and function of the middle class
within his political ideology. I argue two theses. The first, minor thesis is
that because Orwell's democratic socialism is explicitly and militantly anti-
capitalist, his concept of totalitarianism must be distinguished clearly from
1. For example, the classic opposition of Irving Howe, "1984: History as Nightmare," and
Isaac Deutscher," 1984-The Mysticism of Cruelty," both in Samuel Hynes, ed., Twentieth-
Century Interpretations of "1984" (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1971), 29-40 and
41-53. Howe defends Orwell's vision as a reasonable projection of existing tendencies;
Deutscher dismisses it as quasi-mystical pessimism. The confrontation continues in Irving
Howe, ed., "1984" Revisited: Totalitarianism in Our Century (New York: Harper and Row,
1983), and Christopher Norris, ed., Inside the Myth: Orwell: Views from the Left (London:
Lawrence and Wishart, 1984). For the rest, see John Rodden's encyclopedic Politics of
Literary Reputation: The Making and Claiming of "St. George" Orwell (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1989). Over a hundred reviews and evaluations from throughout Orwell's
entire career are collected in Jeffrey Meyers, ed., George Orwell: The Critical Heritage
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975).
2. For examples, see Lionel Trilling's gushing "George Orwell and the Politics of Truth,"
in Harold Bloom, ed., George Orwell: Modern Critical Views (New York: Chelsea House,
1987), 29-44, and George Woodcock, "Prose Like a Windowpane," in The Crystal Spirit
(London: Jonathan Cape, 1967), 263-79. For a provocative contrast emphasizing Orwell's
"modernist" appropriation and rewriting of previous political novels, see Michael Wilding,
"Nineteen Eighty-Four: Rewriting the Future," in Political Fictions (London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1980), 216-46.
3. Pierre Macherey, Theory of Literary Production (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1978); Terry Eagleton, Criticism and Ideology (London: New Left Books, 1976); Fredric
Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Ithaca: Cor-
nell University Press, 1981); and Louis Marin, Utopics (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities
Press, 1984).
4. For an interesting contrast opposing totalitarianism to the Enlightenment tradition, see
Sheldon Wolin, "Counter-Enlightenment: Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four," in Robert Mulvi-
hill, ed., Reflections on America, "1984": An Orwell Symposium (Athens: University of
Georgia Press, 1986), 98-113.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
Resch / George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four 139
that of his cold war appropriators. Clarifying this difference allows us to see
the literary figuration of totalitarian Oceania as more complex and politically
radical than is commonly supposed: what is conventionally reduced to a
narrative of the destruction of a middle-class individual by totalitarianism
is, in fact, an impassioned representation of totalitarianism as the historical
destiny of middle-class individualism.
However, and this is my second, major thesis, Orwell's critique of
middle-class individualism and his vision of a progressive, antitotalitarian
alternative are deeply compromised from within by what I will call, fol-
lowing Jameson, the "political unconscious" of his ideology of democratic
socialism. Orwell's representation of Oceania is incoherent, and its self-
contradictions cluster, symptomatically, around its figuration of the middle-
class Outer Party and the struggle for freedom of its middle-class protago-
nist, Winston Smith. The ultimate source of the novel's incoherence is an
irreducible tension between Orwell's conscious commitment to an egalitar-
ian, populist alliance of the middle and working classes, and his uncon-
scious identification with elitism and the will to power of innately superior
individuals. Superficially masked by a Manichaean contrast of socialism
and totalitarianism, the determining presence of Orwell's unconscious elit-
ism is revealed when he tries to put this ideology of Good versus Evil to
work in the form of fictional institutions, individuals, and events-when he
attempts, that is, to represent the middle class of Oceania as both the agent
and victim of totalitarianism, and therefore as both enemy and ally of the
working-class proles. Ultimately, as I will show, the political unconscious of
Orwell's socialism demands the impossible, a "middle-class hero" who will
be both innately superior to the working class and morally superior to the
ruling class. This is a standard to which neither Winston Smith nor the capi-
talist middle class measures up-hence the failure of Winston's rebellion
and the depiction of capitalist individualism as the origin of Oceania-but,
insofar as such moral elitism bears an uncanny, and for Orwell, intolerable,
resemblance to totalitarianism itself, it is also a standard that cannot be
represented at all, one that must be repressed from the narrative altogether.
The novel's deep structure of democratic socialism, the place and
function of the middle class within it, and the contradictions between its
dystopian and utopian moments-Oceania is portrayed as invulnerable to
progressive change, yet the "author" of Winston's story writes from a post-
totalitarian, socialist future-are all virtually unexplored topics. However,
I also believe a critical reexamination of Orwell's populism is particularly
relevant to contemporary politics given the reemergence of middle-class

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
resentment as a significant political force. Similarly, Orwell's anti-Marxism

is of continued interest given the (latest) death of Marxist social theory,
and the recent revival of the political theories of Albert Camus, Hannah
Arendt, and other antitotalitarian "rebels" of Orwell's "hard-boiled" genera-
tion, whose "existentialist" vision of democracy--democracy of, for, and by
"authentic" individuals-is again being deployed against those who dare,
or dared once, to defend Marxism.s Finally, from what is only seemingly an
opposing direction, Orwell's attempt to fashion progressive politics in terms
of cultural values remains instructive in light of a new postmodern leftism
that also asserts the autonomy of culture and the primacy of ideological
over economic determinations of class. In short, the relevance of Nineteen
Eighty-Four remains surprisingly undiminished by the victory of capitalism
over peasant-based revolutions in the so-called developing nations. Orwell
demonstrates that, as long as capitalism dominates the world system, totali-
tarianism remains a real possibility, and the notion of a progressive alliance
of the middle and working classes a chimera.
A preliminary methodological note is in order. While I am neither
performing nor defending classical semiotic analysis here, I will be making
heuristic use of the semiotic square developed by French linguist A. G.
Greimas.6 The square takes the general form depicted in Figure 1, and it
demonstrates how a single term, S (let us say truth), implies an opposi-
tion, S and not-S (truth and falsehood), that is always more complex than
it appears. In our example, truth and falsehood are actually compound,
or "synthetic," terms: truth is a "complex" term unifying and transcending
a more basic "contrary" opposition between being and seeming (si and
s2), while falsehood, the negation of truth, is a "neutral" term unifying and
transcending another contrary opposition between the simple negatives of
being and seeming, not-being and not-seeming (not-si and not-s2). The
two transverse axes, si and not-s1, s2 and not-s2 (being and not-being,
seeming and not-seeming), specify "contradictory" tensions distinct from
5. For representative examples, see Margaret Canovan, Hannah Arendt: A Reinterpre-

tation of Her Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), and
Jeffrey C. Isaac, Arendt, Camus, and Modern Rebellion (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1992). See also my review of these books in American Historical Review 99, no. 2
(April 1994).
6. This example is taken from Algirdas Julien Greimas, On Meaning: Selected Writing
in Semiotic Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), 110. My descrip-
tion of the general form of the semiotic square follows that of Jameson's foreword to this
volume.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
S
(Truth)
S1 S2
(Being) (Seeming)
A B
(Secret) (Lie)
not-s2 not-sl
(Not-Seeming) (Not-Being)
not-S
(Falsehood)
Figure 1. Semiotic Square
the contrary oppositions, while the synthesis

"complementary" sides of the square, s, an
and not-seeming, seeming and not-being), sug
A and B (secret and lie), outside or beyond th
not-S.
The square, then, generates at least ten

term truth. Its critical value, according to Ja
plished users, is that it provides "a virtual m
better still, of the closure of ideology itself; a
ing to generate a rich variety of possible con
in fact, locked into an initial aporia or double
from the inside by its own means."7
Totalitarianism and Socialism in Orwel
The ideological project of Nineteen Eighty

destruction of human individuality and huma
state. Let us begin, therefore, by clarifying w
anism. The term originates with Italian fascis
the constitutional theory of a state whose leg
7. Jameson, foreword to On Meaning, xiv.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
ization of the national idea rather than from the divisive mechanisms of
electoral politics.8 During the thirties, however, Orwell, along with Franz
Borkenau, Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, and a few other writers on the
Left, began using the term totalitarianism to denote the perversion of social-
ist ideals under Stalin and the paradoxical similarity between Stalinism and
the political style and methods by which Hitler had "resolved" the contradic-
tions of capitalism. As a self-proclaimed antifascist and democratic social-
ist, Orwell was profoundly disturbed by the "inhumane collectivism" of the
Soviet Union, in particular, by what he perceived as the ruthless "ends-over-
means" mentality of the Communist Party dictatorship and by the "total"
control over society systematically exercised by the bureaucratic apparatus
of the Soviet state. For Orwell, this conjunction of party dictatorship and
state power constitutes the essence of totalitarianism, and, therefore, he
does not hesitate to identify Russian communism with Italian fascism and
German Nazism despite the otherwise profound, class-based differences
between them.
As is shown in Figure 2, Orwell's conception of totalitarianism has

important ideological, as well as analytical, implications. Totalitarianism is
a complex term unifying and transcending a contrary relationship between
the nihilistic will to power of party dictatorship and the rational, bureau-
cratic organization of state power. The latter terms are contraries in the
sense that will to power implies an irrational, unceasing, and unlimited war
of all against all incompatible with social order and stability, while bureau-
cratic organization implies a rational, rule-governed and goal-directed au-
thority incompatible with social disorder and instability. The tension between
party dictatorship and state power seemingly raises significant questions
regarding their coexistence and at the very least indicates a need for fur-
ther analysis, ultimately a social scientific theory of the ends and means
of totalitarian power. However, it is precisely the ideological function of the
term totalitarianism to preempt further investigation by subsuming the con-
trary relationship between will to power and bureaucratic rationality under
a higher, mythic unity, whose very existence guarantees their compatibility
and naturalizes their coexistence.9
8. For a useful survey of the usages of the term totalitarianism and a trenchant critique of
its social scientific pretensions, see Benjamin Barber, "Conceptual Foundations of Totali-
tarianism," in Carl J. Friedrich et al., Totalitarianism in Perspective: Three Views (New
York: Praeger, 1969), 3-52. See also Michael Walzer, "On 'Failed Totalitarianism,'" in
Irving Howe, ed. "1984" Revisited, 103-21.
9. See Claude Levi-Strauss, "The Structure of Myths," in Structural Anthropology (New
York: Basic Books, 1963), 206-32.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
Totalitarianism
(communism, fascism, Nazism)
Party Dictatorship 1 0 State Power

(will to power of ruling elite) (bureaucratic control of society)
Figure 2. Orwell's Concept of Totalitarianism
Thus, totalitarianism is something more than an analytical, empiri-

cally derived concept, and its connotation of an unrelieved, almost demonic
evil raises the suspicion that it serves interests other than the production of
knowledge. Totalitarianism is an ideology in the classic Althusserian sense
of describing not real social relations but rather the "lived experience" of
real social relations by a social subject for whom practical and personal
interests are predominant.10 Being subject-centered and practically oriented
(as opposed to object-centered and knowledge-oriented), ideology tends
to answer the scientific question "Why?" in terms that are psychologically
and sociologically satisfying. Of course, an ideological explanation may be
true or false-the social scientific value of totalitarianism does not con-
cern us here-but its defining characteristic is its personal meaning and
significance. Our task, therefore, will be to discover why the concept of
totalitarianism is so ideologically compelling for Orwell.
Figure 3 specifies the remaining elements of Orwell's political ideol-
ogy. For Orwell, socialism and totalitarianism exist as a binary opposition
of good and evil, with the neutral term socialism negating the complex term
totalitarianism by unifying and transcending the simple negatives of party
dictatorship and state power. To provide substantive content for the posi-
tions not-state power and not-party dictatorship, I have included familiar,
hopefully noncontroversial attributes culled from texts representative of the
three generally acknowledged stages of Orwell's political development, from
10. Louis Althusser, For Marx (London: New Left Books, 1969), 233, and "Ideology and
Ideological State Apparatuses," in Lenin and Philosophy (New York: Monthly Review
Press, 1971), 164-65). See also, Michel P6cheux, Language, Semantics, and Ideology
(New York: St. Martin's, 1982), and G6ren Therborn, The Ideology of Power and the Power
of Ideology (London: Verso, 1980). For an extended discussion of these works, see chaps.
3-5 of Robert Paul Resch, Althusser and the Renewal of Marxist Social Theory (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1992).

