In describing the Two Minutes Hate, Winston Smith makes the following observation:
"The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in."
While the Two Minutes Hate is clearly an extreme example, what is a "comparable" scenario in today's society where the emotion of the masses overwhelms the individual's conscience? Are there effective safeguards in today's society to prevent this type of reaction? Make sure to defend your answer.
20 comments:
In today’s society, funerals tend to use the emotion of the masses to overwhelm individuals. People are sad because someone died, and their misery spreads to the others at the funeral, who already feel sad because funerals are typically sad. The effective safeguard today is freedom of thought. If people can think things through with their own opinions, the mass emotions can be deflected. Individuals’ points of view can change how they see the situation. In 1984, the Two Minutes Hate works well because the people have limited freedom of thought. In current society, people can think what they would like when they like. The safeguard is the freedom of thought because the points of view are part of having this freedom, and from there, safeguards work person by person. The effectiveness varies, but it is better than nothing. In 1984, during the Two Minutes Hate, there is no safeguard; the anger spreads just within two minutes. Funerals take longer.
I agree with Emily, however i would like to point out the complicating factor of social pressures. The natural reaction of a human is to do as others do, and therefore Winston, or anyone in any society, could be made to simply follow with his peers. As to what makes the two minute hate so difficult not to follow, i would agree with Emily in that it is the lack of freedom of thought. In any society, there exist individuals with the power to go against what the masses are doing and therefore balance the social pressure in situations such as the two minute hate. In the society of 1984, however, those individuals have been carefully weeded out and exterminated, making it that much more difficult to go against it. Another thing that is important to consider is that the characters in 1984 have been doing this their entire life, much like going to church. To somebody who had been doing even the most ridiculous thing for their entire life, it would seem silly to do anything else.
I agree with both of you, but freedom of thought sometimes isn't enough to overcome that mob mentality. One of the things that has always been a big factor in making me cry is if I see or have seen someone else cry. I may be thinking that whatever there motive for crying is ridiculous, but that emotional state that they are in leaves an imprint on me that freedom of thought can't overcome. This usually happens only if they are someone I care about, but it shows how freedom of thought is not the end all be all.
These kinds of situations exist everywhere, but funerals and sad movies are good examples. Sad movies sometimes are the worst, because you can sit there watching the movie, thinking that it is the most ridiculous thing you've ever seen, and simultaneously hear weeping and see tears shed, and start to tear up, much like the Two Minutes Hate. It is that powerful emotional reaction that one witnesses that creates a pull into that same emotion. Emotional reactions of humans are extremely contagious, and I don't believe that there is any effective safeguard against these kinds of situations when emotional reactions are in play.
In todays society the closest thing we have to the two minutes of hate are cable news pundits that are highly opinionated and tend to show only one side of an issue. However unlike in the society of 1984 our ways of getting information is highly fragmented by the 1000s of channels available via satellite, cable, and the internet. Books are also in mass circulation and it would be very difficult to censor. In conclusion, I do believe in our society we have the safe guards in place to avoid the mob mentality.
But isn't there a certain degree of comfort in being part of the group? German citizens had the freedom to think during the Nazi era and yet so many of them stood by and did nothing as their neighbors were deported and "resettled" in the East?
I believe what sets both Germany and 1984 apart from today in that case would be that the Government in those cases used an already hated or distrusted figure to increase its own power in a way which also served to further discrimination. In those cases, the citizens had been raised with certain predetermined stereotypes which made them more susceptible to ignore or participate in active violence. I do not believe, however, that the Holocaust would have been possible without some amount of existing antisemitism, the extent of which cannot be found in the masses of the United States.
