Part One, Section IV
On September 12, 2001, just one day after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a University of Colorado professor named Ward Churchill published a controversial article stating that years of American foreign policy had actually provoked the attacks. Most notably, he referred to the people who worked in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns." This was an allusion to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi bureaucrat who was instrumental during World War II in designing and managing the mass deportations of Jews to death camps in Eastern Europe. When asked at his trial in Jerusalem if he was guilty of a great sin, Eichmann responded that he was not a murderer himself--he was merely following orders.
Despite Winston Smith's hatred of the Party, he admittedly takes great pride in his work at the Ministry of Truth. Does this make Winston Smith a "little Eichmann"?
Before comment on this discussion, please go here to learn a little bit more about the Ward Churchill 9/11 controversy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I don't believe this makes Winston a "little Eichmann." Winston honestly and truly believes there is something gravely wrong and unjust about the Party and his tactics, and he physically acts on that impulse, showing that his hatred of the Party is powerful. In addition, I believe Smith takes pride in not the wronging of the general population in the falsification of the past, but the entire method and thought process one must go through in order to carry such work out. He enjoys the process, not the end result. Eichmann may have been that way as well, but Eichmann made no physical effort to try and change an oppressive system.
I agree almost completely with Calvin's response to this question, but I would like to expand on some issues he discusses. It is true that Winston takes great pride in almost being the "god" of controlling history, but at the same time, as Calvin states, Winston resents the cause. Both Eichmann and Winston followed their orders properly and without question, but there is a difference which seperates the two by a very narrow line. Winston is different from Eichmann in that, as Calvin stated, one takes an actual response to what he is ordered to do. Winston resents the things the Party is doing to the populace of Oceania with great fury, going out to great extents to demonstrate his anger. From writing in his diary to pretending to despise Goldstein, while actually yelling at Big Brother, Winston showed an actual emotional, humane response to the atrocities being committed. While, on the other hand, Adolf Eichmann did not show any emotional or physical reactions to what he was doing. He took orders and completed tasks without question, even if the tasks involved the execution of innocent Jewish people. That is the line that seperates Winston from Eichmann, that shred of morality that exists behind the orders. Eichmann had none, working as an almost "zombie" for Hitler, which is why he deserves no feelings of sympathy. Winston on the other hand feels very different, and shows he is capable of having a soul and morals, fighting back in any way possible against the wrong things. In conclusion, Winston is not a "little Eichmann" because of the reasons above, including fighting back against orders and emotional and physical reactions.
If we define Eichmann as one who does as they are told; Winston is a little Eichmann. Calvin and Steven bring up some good points; if we were to define Eichmann as one who does as they are told and feels what they are doing is right, then Winston is not a little Eichmann. However we do not have the full picture about Adolph Eichmann. There may have been a point in time where Eichmann knew what he was doing was wrong, but did not dare speak out about it, because he would have been killed, much like in 1984, where if you spoke out against Big Brother, you would die. In the one true fact that we do have about Eichmann (doing as he was told), Winston is an Eichmann, but past that fact, we cannot be certain whether Winston truly is or is not an Eichmann.
I agree with Lara here, in that Winston was a Little Eichmann. The "condition" of thinking what one's doing is good and just is I think a moot point: some people working in the Trade Center probably did not see their work as anything more than a job, one that payed the bills and was necessary for survival. The same can be said of Winston's job in the Ministry of Truth: if he was to speak out against its obvious propaganda, the job (and his life) would be lost.
Due to the fact that if anyone that spoke out against the Party, they would vaporized, I believe that Winston was not a "Little Eichmann." Throughout the book, he demonstrates his anger with the Party, and even joins the Brotherhood with his lover Julia. This shows his clear opinion that the ideas of the present regime are wrong. Although he is involved in the revising of history, the reader is able to see his perspective about society very clearly. Adolf Eichmann was simply a bystander who did not face reality and understand the tremendous impact his participation had on the life of many. Instead he continued to do his job with ignorance as he was simply "following orders"
I disagree with Steven here. When looking into 1984, I find little indication that Winston's enjoyment in his work comes from God-like empowerment in history (and in return, sullen collaboration with The Party). I find that he is incredulous that the corruption of The Party allows him to get away with the creation of a fictional character. The ability to create an "updated past" does not give Winston a feeling of empowerment and alignment with The Party. It drives him away. This is what keeps him from being a "little Eichmann".
