Part One, Section I
The face of Emmanuel Goldstein is presented daily to the masses in Oceania, and sometimes more often than that. Over winter break last year, the face of Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab appeared ever more frequently on every single American news program. President Obama interrupted his vacation and gave two press conferences in as many days to address the issue. This fall/winter, the face has been that of Julian Assange, Wikileaks founders, who several senators have referred to as a terrorist because he will
Do Emmanuel Goldstein, Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab and Julian Assange share a common purpose as "enemies"? What are the similarities in these situations, but how are they different as well?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The three, despite their differences, are all somewhat outsiders to the society that they wish to change. They do not see what the actual citizens think of their respective states. They attempt to change the governments of the states and instead, Goldstein, AbdulMutallab, and Assange become a public enemy instead of a figure of change. They are used to collect most of the people together and focus them on one enemy, instilling a sense of nationalism into citizens. It is most of the people in Goldstein’s and Assange’s cases because some people may actually see them as someone to look up to- which might not be good. AbudlMutallab attempted violence, trying to blow a plane up. It seems doubtful to me that someone within the US would look up to that unless they were a possible terrorist in the making, in which case, there are very few hopefully. Their radical ideas to get states to change seem to fall short and make the citizens even more connected and give more pride to them, because they can see the faults of their state and accept them for the better.
While I agree with Emily that the three are outsiders in society, i disagree that the American government is using its "would be terrorists" to form a stronger sense of nationalism within its citizens. In face the government of the United States is the opposite alternative to the government as described by Goldstein's book. If anyone is manipulating the would be terrorist stories, it would be the media as the government, as stated by the first amendment, lacks the power to significantly and directly influence the media. If anything, the portrayal of Assange by the media plays off of our nation's already strong national pride, and shows that intervention by the government in ways as prevalent as the two minute hate are unnecessary.
I do agree with Ryan's point, and that they are outsiders to society, but I don't believe that no one would look up to AbdulMutallab. While it's likely that in the US no one would look up to him, in some terrorist organizations there would be many that would look up to him. So I believe that Emily's point about them not being role models is false, because Assange as an opener of gov'ts, Goldstein as a resistance symbol, and AbdulMutallab as a terrorist symbol to other young terrorist hopefuls ARE role models in their respective societies.
I believe that they share purpose in that they are attempting to change the society that they observe to be wrong. They also are similar in that they don't embark on this mission to become the poster child for their movement, yet that exact thing inevitably occurs. Differences occur in their methods: one huge event vs. a steady stream of leaks vs. small and covert acts.
Going to what Ryan said and carrying it to Calvin, is it the government or media that is making Assange and AbdulMutalllab the poster children for terrorism? And why are they doing it? Is the government trying to promote nationalism, as Emily says, and is the media trying to make money because fear sells?
All three of these enemy figures are similar in that their intentions were to better society in their respective opinions. Like Calvin said, AbdulMutallab represents the desire for a totalitarian Islamic society, Goldstein represents the desire to fix the society of Oceania, and Assange represents the desire to fix the world by creating anarchy.
However, all three of them are very different in the way they are exhibited to the "victim" countries. While Goldstein is Public Enemy #1 and is the face of all evil to Oceanians, AbdulMutallab and Assange are viewed differently. Adbul is portrayed by the media to sell through continuing the fear of terrorism in the world. Fear sells and the underwear bomber represents the fear of terrorism. Assange is more of an 8-year old stepping on an ant hill. It is unclear whether his intentions are to promote anarchy or whether he just likes to watch the world in agony. The main difference is that in America today, most people do not know even know who AbdulMutallab is. If you mention the "underwear bomber" a common American might be able to identify a terrorist attack. Assange is considered a pest to diplomats who try to negotiate for their countries, but definitely not the main enemy of the US. While every single Oceanian learns about Goldstein from day 1, Abdul and Assange are not nearly as significant to their "victims" and cannot be identified as enemies in the same way.