For one to have such emotion inflicted upon him or her self means that there is some sort of similarity in fundamental beliefs. Even without being aware of it, a person willingly participates in this collective hatred, sadness, or any mass emotion. This "overwhelming of the individual's conscience" may just be a way of exposing one's true, and possibly covered up, thoughts and emotions. In the case of crying during a sad movie, one shows sympathy for the main character who experiences a tragedy. There is something that can be related to, some sort of feeling that is triggered during these mass expressions of emotion. At a funeral, you knew the person who passed in some intimate way, so you experience sadness for the loss of him or her. In 1984, though Winston does not despise Goldstein like many others in the group, the Two Minutes Hate spurs Winston's pent up hatred that he has for Big Brother. Such reactions seem inevitable during a situation like this. Maybe these reactions are necessary, as it allows for people to express their built up emotions - as long as it doesn't get too out of control.
We tend to do what the group is doing, it is our nature. We may do this because we assume that whatever the group is doing should be a system that works. We trust our leaders, hoping that they are the best of the best and are capable of making decisions for the betterment of society. So yes, we find comfort by being part of the group.
I think a big factor that has to be taken into account during the Two Minutes Hate period is fear. Fear is a huge catalyst which provokes men in women in 1984 to act in a certain way whether that be to conform to the status quo or disagree. In Winston's case, he is one of the select few to oppose secretly, but it only takes one match to ignite a flame.
A comparable scenario to today's society in the United States could be the aftermath of 9/11. The airplane bombings were of course tragic and saddened the hearts of millions, which left a subtle fear in the minds of Americans. Of course this fear can't possibly relate to everyone but it seems to be that when one enters an airplane, everyone inside seems to be a either anxious to get the flight over with or a similar emotion which could be directly related to the unfortunate attacks on the Twin Towers. This then lead to other stereotypes because as seen with the case of Goldenstein, people appear to like having someone "to point at." As many know, there are believers and then there are believers; only meaning to imply that the justifications for siding on one side or the other for people are always more complex than what is initially perceived.
"Comparable" scenarios in today's society where the emotion of the masses overwhelms the individual's conscience can be ranged from small occurences to large, terrifying occurences, such as 9/11, like JJ mentioned. Adding on to what Calvin said previously, minor emotional events such as watching a sad movie with others may overwhelm one's conscience. As previously stated, the presence of others in a theatre during a sad movie may affect one's conscience, while being alone would not. Adding to what Michelle said about human nature, that is most certainly true that humans want to go with the flow of a group, as human beings feel more secure that way, even if that means showing overwhelimg feelings of emotion. If no other person(s) is(are) present, the conscience of one can hold. In response to a more major change in conscience due to emotion of the masses, well that can be a very risky thing. For example, as stated very concisely by JJ, 9/11 was a grievous attack upon the US, in which there was of course a great emotional response from the masses. After all, what citizen wants to see their own people die ruthlessly and without mercy? Personally, I witnessed from my parents and those around me on 9/11 that the response of depression and anger was like a wave. At first, there was much confusion spread around, as every one was in shock. However, JJ made a very nice point about how it only takes a match to ignite a flame. In this case, the hate towards the attackers and their country started to grow, and was buttressed by the anger of many Americans who wanted to fight back. The main reason for wanting to go back to Iraq and the Middle East after Desert Storm was the outcry from the American people for blood. As Hammurabi clearly stated in his code of laws, blood must be payed with blood, an "eye for an eye." That is exactly what occured here, and caused a massive catastrophe in the end on the economy in the US, and on the people and economy of the Middle East... Specifically, Iraq and Afghanistan. As for safeguards in society to prevent this type of reaction, well, there aren't many at all. I disagree with Emily on the point that the safeguard is one's right to think freely. In an outside perspective on events, yes, that is indeed protection from there emotional responses from the masses. However, as stated, it is only human nature to respond as a group, to fight for a common cause. Once in this cause, the only way to get out is to take a step back and think clearly. Unfortunately, not many people in the President's cabinet at that time were not stepping back, and the whole fiasco with the Middle East continued to wreak havoc on the rest of the world.