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
Totalitarianism
(communism, fascism, Nazism)
(inhumane collectivism)
Party Dictatorship ---- State Power

(will to power) (bureaucratic control of society)
(ruling elite) (middle-class functionaries)
Superior Inferior
Individuals Individuals
not-State Power -- - not-Party Dictatorship

(libertarian values) (egalitarian values)
from Nineteen Eighty-Four:
(individual freedom) (human community)
from The Road to Wigan Pier:
(liberty) (justice)
from "The Lion and the Unicorn":
(political democracy) (social equality)
Hypothetical class-basis:
(middle class, mental labor, Orwell) (working class, manua
not-Totalitarianism
(Socialism)
(humane collectivism)
(national family, populism)
Figure 3. Orwell's Model of Totalitarianism
Nineteen Eighty-Four itself (published in 1949, during Orwell's last, "pessi-

mistic" years), from The Road to Wigan Pier (1937, prior to his formal com-
mitment to socialism), and from "The Lion and the Unicorn" (1941, during
his "optimistic," socialist period)."
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, as we shall see, not-state power corre-
sponds to "individual freedom," and not-party dictatorship to "moral com-
munity." In The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell refers to socialism as a "league
11. George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier(New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1958),
Nineteen Eighty-Four (New York: Signet, 1961), and "The Lion and the Unicorn," in The
Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell, 4 vols. (New York: Harcourt,
Brace, and World, 1968), 2:56-109. Hereafter, references to the above works will be cited
parenthetically. Sources from The Collected Essays will be cited parenthetically as CEJL.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
of the oppressed" united against "tyranny at home and abroad" (222) and for
"liberty and justice" (216). Orwell frequently refers to socialism as "humane"
collectivism,12 and in his most specific formulation, in "The Lion and the
Unicorn," he defines socialism as "political democracy" and "equality of in-
come" in the context of state ownership of the means of production (79). In-
corporating these characteristics into the square, we find the contradictories
of bureaucratic state power to be liberty, individual freedom, and political
democracy, and the contradictories of party dictatorship to be justice, moral
community, and social equality. Furthermore, those values associated with
not-state power may fairly be labeled libertarian, while those associated
with not-party dictatorship may be designated as egalitarian.
The Class Politics of Socialism and Totalitarianism
But this is not all. To grasp adequately Orwell's category of totali

anism, it is necessary to consider how he defines socialism in class te
and premises the transition to socialism on a populist alliance of the
and working classes. In The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell pleads for a s
ism that would attract rather than repel middle-class voters who are
maintains, proletarian in an economic sense but still separated fro
working class by deeply ingrained class prejudices and cultural differ
The absence of a populist ideology, Orwell warns, not only restricts s
ism to a small minority of working-class militants and middle-class in
tuals, it actually antagonizes the white-collar working class and drive
into the arms of fascism. "Millions of office workers and black-coated em-
ployees of all kinds," Orwell insists, "have the same interests and the same
enemies as the working class. All are being robbed and bullied by the same
system. Yet how many of them realize it? When the pinch came nearly all
of them would side with their oppressors and against those who ought to
be their allies. It is quite easy to imagine a middle class crushed down to
the worst depths of poverty and still remaining bitterly anti-working class in
sentiment; this being, of course, a ready-made Fascist Party" (225-26). In
order to attract the "exploited" middle class, it is best for socialists to accept
temporarily the reality of cultural class differences and to avoid hypocritical
or divisive tactics that ignore or forcibly suppress them. Once a socialist
12. For example, Orwell approvingly cites Franz Borkenau's opposition of "a freer, more
humane form of collectivism to the purge and censorship variety." See "Review of Borke-
nau," CEJL, 2:26.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
movement has been built, "then perhaps this misery of class-prejudice will
fade away" (231) and the middle class might come to reject its cultural pre-
tensions and to accept the reality of its proletarian status. "When we get
there," Orwell concludes, "it will not be so dreadful as we feared, for, after
all, we have nothing to lose but our aitches" (232). The use of the first-
person plural is important; while he defends socialism throughout The Road
to Wigan Pier, Orwell explicitly identifies himself with the middle class and
the values he ascribes to it. "Here I am with a bourgeois upbringing and a
working-class income. To which class do I belong? Economically I belong
to the working class, but it is almost impossible for me to think of myself as
anything but a member of the bourgeoisie" (225).
In "The Lion and the Unicorn," Orwell depicts socialism as a com-
bination of libertarian populism and state socialism. Under socialism, the
economy will be reduced to a technical and administrative problem no
longer complicated by class conflicts. "The state, representing the whole
nation, owns everything, and everyone is a state employee. ... In a Socialist
economy these problems [overproduction and unemployment] do not exist.
The state simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best
to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labor and raw
materials" (79-80). In keeping with his essentially frictionless model, Orwell
envisions a socialist revolution based on an ideology of national community
and patriotism capable of uniting the middle and working classes against
the decadent aristocrats and imperialist plutocrats of the ruling class. Capi-
talist England is portrayed as a dysfunctional Victorian family: "It has rich
relations who have to be kow-towed to and poor relations who are horribly
sat upon, and there is a deep conspiracy of silence about the source of
the family income. It is a family in which . . . most of the power is in the
hands of irresponsible uncles and bedridden aunts. . . . A family with the
wrong members in control-that, perhaps, is as near as one can come to
describing England" (68). As he did earlier in The Road to Wigan Pier,
Orwell acknowledges class differences and continues to define them cul-
turally, as differences of accent, tastes, clothes, and lifestyle, rather than
economically.13 However, in "The Lion and the Unicorn," the middle class
13. My criticism of Orwell's "cultural materialism" is not a denial of the fact that "accent,
tastes, clothes, and lifestyle" have no class valence. Nor am I advocating a "vulgar" Marx-
ist reflection theory whereby class valences are conceived as logically deducible from,
or mechanically coordinated with, the dominant mode of production. Rather, I am con-
tending that the class valences of cultural production are only relatively autonomous with
respect to the forces and relations of production that set limits of correspondence and

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
is no longer depicted as sinking into the proletariat; now it is the workers

who are being raised into the ranks of the middle class. Orwell admits that
"unjust" distinctions remain, but he insists that "real differences" are dimin-
ishing as a "new middle class of managers, salesmen, engineers, chem-
ists, and technicians of all kinds" expands "upward and downward" within
the social hierarchy. The more prosperous workers are becoming visibly
middle class, and the "old classification of society into capitalists, proletari-
ans and petty-bourgeois (small property owners)" is becoming obsolete. A
certain classlessness inevitably accompanies growing prosperity and ex-
tended education and communication. "In tastes, habits, manners and out-
look the working class and the middle class are drawing together. The unjust
distinctions remain, but the real differences diminish" (77).
While it is accurate enough to claim that "in this way of thinking
Orwell prepared the orthodox political climate of a generation,"14 it is still
the case that in "The Lion and the Unicorn," Orwell remains an unregen-
erate advocate of a socialist overthrow of capitalism. Not only does he
continue to deplore the ongoing social injustices of capitalism, he remains
convinced of the economic inefficiency of "private capitalism" in compari-
son with "socialist" economies--namely, the state-regulated economy of
fascist Germany that has, in Orwell's opinion, reduced capitalists to mere
managers, and the state-owned economy of the communist Russia that has
eliminated the capitalists as a class. Orwell not only continues to believe
in a populist socialist alliance, he believes that the war against fascism will
noncorrespondence on them. Althusser's notion of structural causality as a parallelo-

gram of simultaneous but unequally acting forces best expresses my meaning. A similar
point must be made regarding the autonomy, or primacy, of psychological determina-
tions: identity and fantasy are irreducible facts of human subjectivity, but the language
and culture with which we identify and through which our fantasies are embodied are
sociologically determined. For opposing Weberian and Lacanian views, see, respectively,
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1984), and Slavoj Zifek, For They Know Not What They Do:
Enjoyment as a Political Factor (London: Verso, 1991).
14. Raymond Williams, George Orwell (New York: Viking, 1971), 19. I am much indebted
to Williams's view of Orwell as a contradictory figure caught between identifications with
dominated and dominator. For another perspective on Orwell's contribution to the right-
ward drift of the left intelligentsia, see E. P. Thompson, "Inside Which Whale," in Raymond
Williams, ed., George Orwell: A Collection of Critical Essays (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall, 1974), 80-88; see also Christopher Norris, "Language, Truth and Ideology: Orwell
and the Post-War Left," in Norris, ed., Inside the Myth, 242-62. For a defense of Orwell
as the "loyal opposition" of the Left, see Alex Zwerdling, Orwell and the Left (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1974).

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
itself be an agent of socialist transformation. If the war against Germany

is to be won, he argues, a socialist revolution based on a "patriotic class
alliance" between the middle and working classes is necessary. Further-
more, the war has made a socialist revolution possible by creating a feeling
of national solidarity, greatly reducing class distinctions, and revealing the
self-interested incompetence of the ruling class. "War is the greatest of all
agents of change. It speeds up all processes, wipes out minor distinctions,
brings realities to the surface. Above all, war brings it home to the individual
that he is not altogether an individual. . . . If it can be made clear that de-
feating Hitler means wiping out class privilege, the great mass of middling
people . . . will probably be on our side" (94-95). Of course, the elite will
"obstruct" for all they are worth-at some point or other it may be necessary
to use violence-and even the middle classes will "writhe" when their ac-
customed way of life is menaced. "But just because . .. patriotism is finally

stronger than class-hatred, the chances are that the will of the majority wil
prevail" (95).
Leaving aside the admittedly fascinating degree of insight and error
contained in these views,1" we may fairly conclude that Orwell's vision of
socialism and of the socialist revolution is based on an alliance of the middle
and working classes, an alliance premised, in turn, on the absence of fun-

damental economic conflict between the two classes and on a populist ide-
ology bridging the gulf of cultural difference that actually does divide them.
Orwell's vision of a socialist alliance of the middle and working classes has
important implications for our model of totalitarianism. It suggests, as shown
in Figure 3, a correspondence within Orwell's political ideology between
the middle and working classes and the libertarian and egalitarian values
that define socialism as the negation of totalitarianism. The association of
the middle class with libertarian values of political democracy, liberty, and
individual freedom, and the working class with egalitarian values of social
equality, justice, and moral community defines class relations ideologically
rather than economically. By ignoring relations of economic ownership and
15. For an overall assessment, see Alok Rai, Orwell and the Politics of Despair (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); for Orwell's doubts about socialism, see
Arthur M. Eckstein, "George Orwell's Second Thoughts on Capitalism," in Jonathan Rose,
ed., The Revised Orwell (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1992), 191-
205. Still essential are William Steinhoff, George Orwell and the Origins of "1984" (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1975); Bernard Crick, George Orwell (Boston: Little,
Brown, 1980); Raymond Williams, George Orwell (New York: Viking, 1971); and George
Woodcock, The Crystal Spirit: A Study of George Orwell (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966).