I would say that all three are completely different. To go back to what Emily said, I would disagree as to the point of Assange "installing a sense of nationalism amongst Americans". If anything he has done the opposite (for me at least), and politicians labeling him as a terrorist are clearly not trying to use him as a tool of nationalism. I find myself struggling with the question of where to draw the line on releasing information; and I believe that the more the Assange thing gets publicized, the more it damages our unity. If the American government (and Russia's, China's, Canada's, Germany's, and everyone else's who has been embarrassed by this "terrorism") was trying to promote nationalism by making people hate Assange, they are doing a horrible job. The issue has split the nation (I've found myself arguing with so many people about if he did the right thing. For the record, I don't think he did, not on this at least. With serious human rights abuses like Abu Grabe, yes, I think it needs to be publicized, but these releases are for the most part petty, and the ones that do contain information about the death of citizens by accident aren't of any value. This is war. It's messy. If people didn't expect civilians to die (which is a tragedy of course) then they have been living in denial. But I digress). AbudlMutallab, on the other hand, led to a source of nationalism because he was clearly trying to attack the United States by himself, rather than taking the Assange method of using the United States to attack itself. The same goes for Goldstein, but only because of the climate of totalitarianism that it took place under.
Also, a random funny story about the AbudlMutallab case. My dad teaches at UCL (where AbudlMutallab was a student) and spends a lot of his time in Nigeria studying chimps (where AbudlMutallab is from), so when the whole thing happened the CIA showed up and interrogated him to see if he had a connection (no water boarding though!). Funny how connected we all are.
Even though All of these men are viewed as enemies of the state, each of them are viewed in a negative light for diffrent reasons o the cultures that they appose. Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab is against the Idea of a secular state which we in America are grown up believing in the division of religion and state. Emmanuel Goldstien is seen as an enemy of Big Brother because he challenges Big Brother and Big Brother teaches it's people in Oceania that questioning big brother is treason and all those that appose Big Brother will be executed. Julian Assange is seen as an enemy of America because in our society it is seen wrong to give information to the masses because some information is better kept secret because of the fear of mass panic of the population. Assange took over 100,000 classiffied documents and published them because he thought the people need to know the truth but people in America believe that some information is better kept secret
As Kalind has already pointed out, seeing the faces of Umar and Julian Assange on the news has not really created a sense of nationalism or unity. Our news sources are very diverse and some can be very opinionated (not giving any names). Due to the fact of diversity of views, we are never really given one label for these peoples or events like in 1984. In Assanges case we have views as different as "terrorist anarchist" to "liberator of information." In Umar's case it's mostly agreed that his action of trying to bomb a plane was despicable. However we were shown different view points on how he used to be "good kid" but was radicalized. Also blame was placed on our own institutions for not seeing the warning signs that were clearly given. As you can see this is completely different from Goldstein's case as he is considered an enemy of all the people, end of the story. There is no other in depth investigation or other view points looked into. Also no fault is put on the government for not doing something about him.
The main similarity these people share is their portrayal as enemies of the public by their respective governments. In the world of 1984, Emmanuel Goldstein is used in a very extreme way as a "face" for "bad". His existence in the first part of the book is questionable, his inability to be captured since the beginning days of The Party, and the ease in which the Ministry places blame on him makes him a very obvious front that angry citizens can "throw eggs at," so to speak. Julian Assange released documents containing sensitive information about the US and its acquaintance's, so it makes sense that the government would want his face as a front to blame. The difference between J.A. and E.G. is the freedom of speech. Mr. Assange cannot be made into a punching bag (like the 2 minutes of hate in 1984) because he is a definite person who can be asked questions, such as the all-important, "Why did you decide to post those documents on the internet?"
Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab is different than the other two. Terrorism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." He is different because he isn't a punching bag or a face to get angry at. This is exactly what the terrorists want: coerce the Americans into implementing expensive, invasive and annoying security techniques http://www.thecampusslate.com/fighting-terrorism-in-your-loin-region-1.1831318
So Emmanuel Goldstein and Julian Assange function as faces, but Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab isn't on the same level because of his intentions.
Great points, Kean!
Post a Comment