-Steve
Everyone has brought up valid points and another important comparable scenario in today’s society are protest marches. With energy created by the people, it would be hard to stand by and watch as people are clearly marching for a purpose. A protest march may only start out with 100 folks, but even the energy from those people can compel on lookers to join. Like what Michelle and Steven brought up, humans have an instinct to follow a group, like sheep. This type of feeling can also be seen in the book Climbing the Stairs, by Padma Venkatraman(an assigned reading book a few years back) . In this book, a young Indian girl is watching a protest march in India against the British rule. Like in 1984, the girl is overwhelmed by the energy and joins in the march, yelling and singing out against the British rule.
The only safeguard against protest marches in is fear. Take Tiananmen Square China for example. Students were protesting and the government sent tanks to break the protest up, killing many of students. Since then, there has not been a protest (not to my recollection, but if there has been please chime in). Fear works wonders in keeping people quite. This can be seen not only in the real world but 1984 too.
I want to move away from the funeral idea and more towards a general idea of "two minutes of hatred", since that is more what we see in 1984, given that 99.999999% of all the people there have absolutely no connection to Goldstein, so the original emotion was not prompted by someone who knew the cause of the emotion; unlike at a funeral where at least one person will know the person who died (with the exception of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, but I'm not going to go there). Alex G. brought up the point that I've thought was most relevant today: that of the media and figureheads like Glenn Beck and (pains me to say it) Keith Olbermann. Every single show it seems, Glenn Beck likes to tear up and cry about "liberals who are destroying are nation" and accuse people like George Soros (a jew who survived the Holocaust and who now donates large amounts of money to the Democratic cause) of partaking in the Holocaust. I'm sure it gets his based just as riled up and angry and Olbermann gets me every single night about what the GOP is doing. I partake in the two minutes of hatred, from politics (see the example I just gave) to sports (I HATE Italy for knocking Germany out of the World Cup in 2006, I'm still in my hate phase in many ways- although probably not to the same extent as with politics or 1984).
You don't need a personal connection to something to hate it. Many people in America are, to be frank, racist against Islam. I can't believe the number of fights I've gotten into with my friends about things like racial profiling of Arabs at airports, even though I can guarantee that hardly anyone has actually been personally harmed by an Arab (by "personally" I mean personally. While 9/11 obviously hurt everyone, including myself, it was an attack on my ideals and my country, not myself). I think that's what Steven was trying to get at, and I think he has a very valid point when he brings up the "eye for an eye" concept. I remember, in WCCP1 with Mr. Gauthier, we received an article talking about how people punch back 40% harder on average (I can't find the link, argh). An "eye for an eye" mentality has taken hold of our society, it is undeniable. And that is why "two minutes of hatred" is possible in the first place.
I agree with ideas proposed by both JJ and Calvin. The fact that Oceania was such an isolated society makes it incomparable to modern society, unless we discuss North Korea. JJ's idea that fear drives emotion is a KEY part in the overwhelming amount of emotion during the Two Minute Hate. In a society where being unique results in punishment, humans will do whatever it takes to blend with their surroundings. In 1984, they show their fear by immediately displaying rage and anger in the TMH. Mr. Shulman pointed out that it is easy to be a bystander and simply participate and camouflage your true beliefs, and it is!
Physically, I have a hard time maintaining a straight face if 100 people around me are sobbing over something sad. I think the freedom to not be a bystander and to have your own opinions can act as a safeguard to such a reaction, but to be engulfed in a mob of emotion is persuading. In the United States, Winston would be able to not participate in a TMH because their is no fear of repercussions.
In todays society the national anthem of a country is a song used to stir up patriotism and pride in ones country and overwhelm people with the emotions present during the song. The most common use of the national anthem is at sport events. During the time the anthem is song not a single person is talking or showing disrespect to the anthem. Everyone in the stadium takes there hat off and cover's there hearts with there right arm. This amount of respect, attention, and respect is not equalled in any part of the event unless the game is close at the end. This is similar to the two minutes of hate because it gives all people that same emotions of patriotism and pride towards America similar to how the two minutes of hate inspires hatred in all of the people who are present at the event.
Just for the future the funeral phenomenon you all were talking about is called “emotional contagion.”