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
the social division of labor, Orwell's populism evades the uncomfortable fact
of middle-class domination and exploitation of the working class by means
of the distinction between mental and manual labor and the monopoliza-
tion of educational qualifications, managerial skills, and bureaucratic posi-
tions.16 The structural-economic relation that allies the middle class with
the capitalist system and against the working class is simply eliminat
Furthermore, by unifying and transcending the contrary relationship b
tween liberty and equality under socialism, even the cultural-ideolog
differences that Orwell acknowledges as existing between the middle and
working classes are effectively neutralized. Their coexistence at a hig
level transforms the contrary relationship between middle- and working
class values into a complementary one, and their "natural" compatibil
is further reinforced by their common moral goodness and their commo
opposition to the evil of totalitarianism.
The combined effects of the opposition of socialism and totalitarian
ism are particularly satisfying for Orwell, insofar as they permit him to id
tify with the middle class and its values while, at the same time, committ
himself wholeheartedly to the cause of socialism and the values of the wor
ing class. However, as we can see from Figure 3, the existence of clas
and class-based values within the category of socialism reveals the specte
of an underlying elitism repressed by Orwell's morally principled oppositi
to totalitarianism. Figure 3 suggests that Orwell's political ideology is riv
by a tension between his conscious commitment to both libertarian a
egalitarian values and an unconscious impulse to valorize superior individ
als at the expense of the inferior masses. If this is the case, and I believe
it is, then the fact that Orwell is undeniably opposed to capitalist elitisms
wealth and totalitarian elitisms of power raises an important question: ju
what kind of an elitist can he possibly be? Finally, the introduction of c
and class-based values into the model creates an interesting asymmet
between socialist class relations, where the middle and working clas
are allied, and totalitarian relations, where party dictatorship is associate
with a ruling class of the leader and the party elite, and state power wit
a middle class of bureaucrats. If the middle class is allied with the work-
ing class under socialism, how can it be allied with the ruling class under
totalitarianism? These questions are of great significance for an analysis
16. See the classic analysis of Erik Olin Wright, Classes (London: Verso, 1985). Wright's
work is discussed by himself and his critics in Wright et al., The Debate on Classes
(London: Verso, 1989).

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
of Nineteen Eighty-Four. However, before they can be addressed satisfac-

torily, it is necessary to examine the cold war concept of totalitarianism,
compare it to Orwell's, and explain how an avowed socialist and anticapi-
talist such as Orwell could be appropriated so easily by militant defenders
of capitalism against socialism.
Orwell and the Cold War Concept of Totalitarianism
Used in the thirties and forties by socialists critical of Stalin's dictator-

ship, the term totalitarianism was enthusiastically taken over by liberal and
conservative political scientists during the fifties and carefully crafted into
a formidable instrument of antisocialist propaganda.17 Advancing further in
the direction taken by Orwell and the dissident socialists, American cold
warriors elaborated a concept of totalitarianism that obliterated the differ-
ences between Soviet communism and European fascism and studiously
avoided any analysis of the historical relationships between these regimes
and the uneven development and global expansion of capitalism. Totalitari-
anism ceased to be understood, as it had been for Orwell and the rest, as a
product of the contradictions of capitalism itself, an inhumane collectivism
to be opposed in the name of humane collectivism, democratic socialism,
not capitalism. In the hands of the cold warriors, it was the restructured capi-
talism of the United States, not socialism, that became the moral antithesis
of totalitarianism. In its final form, depicted in Figure 4, the cold war con-
cept of totalitarianism contrasted a demonized Soviet Union and a mythic
America, a binary opposition whereby the incarnate evil of totalitarianism
implied the inherent goodness of capitalism and the existence of inequality
and injustice in the United States and throughout the American-dominated
"Free World" became, literally, unrepresentable.
The valorization of capitalism was subtly concealed behind the
synthetic term pluralism. The contrary relationship between economic in-
equality and political equality was transcended and subsumed by pluralism,
so as to naturalize the compatibility of capitalism and democracy and mask
the dominance of the former over the latter. By the terms of the cold war
model, capitalism and democracy are represented in exclusively positive
17. Les K. Adler and Thomas G. Paterson, "Red Fascism: The Merger of Nazi Germany
and Soviet Russia in the American Image of Totalitarianism, 1930s-1950s," American His-
torical Review 75, no. 4 (1970): 1046-64. For a general survey of the political history of
the term, see Abbott Gleason, Totalitarianism: The Inner History of the Cold War (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
Pluralism
(United States)
Capitalism --- Democracy

(right of private (representative
property) government)
Socialism
(U.S.
Fascism(Orwell's
clients)
position)
not-Democracy not-Capitalism
(party dictatorship) (state ownership
of economic property)
Totalitarianism
(Soviet Union)
Figure 4. The Cold War Model of Totalitarianism
terms. Capitalism is defined in terms of "civil society" and "civil rights," while
private ownership of economic property is represented as a symbol of the
liberty of all citizens. The existence of class struggle and the economic ex-
ploitation of nonpropertied workers by a class of property owners is ignored.
Similarly, democracy is characterized by "representative government" and
"universal suffrage" in the context of "popular sovereignty" and competing
political parties, and not as a plebiscitary oligarchy, wherein political parties,
candidates, and issues are controlled by the wealthy with little or no active
political participation by the vast majority of citizens. Furthermore, the term
totalitarianism was used to discredit all forms of critical or utopian thinking
as inherently dangerous.
Totalitarianism became dystopia, or rather a dystopian parody of
utopia itself, while American pluralism was transformed into the highest
form of good that could be "realistically" expected from a human society. In
response to the changing needs of American imperialism, the Soviet Union
was gradually identified as the archetypical form of totalitarianism, while
fascism, uncomfortably similar to a growing number of American-supported
dictatorships throughout the Third World, was quietly dropped from the cold
warrior lexicon. The possibility of a not-capitalist democratic society, demo-

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
cratic socialism, was repressed from the model, much as fascism had been,
and those socialists who had earlier opposed both Stalinism and capital-
ism proved either unable or unwilling to resist the extreme pressure toward
political conformity generated by the condemnation of Soviet totalitarianism.
It was but a short step to an identification of the actually existing democ-
racy of capitalist America with the very principle of goodness, a move that
rendered any dissenting view totalitarian by implication.
The cold war conception of totalitarianism fundamentally differs from
Orwell's. Most obviously, Orwell's political ideology is radical, anticapitalist
as well as antitotalitarian, while the cold warriors are conservatives who
define any form of anticapitalism as totalitarian. Orwell defends a social-
ist (democratic not-capitalism) negation of totalitarianism, while the cold
war model completely excludes democratic socialism from representation.
Orwell's conception of totalitarianism emphasizes the conjunction of the will
to power of a ruling class and the imposition of bureaucratic control over
the whole of society-characteristics that apply not only to Russian com-
munism and European fascism but to monopoly capitalism as well18--while
the cold war model represses any connection between fascism and capi-
talism and represents pluralism as uncontaminated by either a ruling class
or bureaucratic organization.
These important differences notwithstanding, American cold war-
riors were able to appropriate Orwell with great enthusiasm and little diffi-
culty. Orwell's socialism has, of course, undeniable affinities with American
pluralism, which also valorizes the "common" man and national community,
defines class on the basis of income and lifestyle, and reduces social to
moral problems. More importantly, Orwell and the cold warriors are linked by
their common opposition to Stalinism and by their mutual antipathy toward
Marxist theoretical principles of economic determination and class struggle.
Orwell often ridicules the crudeness with which certain Marxists espoused
their faith in the "historical necessity" of socialism and the politically disas-
trous effects of such simpleminded views on the struggle against fascism.19
18. On the "Orwellian" aspects of contemporary capitalism, science and technology, and
mass culture and media control, see Peter Stansky, ed., On "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (New
York: W. H. Freeman, 1983), and Mulvihill, ed., Reflections on America. Herbert Mar-
cuse, One-Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon, 1964) remains particularly instructive; see
also Erich Fromm's afterword to George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Stuart Hall,
"Conjuring Leviathan: Orwell on the State," in Christopher Norris, ed., Inside the Myth,
242-62.
19. For a discussion of Orwell's knowledge of Marx, see Zwerdling, Orwell and t

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
However, his antipathy to Marxist analysis goes deeper than simply an

intellectual rejection of "vulgar" Marxism. Remember, it is only by ignoring
structural-economic relations and by defining class distinctions in cultural-
ideological terms that Orwell is able to subsume the contrary relationship
between the middle and working classes and sustain his own faith in a popu-
list anticapitalist alliance. Only by masking the tension between middle-
and working-class values is Orwell able to assert their compatibility and
identify himself with the "common man" and the national family. Orwell's
preemptory rejection of Marxist analysis is, therefore, a rejection of a theo-
retical framework that explains existing social conditions in such a way as
to invalidate his own ideology. It is this move that unites him with the cold
warriors. In precisely the same fashion as it allows Orwell to represent
socialism as the compatibility of the middle and working classes, the ex-
clusion of Marxist principles of economic determination and class struggle
allows American ideologues to represent pluralism as the compatibility of
capitalism and democracy. This homology suggests a deeper affinity: elitist
convictions unconsciously sublimated by the competing pro- and anticapi-
talist ideologies of pluralism and socialism and projected by each onto its
opposite, the category of totalitarianism. It is an underlying, unconscious
elitism, then, that makes the term totalitarianism so ideologically compelling
and psychologically satisfying for both the radical Orwell and the conserva-
tive cold warriors. Can the political unconscious of antitotalitarianism itself
be, somehow, totalitarian?
Nineteen Eighty-Four: The Dystopian Frame
Turning now to the novel, we can observe the profound effect of

the concepts of socialism and totalitarianism on its narrative figuration. Not
the least interesting thing about Nineteen Eighty-Four is the manner in
which Orwell attempts to incorporate the utopian and dystopian elements
of his political ideology within an evolutionary, historical perspective. As
shown in Figure 5, Orwell's representation of Oceania combines two tem-
poral frames, pretotalitarian, capitalist England of 1948, and postcapitalist,
totalitarian Oceania of 1984. The values and relationships that generate the
contrast of 1948 and 1984 are actualized as fictional characters and char-
13-37. For the British context, see Neal Wood, Communism and British Intellectuals
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), and Samuel Hynes, The Auden Generation:
Literature and Politics in England in the 1930s (New York: Viking, 1977).