Winston is not a little Eichmann. He is very different. Eichmann, by all accounts, took delight in his work. He could have left, resigned, or asked to be put in charge of something else. He could have done any number of things instead of allowing himself to be used for that evil. At worst he could have simply taken his money and fled. For Winston there is no other choice for what to do. The slightest slip and he is a goner. There is no joy in his life and the small joy he takes from his work is simply the satisfaction of doing a job well. He hates everything about the party and only does their bidding because it is his only option. He is almost a slave. The people in the towers had options. They could do other things, protest the Iraqi stuff, whatever. I do not believe that even they were little Eichmanns but if even they were so then I believe Winston is not,
I agree with Andrew. Indeed 1984 reveals a lot about the World War II, but Winston is not a little Eichmann because Winston had no choice in what he did. Even though Winston took pride in his work, did he have other choices or paths to take? For him, working at the Ministry of Truth was his faith rather than a selected career. He had no choice but to abide by the rules and do what he was supposed to do. It may be true that the people who worked at the World Trade Center may have been selected as targets due to their explicit provocation, but those are the people who have the choice to decide for themselves whether their act was just or not. Winston was merely making the best out of his inescapable predicament, and this cannot be viewed as taking delight in what he does.
So far, five people believe that Winston is not a little Eichmann and only two people believe that Winston is a little Eichmann.
I am inclined to say that Winston is not a little Eichmann. Here's why.
By definition, an archetypal Eichmann "placidly carries out the extreme goals of megamachines."
Knowing this, let's examine Winston:
Does he work for a "megamachine?" Yes.
Did his work benefit an extreme goal? Yes.
Did he do so placidly? NOT. AT. ALL.
Winston takes pride in the fact that he excels at what he does, but he clearly recognizes that what the Party is doing is wrong. Eichmann, however, did not even consider the morality of his work. It was just work for him, and in trial he expressed an indifference towards the Nazis. He could've been a cashier at McDonalds during the war, for all he cared.
If this isn't enough for you, consider this:
Adolf Eichmann, if he were to be a specific character from 1984, would be Comrade Parsons. Winston isn't a little Eichmann; Winston HATES little Eichmanns.
I agree with several of the points delineated above, but I'd like to take my argument in a bit of a different direction by considering the literary advantages to Orwell's characterization of Winston. Winston is obviously without much choice in regard to his job; he'd be killed if he were to make a misstep and everyone in society has a role that in someway advances the agenda of the mega machine that is Big Brother. Given this situation, we see a man who is trapped. However, simultaneously, we see a man who longs to revolt, who is disgusted by the very agenda he advances, who wants freedom. In a position of little choice, his muted expressions of anarchy and his pride in his job are that which save him and that which make him relevant to us as readers. People by nature need to feel some level of control, whether that control is manipulated or real. Winston, in taking pride in his job, is only really taking pride in the control it provides him, regardless of whether he agrees or not with the motives. This provides an ironic juxtaposition to his more subverted but all the more powerful control he actually has in his thoughts of freedom and goodness. It is by establishing this dialectic between seemingly much control with little emotional investment and seemingly little control with much emotional devotion that Orwell makes Winston relevant and saves him from becoming a mundane slave to Big Brother, a truth that Winston ever so slowly begins to accept and allow to manifest.
Very interesting point, Kelsey, to wrap up the discussion. Tell me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be presenting the point that in making Winston as a protagonist relatable to us as the readers, Orwell implies that it is ethically okay for him to take pride in something--anything--in a world where he has no control, even if that control is manifested by doing something in the interest of the Party. Or is Orwell just asking us the question as to whether it's ethical?
Post a Comment