Isabela's Insights on Utopias & Dystopias

  The twist at the end of book two, when it turns out that the storekeeper was a member of the thought police, comes to light when both Winston and Julia recognize that the whole time they spent together was under the surveillance of their oppressive government. But the way they find out they have been caught was interesting- the whole time a telescreen watching and listening to them was behind a painting! This secret and impressive way of catching the two of them brings to light the ways our life now is surveilled in similar ways.  Firstly, our right to privacy through our phones is not as set in stone as one might think. Following 9/11, for instance, the U.S. government passed the Patriot Act, which among other things expanded their authority over tracking phone communications, and the activities of those on the internet. However, at the same time, there have been documented cases of Apple not unlocking users' iPhones when they were under investigation by the FBI. So at the ...

In Winston and Julia’s meeting with O’Brien and Martin, O’Brien discusses how the Brotherhood is able to continue functioning in such a regimented and surveilled society. He says that the Brotherhood does not exist like other political organizations- it is more like an ideology than a rebel organization. After this moment, I pondered the significance of this statement, and how it parallels in real life. In the Summer of 2020, there were “Black Lives Matter” uprisings all over the country. This movement worked both as an ideology, and a functional organizational one. This means that while a “Black Lives Matter” organization does exist, with members across the country, this does not mean that all of the protests were from this organization. Some functioned on the ideology and belief system of “Black Lives Matter”, but worked separately to achieve the same goals. I believe that this is a really productive way of setting up a political movement. However, I do not think it would be obtainab...

As a woman reading 1984, I was very struck by Winston’s passage about his encounter with a prostitute, and his general ideas about “party women” in general. Winston seems very irritated with the party’s anti-sex virtues, but for an interesting reason.  That is, Winston seems to blame the party for the way they have de-sexualized sex- while also simultaneously blaming women for it? When he describes sex with his wife Katherine, who he is now separated from, he laments that she always seemed like she didn’t want to have sex with him, “she would lie there with shut eyes… submitting”. As a sexual assault survivor, this made me gag.  It feels like even though he knows the party is to blame for brainwashing its citizens into disliking sex, he still was very angry with Katherine? I understand the complexities of this situation: Katherine still wanted a child and saw sex as a “duty” for her to perform. But it was so obvious she was not okay with it, and the way that Winston got frustr...

  The first thing that struck me about the first reading from 1984 was the way in which people were brainwashed into thinking the unthinkable: that war was somehow peace, freedom is slavery, and that ignorance is strength. It reminded me of how I used to think that everyone had more or less the same morals as me. Boy was I wrong! Within Criminology, there is a term to describe crimes that are seen as “universally condemned”, these are called “mala in se”. “Mala in se” crimes include murder, assault, rape and theft. On the other hand, however, there are “mala prohibita” crimes. These are seen as crimes that are bad because they are “bound by the culture they are in”. For example, traffic violations and jaywalking would be considered “mala prohibita” crimes.  Criminology then asks the question, are “mala in se” crimes actually universally condemnable acts? Or is every crime a “mala prohibita”, and there is no universal morality? For instance, war is murder, and many people are ...