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
Capitalist England of 1948

(national family)
Individual Freedom - '- Human Community

Outer Party dissidents nonparty masses
(Winston, Julia) (the proles)
Superior Inferior
Individuals Masses
Will to Power State Apparatus

Inner Party elite Outer Party cadres
(O'Brien) (Parsons, Symes,
Ampleforth)
Oceania
(totalitarian society of 1984)
Figure 5. Orwell's Representation of Oceania
acter traits structured as good or evil according to the dictates of th

ology of totalitarianism: the "good" traits of individual freedom and
community (represented by Winston and the proles) are associate
the pretotalitarian past, while the "evil" traits of will to power and
bureaucracy (represented by O'Brien and the Outer Party cadres)
sociated with the totalitarian present. It is significant that Orwell rep
capitalist England through the memories of Winston, a middle-class
dent, and through Winston's interpretation of the values and lifestyle
working-class proles. Winston represents a vestige of the union of m
class individualism and working-class community that Orwell bel
be the agent of socialist transformation. Although its perspective is
class, the opposition of good and evil depicted in Figure 5 corre
neither to the cold war opposition of pluralism and totalitarianism nor
nostalgia for a mythical "golden age" of capitalism on the part of Or
himself. Rather, Oceania is a dystopian negation of Orwell's vision of
gland as a "family with the wrong members in control." The ruling
"irresponsible uncles and bedridden aunts" is gone; instead of a m
and working-class alliance and a utopian negation of their class diffe
under socialism, we are presented with a rigid caste distinction betw
two classes and a dystopian naturalization of their differences under

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
tarianism. Thus, Oceania is not just a satire on the Soviet Union and Nazi
Germany, or merely a warning of a global tendency toward totalitarianism,
or, finally, simply a piece of antitotalitarian propaganda designed to scare
people out of their complacency20 Oceania is all of these things, but before
it is any of them, it is a parodic inversion of Orwell's own populist socialism,
and, therefore, the opposition of totalitarianism and socialism may be said
to constitute the novel's deep structure.
However, by giving literary form to his ideology of totalitarianism,
Orwell activates its latent contradictions and antagonisms. As the narrative
figuration of Oceania develops, a subtle and disruptive shift of emphasis
takes place-a shift away from the intended, straightforward opposition of
good and evil toward an excluded, subversive opposition of superior indi-
viduals and inferior masses. Orwell's text produces something unexpected:
a world organized not, as we would expect, on the basis of good and evil
social relations but rather on the basis of classes of superior and inferior
individuals, an opposition that is formally excluded from the representation
of Oceania as it is from Orwell's political ideology. Rather than uniting "good"
with "good" (middle-class dissident Winston with the working-class proles)
in accordance with the binary opposition of totalitarianism and socialism, the
narrative works to unite "good" and "evil" (Winston with O'Brien as superior
individuals, and the proles with party functionaries as inferior masses).
Orwell's ideological project is to portray Winston and the proles as comple-
mentary forces of individual freedom and moral community destroyed by
totalitarianism. However, this intended effect is subverted by Winston's su-
periority and the inferiority of the proles. While consciously insisting on the
common interests of Winston and the proles, the text unconsciously under-
mines the notion of a populist unity of individualism and moral community
by suggesting the inevitable dominance of the former over the latter.
A middle- and working-class alliance uniting the alienated party-
member Winston and the exploited proles is impossible because there can
be little common ground for a cooperative relationship between superior
and inferior beings. A revolution of the proles is simply unthinkable within
20. For the novel as satire, see Bernard Crick, "Reading Nineteen Eighty-Four as Satire,"
in Mulvihill, ed., Reflections on America, 15-45, Stephen J. Greenblatt, Three Modern
Satirists (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), and Carl Freedman, "Antinomies of
Nineteen Eighty-Four," in Bernard Oldsey and Joseph Brown, ed., Critical Essays on
George Orwell (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1986), 90-109. For an overview of the voluminous
literature regarding the reception of the novel as prophecy and propaganda, written with
uncritical admiration for Orwell as a liberal moralist, see Rodden, Politics of Literary
Reputation, 244-321.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
the dystopian framework of Oceania. "If there was hope, it lay in the proles,"
Winston muses, but when one "looked at the human beings passing you
on the pavement ... it became an act of faith" (73). The reason, accord-
ing to Winston, is the fact that the proles are incapable of thinking. "They
were like the ant, which can see small objects but not large ones" (79).
Still, the proles "had remained human" (135), capable of personal loyalty but
only because they are also unthinkingly orthodox: "They simply swallowed
everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm because it left no
residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the
body of a bird" (126). Faith in the proles, Winston concludes, is a "mystical
truth and palpable absurdity" (70). Class prejudices such as these separate
Winston from the values of social equality and moral community, and place
him, however reluctantly, on the side of elitism. The contrary relationship
between Winston and the proles, ostensibly subsumed (and masked) by
their common state of victimization and their antitotalitarian values, weak-
ens the moral contrast between the national family and totalitarianism by
introducing into the representation repressed antagonisms of superiority
and inferiority.
Winston's ambivalence toward the proles is, of course, widely dis-
cussed by Orwell's critics. However, the unconscious force exerted by Or-
well's elitism produces less recognized, but equally disruptive, effects on
the other relationships depicted in Figure 5. In the case of the contradic-
tory intraclass opposition between dissident Winston and loyal functionaries
(Symes, Parsons, and Ampleforth), we find that it is Winston's intelligence
and independence as much as his sense of human decency that distinguish
him from their passive, unthinking careerism. The conforming Outer Party
cadres are defined in a doubly negative sense. In keeping with the category
of totalitarianism, they are negatively valued by their lack of human decency
(which distinguishes them from Winston and the proles), but they are even
more negatively valued by their inferiority, by a lack of critical intelligence
and will to power (which distinguishes them from Winston and O'Brien).
The characterization of the party cadres as gullible flunkies and the proles
as herd animals so strongly reinforces the complementary relationship be-
tween them that the primary contrast of good and evil between state power
and moral community becomes confused. By the conventions of totalitarian-
ism, the Outer Party functionaries should be exploiters benefiting from their
privileged position as representatives of state power, but they are repre-
sented instead as unwitting dupes, as much the victims as the conscious
agents of the evil system they serve. For the cadres, as for the proles, inferi-

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
ority naturalizes subordination. Because they are inferior, the Outer Party
functionaries "naturally" accept and reproduce their own dehumanization
as well as that of the proles; because the proles are inferior, they passively
accept their dehumanized existence as the "natural" state of things.
The innate superiority of Winston to the proles parallels the innate
superiority of the Inner Party elite to the middle-class members of the Outer
Party. The figuration of the contrary relationship between O'Brien and func-
tionaries Parsons, Symes, and Ampleforth should be reconciled by empha-
sizing the social superiority they share by virtue of party membership and by
de-emphasizing the personal attributes of intelligence and will to power that
decisively separate Inner from Outer Party members. However, the unity of
will to power and bureaucratic organization, naturalized and guaranteed by
the synthetic term totalitarianism, is actually undermined by the opposition
of superior and inferior individuals, which positively values the Inner Party
while casting the Outer Party members into the ranks of the inferior masses.
Even the contradictory relationship between O'Brien and the proles fails to
conform unambiguously to the opposition of good and evil implied by the
category of totalitarianism. Despite the fact that their sense of moral com-
munity is uncorrupted by will to power or party membership, the positive
valuation of the proles is weakened by the fact that their moral community
is identified as much with their innate inferiority as their innate decency.
The opposition of superiority and inferiority undercuts the moral con-
demnation of O'Brien and the Inner Party, and lends an aura of inevita-
bility, if not outright legitimacy, to the totalitarian concentration of power.
The tension between conscious condemnation and unconscious, hence un-
representable, justification makes the complementary relationship between
Winston and O'Brien the central focus of the novel. The implicit opposi-
tion of superior individuals and inferior masses will unconsciously work to
foreground those similarities between Winston and O'Brien that Winston's
rebellion and O'Brien's triumph function to obscure. The conventions of
antitotalitarianism require that the opposition between individual freedom
and party dictatorship be a struggle between good and evil, yet the moral
significance of the conflict is necessarily weakened by the fact that it occurs
exclusively within the ranks of superior individuals. The climactic confronta-
tion between Winston and O'Brien will be determined by the complementary
nature of will to power and individual freedom, while the tragedy of Win-
ston's defeat will be lessened by the fact that in certain, as yet unspecified
respects he is more like O'Brien than unlike him.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
Nineteen Eighty-Four: The Utopian Frame
The existence of a utopian frame is both a most interesting and

frequently overlooked feature of Nineteen Eighty-Four. It exists as the post-
totalitarian world of the "author," whose footnote, early in the first chapter,
serves to inform us that we are reading a historical novel written sometime
after the demise of Oceania, and whose appendix, "The Principles of New-
speak," takes the form of a scholarly monograph looking back on Oceania
as an extinct and almost incomprehensible civilization. Because it is figured
as the (socialist) negation of the (totalitarian) negation of capitalism, the
importance of the utopian frame for Orwell is undeniable,21 and, yet, despite
its ideological significance, we are given almost no substantive informa-
tion about this posttotalitarian world. As shown in Figure 6, the existence
of the "author's" society is purely formal, the spaces of not-party dictator-
ship and not-state power are empty of content, and the populist alliance
of middle-class dissidents and working-class proles is hardly more than a
logical possibility in the mind of Winston Smith. The posttotalitarian space
of the "author" is truly utopian-it is a "no-place" that cannot exist given
the sociological reality of Oceania but at the same time does exist and, by
fact of its existence, asserts that a revolutionary overthrow of totalitarian-
ism has taken place. Somehow, middle-class dissidents and working-class
proles have rebelled, and somehow, the party's invincible system of political
terrorism, ideological manipulation, and warfare economics has collapsed.
The coexistence of utopian and dystopian frames creates an unbearable
contradiction within the novel, which wants to portray Oceania as both
plausible and absurd, stable and unstable, the epitome of rationality and
irrationality alike.
The posttotalitarian frame is utopian in the way Louis Marin has
taught us to understand the term, namely as an "ideological critique of
ideology"--a fictional (and thus ideological) negation of ideologically per-
ceived (but objectively existing) social contradictions in advance of their
21. Orwell refused to allow the Book of the Month Club to cut either the "Appendix on
Newspeak" or Goldstein's "Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism." "I can't pos-
sibly agree to the kind of alteration and abbreviation suggested. It would ... leave out
a good deal that is essential" (CEJL, 4:483). In his biographical study, Crick insists that
Orwell's refusal stems from the fact that the Goldstein book and appendix are very much
part of the meaning of the novel, and "if readers could not see their significance, they
could not understand the book" (Crick, George Orwell, 386).

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
Totalitarianism
(Oceania, Eastasia, Eurasia)
Party Dictatorship . State Power

(will to power) (bureaucratic control of society)
(Inner Party elite) (Outer Party middle class)
Unconscious Opposition:
Superior Elite Inferior Masses
(Inner Party elite) (Outer Party middle class and
working-class proles)
Not-State Power Not-Party Dictatorship

(empty) (empty)
(middle-class dissidents?) (working-class proles?)
Unconscious Opposition:
Not-Inferior Masses Not-Superior Elite
Not-Oceania
(world of the "author" of Nineteen Eighty-Four)
Figure 6. Orwell's Posttotalitarian Frame
theoretical comprehension and historical transformation.22 Orwell's utopia

frame negates the pessimistic "end of history" presented from within the
dystopian frame of Oceania, but it does so by an ideological leap of faith
rather than by advancing a plausible theory of historical transition. Indeed,
as Figure 6 shows, no theory of transition can be imagined from within the
limits of Orwell's political ideology. If totalitarian Oceania is represented a
an immoral alliance of the ruling and middle classes while its negation is
represented as a moral alliance of the middle and working classes, the
the middle class has to be both moral and immoral, totalitarian and anti-
totalitarian. If the middle-class Outer Party is immoral and a beneficiary o
totalitarianism, what conceivable motive could it have for an alliance with
22. Marin, "Theses on Ideology and Utopia," in Utopics, 195-200. On Marin, see Fredri
Jameson, "Of Islands and Trenches: Naturalization and the Production of Utopian Dis
course," Diacritics 7, no. 2 (summer 1977): 2-21, and Eugene D. Hill, "The Place of the
Future: Louis Marin and his Utopics," Science-Fiction Studies 9 (1982): 167-79.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
the working-class proles? On the other hand, if it is moral and a victim of

totalitarianism, how can the Outer Party plausibly be represented as an ally
of the Inner Party, the willing agent of its own oppression?
If we add to Figure 6 the unconscious opposition of superiority and
inferiority, then the possibility of representing a transition to socialism is
foreclosed from another direction. In terms of superiority and inferiority,
totalitarianism separates the superior individuals of the Inner Party from
the inferior masses of the Outer Party and the proles. Such a division does
place the middle class on the side of the workers, but only by representing
them as too weak and stupid to revolt in the first place. By the unconscious
logic of superiority and inferiority, the oppressed middle class would have
to be superior in order for their revolt to be successful; but if they were su-
perior, then they would be in the Inner, not the Outer, Party! If Outer Party
members were to be represented as both moral and superior, then their
collaboration with totalitarianism becomes incomprehensible--they would

all be rebels like Winston Smith. If they are represented as immoral and
superior, then they must be either members of the Inner Party themselves
or proponents of a new elitism seeking to supplant, rather than abolish, the
despotism of the Inner Party (they might, for example, become advocates
of a return to capitalism, as actually happened with the ex-Soviet elite).
Orwell's inability to represent a posttotalitarian world follows directly
from his contradictory figuration of the middle class, both in pretotalitarian
England and in totalitarian Oceania, and this contradiction is determined,
in its turn, by the unresolved tension between unconscious elitism and con-
scious egalitarianism within his political ideology. From the sheer absurdity
of its elements-masses that are not-inferior (i.e., not the masses) and
an elite that is not-superior (i.e., not an elite)-it is obvious that a social-
ist negation of totalitarian elitism is logically unrepresentable in Orwell's
terms. Like the repressed drive that forces itself to consciousness in the
form of a neurotic symptom, Orwell's repressed elitism expresses itself in-
directly through the absence of content in the utopian frame, through the
self-contradictory figuration of the middle class of Oceania, and through the
tortured resolution of Winston's quest for freedom.
The Contradictory Middle Class of Oceania
I am not denying the imaginative genius or emotional power of Or-

well's representation of totalitarianism. Oceania is composed of brilliant
and terrifying caricatures of certain characteristics of Nazi and Bolshe-

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
vik regimes--combined with ominously prescient insights into the admin-

istered culture and politics of what Herbert Marcuse would later call the
"one-dimensional" society emerging in the actually existing democracies
of industrial capitalism. Perhaps only Kafka has managed to convey so
successfully the experience of powerlessness and oppression.23 Nor am
I denying that many of the horrifying details of Orwell's totalitarian world
of political coercion, ideological manipulation, and warfare economics are
sufficiently plausible technically to justify his loathing and fear of them. My
point is simply this: however frighteningly realistic or satirically successful
it may be in certain respects, Orwell's representation of totalitarianism is
incoherent and implausible.
In order to demonstrate its incoherence, I will make use of the ac-
count of Oceania presented in the form of Emmanuel Goldstein's book,
"The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism." Admittedly, using
Goldstein's text in this way is not without problems. As I have already noted,
explanations of the workings of Oceania offered from within the anti-utopian
frame of 1984 cannot be taken at face value once we realize that Oceania is
not infallible, that it has not, in fact, survived. Further difficulties emerge from
the discovery that the book is not even "authentic," that the actual author
is O'Brien, and that the book itself is a prop in an elaborate counterrevolu-
tionary operation controlled by the Inner Party. Nevertheless, I still believe
Goldstein's account is intended to be taken as a substantially accurate ac-
count of the history and structure of Oceania. For one thing, O'Brien himself
states that, although the revolutionary program it sets forth is "nonsense,"
the book is correct "as a description" (215); for another, Goldstein's account
of how Oceania works and how it came to be fully conforms to Winston's
experience and to the evidence given to us by the rest of the novel.
We may begin with the revolutionary transition to totalitarianism dur-
ing the mid-twentieth century. Of interest here are three facts: first, that
previous history is represented as a cyclical struggle of the high, middle,
and low classes of society, a struggle that is devoid of any real history (166);
second, that it is the "new" middle class of "bureaucrats, scientists, tech-
nicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers,
journalists, and professional politicians" that makes the totalitarian revolu-
23. See Alex Zwerdling, "Orwell's Psychopolitics," in Ejner J. Jensen, ed., The Future of
"Nineteen Eighty-Four "(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1984), 87-110. Anthony
West sees Orwell's insight as biographical, stemming from his boarding school experi-
ences, in "George Orwell," in Principles and Persuasions (New York: Harcourt, Brace,
1957), 164-76.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
tion (169); and third, in comparison with previous revolutionary groups, this
new middle class was "less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for
pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing" (169),
namely, "arresting progress and freezing history" (168).
Goldstein's account of the transition to totalitarianism is notable for
its voluntarism and its elitism, tendencies rendered even more extreme by
the fact that the new middle class is able to come to power under circum-
stances of increasing economic development and prosperity, circumstances
that "threatened the destruction--indeed in some sense was the destruc-
tion-of a hierarchical society" (156). Paradoxically, the principal cause of
the totalitarian revolution was the fact that, "as early as the beginning of the
twentieth century, human equality had become technically possible" (168).
While it was still true that men were not equal in their native talents and that
social functions had to be specialized in ways that favored some individuals
against others, "there was no longer any real need for class distinctions or
for large differences of wealth" (168). However, from the point of view of the
ambitions of the new middle class-ambitions that the reader can only as-
sume to be innate and instinctive since they are otherwise unmotivated-
"human equality was no longer an ideal to be striven after, but a danger to
be averted" (168).
Such a representation of the origins of totalitarianism could hardly
have been welcomed by critics and enthusiasts anxious to erase class
struggle from the rhetoric of the cold war. More interestingly, we see Orwell
speaking out here as populist tribune and moral critic of capitalism, assert-
ing the objective possibility of social equality, and forthrightly condemning
the professional middle class for betraying it. Clearly, Orwell recognizes
and condemns the immorality of middle-class elitism, but, just as clearly, he
is silent with respect to the structural-economic taproot of their behavior.
Indeed, the very possibility of economic motivation is denied in the text's
representation of world history as a ceaseless struggle between "high,
middle, and low." Instead of social circumstances explaining elitism, we are
presented with elitism as an explanation of social circumstances--will to
power bereft of any purpose or goal other than the perpetuation of class
inequalities that are no longer rational or necessary. In short, the totali-
tarian revolution is caused by the intelligence and will of innately superior
individuals. These individuals are immoral, to be sure, but far from being
a disadvantage, a lack of morality seems to be a sign of the superiority of
the victorious new middle class. Despite economic conditions objectively
ripe for a utopian transformation to a moral society, we are presented with

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
the triumph of dystopian immorality. However implausible such an account

might appear from the perspective of social science, the triumph of totali-
tarianism is entirely consistent with the voluntarist and elitist assumptions of
the ideology of totalitarianism itself. The totalitarian revolution is only plau-
sible, in other words, under conditions that obtain after totalitarianism has
triumphed: the division of human society into a superior, striving minority
and an inferior, passive majority; the absence of any economic determina-
tion or economically motivated class struggle; and the predominance of a
voluntaristic ideology of history wherein will to power is the necessary and
sufficient cause of social change.
There is, however, an interesting gap in Goldstein's account of the
transition to totalitarianism. The revolutionary transition is represented as
the triumph of a middle class characterized by its diabolical will to power
and rationality, yet the fruit of its victory is a social formation wherein the
victorious middle class has become divided into an Inner and an Outer
Party. We are not told how this division came about, or why it might not
happen again. We are simply presented with a social structure divided, first
into an exploited proletariat (the lower 85 percent of the population) and
the party (the upper 15 percent); and, second, into the Inner Party ruling
class (about 2 percent of the population) and the remaining cadres of the
Outer Party. Not only has the party been split, the Inner Party has man-
aged to exclude the Outer Party from ownership of the means of production
and to restrict greatly the opportunity for upward mobility. "The Inner Part
owns the means of production collectively," and although it is theoretically
a meritocracy, there is only enough mobility to "ensure that weaklings are
excluded from the Inner Party and that ambitious members of the Outer
Party are made harmless by allowing them to rise" (172).
The class structure of Oceania is a deliberate creation of the Inner
Party, rationally designed by them to maintain their absolute control over

both the Outer Party and the proles. However, the credibility of Orwell's
representation of total power relies heavily on the use of class stereotypes.
We have already noted that the proles are portrayed as subhuman -not as
human beings who have been forcibly reduced to a subhuman level an
who must be constantly monitored in order to keep them there but as in-
nately inferior beings who can be safely treated as such without supervision
or fear of revolt. "The Proletarians are no threat, of course, they are left
to themselves to work, breed, and die. They lack the impulse to rebel o
even the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is. Their
opinions are a matter of indifference and they can be granted intellectual

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
liberty because they have no intellect" (173). This view of the proles is not
inconsistent with Orwell's representation of the working class within the
national family and the popular alliance against capitalism. As we have also
already noted, Orwell's notion of capitalist England as a family with the
wrong members in control recognizes the working class as a positive force,
but only for its alleged capacity for human solidarity and moral commu-
nity, not for intelligence or initiative, capacities Orwell reserves exclusively
for the middle class.24 Whether he represents them as moral or immoral,
socialist or totalitarian, Orwell invariably represents middle-class individuals
as intellectually superior to their working-class counterparts. The class alli-
ance posited by his populist socialism may be negated in Oceania, but the
class stereotypes remain unchanged. Moreover, neither utopian class alli-
ance nor dystopian class antagonism is economically determined. In both
instances, class stereotypes are substituted for class interest, although in
the utopian case, the absence of economic exploitation serves to enhance
the plausibility of class collaboration, while in the dystopian case, it simply
renders the posited antagonism between the middle and working classes
incomprehensible.
Inferior by nature, the proles may be safely left alone, but it is differ-
ent with the Outer Party, that is, with middle-class individuals endowed with
a capacity for thought and action. In a party member, "not even the smallest
deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated. A
Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police"
(173). A party member "is expected to have not only the right opinions, but
the right instincts. He or she is expected to have no private emotions and
no respites from enthusiasm" (173). However, the introduction of such a
degree of control over party members introduces a serious anomaly within
the figuration of Oceania, one ultimately rooted in the contrary relationship
24. In The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell remarks that "no genuine working man grasps the
deeper implications of socialism" (176). Orwell evinces a profound suspicion for working-
class intellectuals and seems to believe that workers who become educated necessarily
betray their fellow workers: "It is of course true that plenty of people of working class
origin are Socialists of the theoretical bookish type. But they are never people who have
remained working men .... They ... belong to the type who squirms into the middle class
via the literary intelligentsia, or the type who becomes a Labour MP or a high-up trade-
union official. This last type is one of the most desolating spectacles the world contains.
He has been picked out to fight for his mates, and all it means to him is a soft job ....
Not merely while but by fighting the bourgeoisie he becomes a bourgeois himself" (177).
Orwell seems to imply that a working man can only become a socialist by becoming
middle class, while if he remains a worker, he cannot really be a socialist at all.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
between the nihilistic will to power that animates the Inner Party and the
bureaucratic rationality associated with the Outer Party cadres. For mem-
bers of the Inner Party, support for the goal of perfect orthodoxy and a
comprehensive supervisory apparatus is plausible, because it is they who
have freely designed the entire system, and because it works entirely for
their material benefit. Not only does an Inner Party member participate
in the exercise of total power, the luxuries he enjoys--"his large, well ap-
pointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food
and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motorcar or
helicopter" (158)-set him in a different world from members of the Outer
Party. Members of the Outer Party, by contrast, are frightfully oppressed by
Oceania's repressive state apparatus. Although we are told that the Outer
Party has a "similar advantage" (158) over the proles as the Inner Party has
over them, in actuality, it is the proles who are better off. Not only are the
proles relatively free (able to enjoy love, friendship, and privacy-to name
only the more important things denied to members of the Outer Party), they
live relatively securely, if poorly, and although uneducated, they are, for the
most part, happy in their ignorance. By contrast, the domination endured
by members of the Outer Party is so oppressive and so all-encompassing
that their ability to survive at all strains our credibility while the enthusiasm
for serving the party attributed to them is completely unbelievable. Unlike
the proles, members of the Outer Party are not ignorant. They know, for
example, that the state of continuous warfare by which the economic sur-
plus is wasted is a complete hoax and that popular loyalty to the regime
is assured only by the grossest deception and manipulation. They know,
in short, that things are needlessly oppressive and, more importantly, that
the sufferings they themselves endure are utterly unnecessary. Like every
middle class known to history, the Outer Party is absolutely essential to
the ruling class of exploiters they serve; however, unlike any middle class
known to history, they receive no benefits for their service and no incentive
for accepting and reproducing the ideological values of the dominant class.
Instead of being relatively privileged exploiters of others, the members of
the Outer Party are unprivileged victims of oppressive acts for which they
themselves are responsible.
The Outer Party is an impossible combination of total coercion and
total cooperation. Having no plausible motive for ideological self-deception
and possessed of very real knowledge of the deceptions they perpetrate,
the question arises as to how the members of the Outer Party can be repre-
sented at all. The fundamental contradiction between the total coercion

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
exercised against the Outer Party and the total cooperation they neverthe-
less provide is a paradox only apparently "resolved" by means of Oceania's
extreme voluntarism. As Goldstein's text explains it, "speculations which
might possibly induce a skeptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance
by his [the party member's] early acquired inner discipline." Many variations
of this "mental discipline" are described, but, ultimately, we are assured,
they are all reducible to a single form: doublethink.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in

one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party
intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered;
he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the
exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not
violated. The process has to be conscious; or it would not be carried
out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it
would bring with it a feeling of falsity, and hence of guilt. (176)
Thus, it is doublethink, and doublethink alone, that purports to explain the

behavior of Outer Party members. However, such a solution does not work,
not because doublethink is oxymoronic -although the fact that the credi-
bility of the concept of totalitarianism ultimately rests on an absurdity is
significant--rather, it does not work because it is logically impossible for a
member of the Outer Party to want or to be able to exercise doublethink.
Doublethink is an oxymoron, but it is perfectly consistent with the
extreme voluntarism characteristic of Oceania. Doublethink is the highest
expression of will to power, the attribute that marks party members as su-
perior beings, and therefore its existence and exercise is consistent with the
premises and the self-interest of the Inner Party.25 Doublethink is insane, but
from the perspective of the Inner Party, there is method in its madness. The
problem with doublethink lies elsewhere, in its exercise by the Outer Party:
25. Thus, only with respect to the Inner Party can we accept the commonplace interpre-
tation of doublethink as a satire on Nazi or Soviet elites. With respect to the Outer Party,
Orwell's use of doublethink crosses the line from satire, an impossible exaggeration of
reality, to fantasy, a realistic treatment of an impossibility-a shift motivated by contradic-
tions within his political ideology not by any lapse on his part. On fantasy in the novel, see
Anthony Easthope, "Fact and Fantasy in Nineteen Eighty-Four," in Norris, ed., Inside the
Myth, 263-85; Alex Zwerdling "Orwell and the Techniques of Didactic Fantasy," in Hynes,
Twentieth-Century Interpretations, 88-101. On the relation of satire to the genre of utopia,
see Robert C. Elliott, The Shape of Utopia: Studies in a Literary Genre (Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1970); see also Gary Saul Morson, The Boundaries of Genre
(Evanston: Northeastern University Press, 1981).

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
even if we grant the diegetic reality of doublethink, there is no plausible

motive for a member of the Outer Party to exercise it. Indeed, by the logic
of Oceania, the exercise of doublethink by anyone outside the Inner Party
is self-contradictory. Because superiority is a function of will to power, and
because the exercise of doublethink is an expression of precisely such will
and such superiority, the capacity for doublethink must be a sign of Inner,
not Outer, Party membership. If individuals of the Outer Party were capable
of exercising doublethink, then they would be superior; but if superior, they
would be members of the Inner Party rather than its victims. Obversely, if
they are excluded from the Inner Party (and its privileges), then they must
be inferior; but if inferior, they cannot be capable of exercising doublethink.
By the terms of his political ideology, Orwell is obliged to represent the
middle class as moral enough to support socialism, yet immoral enough
to collaborate with totalitarianism; sufficiently superior to escape the hope-
less idiocy of the proletarian masses, yet sufficiently inferior to be excluded
from membership in the ruling class; the most oppressed victims of totali-
tarianism, yet its most enthusiastic servants; the only possible source of
antitotalitarian resistance, yet the class that created totalitarianism in the
first place.
Winston's Struggle for Freedom
Winston's reading of Goldstein's book breaks off on the threshold

of the revelation of "the central secret" of Oceania, "the original motive,
the never-questioned instinct that led to the seizure of power and created
doublethink and the rest of the coercive paraphernalia afterwards" (178-79).
When the long-awaited secret is finally revealed by O'Brien in the course
of his brutal interrogation of Winston, the effect is thunderously anticlimac-
tic. "The object of persecution is persecution," O'Brien patiently informs the
suffering, but intensely curious, Winston. "The object of torture is torture.
The object of power is power" (217). For an explanation of power, Orwell
substitutes an explanation by power, a move that has been consistently dis-
missed by Marxist critics as a mysticism of cruelty. While such a dismissive
attitude is understandable, particularly by those who insist on evaluating
literary practice by its social scientific truth or political consequences, it
has the unfortunate effect of overlooking what is most interesting about
the confrontation between Winston and O'Brien, namely, Orwell's attempt
to represent the possibility of middle-class resistance to totalitarianism, or
to say the same thing in a different way, to represent a member of the

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
middle class who is neither inferior nor immoral. Neither prole, loyal party
functionary, nor member of the Inner Party elite, Winston is a contradictory
figure. Possessed of intelligence, personal initiative, and decency in a world
where these attributes cannot exist together, Winston is indeed the "last
man," as O'Brien mockingly describes him, the last vestige of the progres-
sive middle class on whom Orwell's populist ideology of socialism depends.
He exists, and only exists, so that the evil of totalitarianism might be recog-
nized and resisted from within. However, because Winston is a middle-class
individual, we must not lose sight of the fact that his struggle for "individual"
freedom is inseparable from its origins in "bourgeois" freedom.
In conformity to the opposition of socialism and totalitarianism, Win-
ston's quest for freedom and his defeat at the hands of O'Brien reinforce the
contrast of good and evil that formally constitutes Orwell's populist ideology.
Like the proles, Winston is a victim of the totalitarian system, and his de-
feat negatively affirms the necessity of a socialist alliance of the middle and
working classes. At the same time, however, the clear-cut moral contrast
between Winston and O'Brien is subtly blurred by the repressed opposi-
tion of superior individuals and inferior masses. The confrontation of good
and evil-a struggle where nothing less than the future of civilization is at
stake-takes place exclusively within the ranks of the middle class, and it is
determined, in the last instance, by innate characteristics of psychological
strength and critical intelligence. Given these stakes and these conditions,
the ideological significance of Winston's struggle can hardly be exagger-
ated, and yet we find Winston depicted as objectively inferior to O'Brien
and, in the end, completely defeated, his spirit crushed. This outcome is all
the more curious, since neither Orwell's conscious opposition of totalitarian
immorality to socialist morality nor his unconscious opposition of superior
individuals to inferior masses precludes a representation of Winston as a su-
perior individual of sufficient intelligence and strength of character to stand
up to O'Brien and to die beaten but unbroken. Of course, Orwell's desire
to convey the experience of totalitarianism to his middle-class readers im-
plies a figuration of Winston as outwardly unexceptional, but even this con-
sideration hardly requires that he be mentally or morally inferior to O'Brien.
Why, like Ernest Everhard, the charismatic revolutionary of London's Iron
Heel, does Winston not join the proles, become a leader in the struggle
against the party, and, with his soul mate Julia, die a martyr to "the good
old Cause"-a mythic ancestor for the posttotalitarian "author" of his saga
(and, of course, an exemplary figure for the middle-class reader of 1949)?
After all, Orwell's figuration of Oceania points toward just such a hero. So

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
strong is this ideological predisposition that I believe it is only against the

background of the missing middle-class hero that we can make any sense
of the existing Winston narrative at all.26
As a potential "man of the people," Winston is curiously compro-
mised. He is torn between his admiration for the moral community of the
proles and his sense of superiority over them. Because he takes their inferi-
ority for granted, Winston is psychologically incapable of "dropping out" of
his middle-class existence in order to join the proles, and therefore his rebel-
lion is diverted into forms that are either apolitical (personal nonconformity
and sexual escapism)27 or, at least from Orwell's point of view, politically
pernicious (conspiratorial terrorism). His rebellion is simultaneously a re-
gression, a repetition, and an anachronism. Instead of rising to the occasion
and finding within himself the strength and insight to overcome his middle-
class prejudices, Winston simply reenacts the pattern of moral failure and
personal weakness by which the pretotalitarian middle class had betrayed
the national family and given it over to the forces of totalitarianism.28 The
secret of Winston's failure-and by failure, I am referring not to his cap-
ture, torture, and death but rather to the banality of his rebellion and to
26. For the most part, this unspoken desire for heroism has gone unrecognized, although
Richard Rees criticizes Orwell for demanding "superhuman bravery" from his characters
and Nineteen Eighty-Four as a grim culmination of this "all or nothing" philosophy. See
Richard Rees, George Orwell: Fugitive from the Camp of Victory (Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1961), 103-4. For Orwell as a heroic liberal in a decadent post-
liberal age, see Philip Rieff, "George Orwell and the Post-Liberal Imagination," in Harold
Bloom, ed., George Orwell: Modern Critical Views (New York: Chelsea House, 1987),
45-62.
27. For a thoughtful analysis of the instinctual dynamics between Julia, Winst
O'Brien from the perspective of Freudian theory, see Paul Robinson, "For the L
Big Brother: The Sexual Politics of Nineteen Eighty-Four," in Stansky, ed., On "N
Eighty-Four," 148-58.
28. James Connors, "Do It to Julia! Thoughts on Orwell's 1984," Modern Fiction S
16 (winter 1970/71): 463-73, argues that Winston is "so corrupted by his work on be
the Party that he is doomed to failure in his half-understood and belated attempt to
against a group of men whose views and values he shares far more than he re
(466). While Connors is correct to see shared views and values, and correct to poi
Orwell's strategy of scattering clues throughout the first two-thirds of the novel th
to identify Winston as a man unable to sustain a successful rebellion against the
his interpretation cannot account for the fact that Winston is able to rebel in the first
Winston is simply another in the long line of lower middle-class protagonists whose
flicting tendencies of rebellion and conformity were Orwell's constant preoccupatio
Terry Eagleton's brilliant analysis, "Orwell and the Lower Middle Class Novel," in
and Emigrds (London: Chatto and Windus, 1970), 78-108.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
his inability to resist to the very end-is that he is neither moral enough
to transcend his class prejudices nor strong enough to win his battle of
wills with O'Brien. By choosing the path of personal escapism, Winston be-
comes morally complicit in his own destruction, while his failure to stand up
to O'Brien psychologically testifies to his inferiority and justifies his defeat
in purely naturalistic terms. Orwell's sadistic delight in punishing Winston
(and our vicarious pleasure in reading about his suffering?) stems in large
part from the recognition and condemnation of his weakness.
Winston's superiority to the proles and his inferiority to O'Brien com-
bine in a scandalous revelation of an underlying similarity between his
middle-class individualism and totalitarian will to power. From the outset,
Winston is fascinated by power and fatally disempowered by his belief in
the hopelessness of rebellion and in the omnipotence of the Inner Party. In
the early stages of his interrogation, at a moment when he is still fully lucid,
Winston realizes that "what most oppressed him was the consciousness of
his own intellectual inferiority [to O'Brien] .... O'Brien was a being in all
ways larger than himself. There was no idea that he had ever had, or could
have, that O'Brien had not long ago known, examined, and rejected. His
mind contained Winston's mind" (211). In precisely the same manner that he
accepts his own superiority to the proles and Outer Party cadres, Winston
acknowledges O'Brien's superiority to himself. Because his own worldview
is organized around categories of will to power and contrasts of superiority
and inferiority, it is impossible for Winston not to equate the power of the
Inner Party with the personal superiority of its members. As he is uncon-
sciously repelled by the inferiority of the proles and other members of the
Outer Party, Winston is unconsciously attracted to O'Brien, from whom he
seeks recognition as a fellow superior individual.29
On the surface, O'Brien appears evil and insane, but it is he, not
Winston, who grasps the deeper truth of their relationship, the fact that Win-
ston's defense of human decency and individual freedom is somehow, in
the vernacular of existentialism, "inauthentic." The fact is, Winston cares
only about himself. His refusal to love Big Brother and his resistance to
the party's domination is, at bottom, an egoistic drive indistinguishable from
29. In The Orwell Mystique: A Study in Male Ideology (Amherst: University of Massa-
chusetts Press, 1984), Daphne Patai provocatively explains this attraction in terms of a
masculine ideology of "gamesmanship," whereby Winston can assert his significance and
attain approval from O'Brien. For Patai, competitive games embody a "cult of masculinity,"
a gratuitous struggle for domination, which explains both O'Brien's sadism and Winston's
desire to be a worthy opponent.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
O'Brien's willing submission to Big Brother and his pleasure in destroying

Winston's individuality. Winston's fascination with power and his fatalistic
conviction of his own inferiority and ultimate defeat are tinged with Nietz-
schean resentment and inflected with what Orwell elsewhere disparages as
the "power worship" of the middle classes.30 O'Brien's brutalizing of Winston
is Orwell's own relentless exposure and condemnation of the psychology
of will to power in both oppressor and victim.31 Winston's claim to moral su-
periority is discredited by a tape recording of his own voice promising "to
lie, to steal, to forge, to murder, to encourage drug taking and prostitution,
to disseminate venereal diseases, to throw vitriol in a child's face" in order
to promote the revolutionary overthrow of the Inner Party (222-23). When
he finally screams, "Do it to Julia!" in order to save himself from the rats,
Winston is forced to acknowledge, in the same terrible instant, the primacy
of his own will to power and the enormity of his personal defeat. It is this
double realization that breaks Winston's will and propels him into the open
arms of Big Brother.
Although it would be ridiculous to deny, or even attempt to minimize,
the moral condemnation of totalitarianism implied by Winston's destruction,
it is also wrong to portray Winston as an innocent victim. In representing the
evil of totalitarianism, Orwell is also exposing an elective affinity between
30. See "James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution," CEJL, 4:160-81. Orwell's debt
to Burnham for the basic framework of Oceania is universally acknowledged, while his
criticisms of Burnham's "power worship," his tendency to assume that the drift toward
totalitarianism is irresistible (163), to associate greatness with cruelty and dishonesty
(169), and to predict the future as a continuation of whatever is happening at the present
time (172-73) are either ignored or assumed abandoned by a later, more pessimistic
Orwell. I am arguing that Winston's character preserves Orwell's critique of Burnham.
For his most well-known discussion of power worship, see George Orwell, "Raffles and
Miss Blandish," CEJL, 3:212-24; Orwell's conception is defended in Gorman Beauchamp,
"From Bingo to Big Brother: Orwell on Power and Sadism," in Jensen, The Future of
Nineteen Eighty-Four, 65-85. See also, Gerald Fiderer, "Masochism as Literary Strategy:
Orwell's Psychological Novels," Literature and Psychology 20 (1970): 3-21.
31. Here it is customary to cite Orwell's remark that Jack London "could foresee Fas-
cism because he had a Fascist streak in himself" ("Introduction to Love of Life and Other
Stories by Jack London," CEJL, 4:23-29). This remark is usually taken to explain Orwell's
own capacity for writing so powerfully about totalitarianism. Much rarer are quotations
of the complete sentence, which ends with "or at any rate a marked strain of brutality
and an almost unconquerable preference for the strong man against the weak man" (25).
Also absent from the critical literature are remarks about London's "instinct" toward ac-
ceptance of a "natural aristocracy of strength, beauty, and talent" (26). It is precisely this
elitism that Orwell unconsciously recognizes as his own.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
the ideologies of middle-class individualism and totalitarian will to power.

Winston's quest for individual freedom has been not a moral quest for a
universal human freedom but an egoistic search for his own personal free-
dom, a desire to escape from the oppressive domination of the Inner Party
above him without slipping into the ranks of the inferior masses of the proles
below. Winston fervently desires the destruction of the party, but he cannot
repudiate standards of superiority and inferiority with which he himself iden-
tifies. Winston's rebellion cannot succeed, because, in his own mind, he
is inferior to O'Brien. Conversely, O'Brien's superiority negates rather than
validates the tragic dimension of Winston's defeat precisely because he is
not the antithesis of Winston, he is Winston-at a more advanced stage
of development. From the moment we discover that it has been initiated
and controlled by O'Brien, the authenticity of Winston's rebellion is called
into question. His quest for personal freedom is devalued by its own his-
tory-the history of bourgeois freedom-a history that has already arrived
at its appointed destination in the meritocratic despotism of the Inner Party.
Winston's attempt to revive an escapist, petty bourgeois vision of individual
freedom is revealed as retrogressive within the terms of the fiction itself.32
Pursued to its internal limits by Orwell's uncompromising representation,
middle-class individualism reveals its own secret history buried within the
concept of totalitarianism. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, we see the repressed
history of capitalism's own ruthless and dehumanizing struggle of all against
all projected onto the "other" of totalitarianism.
Here Orwell reaches the ideological limits of his narrative figuration.
Ultimately, the fact that Winston is neither a hero nor a martyr is not a
truth about capitalism, fascism, or communism but merely a truth about
Orwell's political ideology. It is the point at which Orwell encounters his own
repressed elitism as an insurmountable obstacle. Winston fails because
of his moral complicity with totalitarianism, but his immorality is itself ren-
dered ambiguous by his inferiority to O'Brien and by the inference that it
is his inferiority that renders him uable to rise above his class prejudices,
power worship, and personal egoism. Orwell's unconscious elitism reori-
ents the moral opposition of totalitarianism and socialism in such a fashion
that socialism can only be represented as a victory of superior individuals.
32. A characterization generalizable to pioneering science fiction writers of the late nine-
teenth and early twentieth centuries, such as H. G. Wells and Jules Verne. See Darko
Suvin, Metamorphosis of Science Fiction: On the Poetics and History of a Literary Genre
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), and Pierre Macherey, "Jules Verne: The Faulty
Narrative," in A Theory of Literary Production, 159-239.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
Winston fails, and must fail, because he does not measure up to the stan-
dard of superiority implicit in Orwell's political ideology, but his defeat leaves
open the possibility that another, superior middle-class hero will yet emerge
to organize the proles and defeat the party. Because the utopian frame de-
clares that totalitarianism will be overthrown, Winston's defeat cannot mean
the end of socialism. The fact that this particular Winston is corrupted by
petty bourgeois weaknesses does not, therefore, resolve the mystery of
the missing middle-class hero whose presence is implied by the demise of
Oceania but who appears nowhere in the existing text. The absent pres-
ence of the middle-class hero can only be explained by the tension between
Orwell's populism and his elitism that renders both the utopian frame and
the middle-class hero who will call it into existence unrepresentable. Able
to portray evil elites but not the evil of elitism, Orwell may be justly accused
of perpetrating a dystopian mysticism of cruelty; unfortunately, his utopian
negation of cruelty-the (socialist) negation of the (totalitarian) negation of
capitalism -is itself no more than a mysticism of morality.
Conclusion: The Paradox of the Middle-Class Hero
Orwell's socialism is premised on a contradictory synthesis of nat

distinctions of superiority and inferiority, and moral distinctions of e
and inequality. Because he is an intensely moral individual, Orwell can
help but condemn the social injustice and class exploitation that h
tended inequality under capitalism, as well as fascism and communism
because he also has an elitist bias in favor of superior individuals, he c
not avoid expressing a certain degree of fear and contempt for the wor
class, direct democracy, and social equality.33 The opposition of sociali
and totalitarianism that constitutes the deep structure of Nineteen Ei
33. An attitude Orwell, characteristically, disarms by reluctantly acknowledging, fo

ample in the famous remark in The Road to Wigan Pier, "The lower classes smel
Contrast this approach with his criticism of Jean-Paul Sartre for pretending to be
anti-Semitism, for associating it with the petty bourgeoisie, and for implying that t
Semite is always the same kind of person ("Review of Portrait of the Anti-Sem
Jean-Paul Sartre," CEJL, 4:452-53). Sartre's deadly critique of the politically react
need for a fixed identity and unalterable values coupled with a need for an evil
to fear and blame might as well have been aimed at Orwell personally, while his
peachable moral integrity, war record, and commitment to socialism-all from a
intellectual" who refused to leap aboard the antitotalitarian bandwagon-must hav
raged Orwell even more. For Orwell's anti-Semitism, see David Walton, "George
and Anti-Semitism," Patterns of Prejudice 16 (1982): 177-82.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
Fourfunctions to mask these conflicts. It preserves elitism by dividing it into

moral and immoral aspects, projecting the latter onto totalitarianism and
subsuming the former under socialism and the national family. Similarly,
elitist fear of, and contempt for, equality is sublimated as an attack on the
totalitarian regimentation of "individualism," 34 leaving within the category of
socialism only a faint residue of condescension--an elitist association of
the inferior masses with herd-like solidarity and moral purity uncorrupted
by either intelligence or experience. Orwell's elitism is such that he cannot
represent equality except in terms of mediocrity, weakness, and decline.
Yet he cannot represent the defeat of totalitarianism by superior individu-
als without bringing to consciousness the class-based elitism on which his
ideology of socialism rests (and without threatening his psychological iden-
tification with the Orwell persona of populist tribune and honest witness).
Thus, with Nineteen Eighty-Four, we reach not the point at which the middle
class has nothing progressive to say-this point had already arrived with
the bureaucratic anticapitalism of Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward-
but rather the point at which even its paranoia ceases to be authentic.
However, the fact that the Orwell outside the text cannot transcend
the ideology of totalitarianism should not blind us to the insights produced by
the Orwell inside the text who struggles to give this ideology plausible form
and content. Prominent among these insights is the similarity that exists be-
tween the ideologies of bourgeois individualism and totalitarian will to power
and the elective affinity between the concept of totalitarianism and those
for whom the religion of liberty is no more than a theodicy of the struggle
of all against all. The cold war ideology of totalitarianism allows proponents
of bourgeois individualism to project their own will to power and contempt
for equality onto totalitarianism, while legitimizing the economic struggle for
power under capitalism within a "moral" framework of pluralism. Orwell's
ideology works in precisely the same way, of course, but because his elitism
is anticapitalist as well as antitotalitarian, he is able to identify and condemn
the egoism underlying not only O'Brien's totalitarian sadism but Winston's
petty bourgeois individualism as well. The problem for Orwell's elitism is
rather different: from within his own anticapitalist opposition of socialism
34. See, for example, "Will Freedom Die," Left News (Apr. 1941): 1682-85, where Orwell
expresses fear of a loss of liberty with the passing of capitalism and the advent of social-
ism. Significantly, this piece is omitted from CEJL. Such elitist attitudes make it possible
for neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz to lay an otherwise specious claim to
Orwell's legacy. See "If Orwell Were Alive Today," Harper's, Jan. 1983, 30-37; see also
Christopher Hitchens and Norman Podhoretz, "An Exchange on Orwell," Harper's Feb.
1983, 56-58.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
and totalitarianism, Orwell can find no plausible motivation for superior indi-
viduals of the middle class to act morally and take the side of the inferior
masses of the working class. This important, if unintended, insight provides
one important clue to the mystery of the absent middle-class hero within the
novel. The Orwell inside the text tries valiantly to provide viable images of
the national family-the Outer Party as middle-class victims as oppressed
in their own fashion as the working-class proles, and Winston as a middle-
class dissident who admires the prole's humanity and recognizes in them
the hope for the future-but he succeeds only in representing the impossi-
bility of an alliance of the middle and working classes. Orwell believes the
middle class has "nothing to lose but its aitches," but in putting this ideology
to work, he comes up against profound structural-economic antagonisms
that resist being (mis)represented as merely cultural-ideological. In the very
act of denying it, Orwell is compelled to represent the incoherence of a
middle class victimized under totalitarianism and the coherence of middle-
class support for the exploitation of the working class under capitalism. The
national family cannot be coherently represented, because, within a capi-
talist society, the middle class has no coherent reason for abolishing the
exploitative distinction between mental and manual labor that is the source
of its class status and power.
His notion of the national family may be objectively false, but Orwell's
inability to depict even its subjective truth illuminates a final contradiction
within his political ideology: the discomfiting similarity between his own
middle-class populism and that of Hitler's. Characteristically, Orwell openly
acknowledges his ambivalent attitude toward fascism. In a review of Mein
Kampf, for example, he makes the following pronouncement, "I should like
to put on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he
came to power ... I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get
within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is
that there is something deeply appealing about him."35 Specifically, Orwell
finds appealing Hitler's pose as a "Promethean, self-sacrificing hero fight-
35. George Orwell, "Review of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler," CEJL, 2:13. Even those who
label Orwell a "Tory radical" are looking backward, almost always admiringly, to Cobbett
and Hazlett, and never situate Orwell's radical conservatism in the context of fascism-a
lower middle-class reaction to the pressures of capitalist transformation and the threat of
a revolutionary working-class movement. See William E. Laskowski Jr., "George Orwell
and the Tory-Radical Tradition," in Rose, ed., The Revised Orwell, 149-90. Daphne Patai,
comparing Orwell's novel with Katherine Burdekin's Swastika Night, does note a connec-
tion between the inner characteristics of "fascist man" and those qualities Orwell extols-
male dominance and a cult of masculinity (Patai, Mystique, 316 n. 32).

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00
ing against impossible odds," his grasp of the "falsity of hedonism, security,
and the avoidance of pain," and his appreciation of "patriotism and military
virtues."36 In The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell notes the broad appeal of
fascism: "In order to combat Fascism it is necessary to understand it, which
involves admitting some good as well as much evil. ... To anyone with a
feeling for tradition and for discipline it comes with its appeal ready made"
(213). Nor does he make any secret of his own preference for a socialism
that will be "simpler and harder" rather than "safe and soft." Although he
supports a state-controlled economy and equality of incomes, Orwell has
nothing but contempt for a view of socialism that would be, as he cuttingly
puts it, "a paradise of little fat men" (193). His notion of the national family is
deeply rooted in a world we have lost, a largely mythical world of collective
individualism combining yeoman independence and rural village commu-
nity, a world that corresponds uncannily to the Nazi mythology of peasant
community, hard work, family values, and national patriotism. The worlds
of both Hitler and Orwell are based on the traditional virtues of the petty
bourgeoisie, the ideological unity of the middle and working classes, and
superior individuals defined in terms of moral purpose as well as strength
of will. Of course, the reality of Hitler's brutal methods more than offsets
the appeal of National Socialist ideals in Orwell's eyes, but his ambivalence
toward Hitler is perhaps another important clue as to why Orwell is unable
to translate his own elitism into a literary image of the middle-class hero.
The ordeal of Winston amply testifies to Orwell's contempt for both weak-
ness and inferiority, but to portray Winston as a superior individual leading
the inferior masses to victory would come too close to affirming the kind
of revolution that Nineteen Eighty-Four is intended to condemn. Although
Orwell is unconsciously drawn toward the necessity of a middle-class hero
and a protofascist revolution (and to foreclose all other possibilities), his
conscious moral commitment to social equality and his opposition to totali-
tarianism preclude the actual representation of such an outcome. Orwell is
capable of recognizing an underlying similarity between the ideologies of
bourgeois individualism and totalitarianism, but he is necessarily blind to
the existence of a homologous relationship between totalitarianism and his
own moral elitism. This relationship can only be represented by an absence,
the symptomatic absence of the middle-class hero.
36. Orwell, "Review of Mein Kampf," 13-14.

139.179.224.247 on Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:47:39 +00:00

Resch UtopiaDystopiaMiddle 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resch UtopiaDystopiaMiddle 1997

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resch UtopiaDystopiaMiddle 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utopia, Dystopia, and the Middle Class in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four

Author(s): Robert Paul Resch

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/303755

This content downloaded from

Robert Paul Resch

notion of totalitarianism to be straightforward and thus unworthy of any par-

boundary 2 24:1, 1997. Copyright ? 1997 by Duke University Press.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

resentment as a significant political force. Similarly, Orwell's anti-Marxism

5. For representative examples, see Margaret Canovan, Hannah Arendt: A Reinterpre-

This content downloaded from

Figure 1. Semiotic Square

the contrary oppositions, while the synthesis

The square, then, generates at least ten

Totalitarianism and Socialism in Orwel

The ideological project of Nineteen Eighty

7. Jameson, foreword to On Meaning, xiv.

This content downloaded from

As is shown in Figure 2, Orwell's conception of totalitarianism has

This content downloaded from

Party Dictatorship 1 0 State Power

Figure 2. Orwell's Concept of Totalitarianism

Thus, totalitarianism is something more than an analytical, empiri-

This content downloaded from

Party Dictatorship ---- State Power

not-State Power -- - not-Party Dictatorship

Figure 3. Orwell's Model of Totalitarianism

Nineteen Eighty-Four itself (published in 1949, during Orwell's last, "pessi-

This content downloaded from

The Class Politics of Socialism and Totalitarianism

But this is not all. To grasp adequately Orwell's category of totali

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

is no longer depicted as sinking into the proletariat; now it is the workers

noncorrespondence on them. Althusser's notion of structural causality as a parallelo-

This content downloaded from

itself be an agent of socialist transformation. If the war against Germany

customed way of life is menaced. "But just because . .. patriotism is finally

and working classes, an alliance premised, in turn, on the absence of fun-

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

of Nineteen Eighty-Four. However, before they can be addressed satisfac-

Orwell and the Cold War Concept of Totalitarianism

Used in the thirties and forties by socialists critical of Stalin's dictator-

This content downloaded from

Capitalism --- Democracy

Figure 4. The Cold War Model of Totalitarianism

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

However, his antipathy to Marxist analysis goes deeper than simply an

Nineteen Eighty-Four: The Dystopian Frame

Turning now to the novel, we can observe the profound effect of

This content downloaded from

Capitalist England of 1948

Individual Freedom - '- Human Community

Will to Power State Apparatus

Figure 5. Orwell's Representation of Oceania

acter traits structured as good or evil according to the dictates of th