Also, I completely agree with the comparison between the two minutes of hate with the way the media often portrays current events. A perfect example of this is what is known as the “summer of the shark,” which I’ll just provide a link to because this post is going to be of an inordinate length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark
Oh and one more thing I’d like to add before I begin, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the majority of the Chinese population is even aware of the events that occurred at Tiananmen Square, due to the government's strict censorship policies. The people are only as informed as the Chinese government wants them to be, which perhaps would better explain the lack of rioting.
Back to the topic at hand, however, I would like to discuss the psychological exploitation behind the Two Minutes of Hate. As the master of all evil Philip Zimbardo said in The Lucifer Effect, “Human beings are capable of totally abandoning their humanity for a mindless ideology, to follow and then exceed the orders of charismatic authorities to destroy everyone they label as ‘The Enemy’.” If you want proof to back this claim, read the book, but the point is we are all clueless sheep with an unprecedented capacity for evil. The Party, a utilitarian juggernaut, capitalizes on the human eagerness to adopt “mindless ideology” for its own (dubious) purposes. Emotion is unpredictable, and in a utilitarian sense, ultimately counterproductive. It is therefore in the Party’s best interest to control emotion to the best of its ability. The Two Minutes of Hate provides a simple, yet effective method by which people can redirect negative emotion in a controlled manner that is least likely to inhibit productivity.
The human susceptibility to obey orders without question is an inherent flaw to which there is no realistic solution. In the modern age we are weapons of genocidal caliber; to quote again Philip Zimbardo, “We live in the ‘mass murder century.’ More than 50 million people have been systematically murdered by government decrees, enacted by soldiers and civilian forces willing to carry out the kill orders.” This number is rising still, with conflicts such as those in Darfur and conflicts that have yet to come.
When considering the problem of unquestioned obedience, it is important to consider that while an immediate “solution” to this flaw is highly improbable, there may be measures we can take to prevent such atrocity from reoccurring. The effort to defend us from ourselves is an ongoing struggle that social psychologists such as Stanley Milgrim and Philip Zimbardo have only scratched the surface.
My apologies, but the posts were too big to post all at once :P
I think the most poignant example of emotional masses overwhelming the individual's conscience I have seen to date was the video of North Korea. These people literally worship their leader, whether out of true belief or out of fear that showing any deviation would result in being sent to a death camp. Whether or not the people are cognizant of their own conscience in the shadow of mass influence, the effect is the same and will remain the same until a seed of revolt is planted: North Korean leaders will continue to receive undying support from citizens while citizens appear ignorant of their oppressed state of being. If it is true that some or several N. Koreans disagree with the worship and are subscribing only out of fear, then they will either become martyrs for their conscience or will wait until they perceive there to be enough momentum to revolt with several other people. I think it's remarkably hard to protect oneself from mass emotion in a society that is defined by restriction of freedom and ultimately, as can be seen in 1984, the only safeguard would be the tiniest sliver of hope that out there somewhere there is someone else who doesn't quite buy it. Either way, it's a game of strength in numbers.
@Gideon: I went to a public school. That means that every morning we sat in a room and prayed towards a sheet of polyester cloth that was most likely dyed in China. And I can assure you that no one was swept up by sentimental pride.
Now, you have a million points with the drunk people at stadiums, but for something else you mentioned. No one feels this great amount of pride in the American dream in between bites of their hot dog and cheap Budweiser. But they do pretend like it.
You do not see a single person at a stadium not acting respectful towards the flag. Such an act would be borderline heresy. Everyone acts respectfully because everyone else acts respectfully, and secretly a portion of us don't really care much for the anthem, but we do it because we are convinced that everyone else is a nationalistic zealot ready to slash us down for not being respectful. Or something along those lines.
@Danny: Lordy, lordy. tl;dr.
Kudos to you, good fellow, kudos to you.
I whole heartedly back you on everything I just read.
My only parade-raining comment would focus on humanity's tendency to adopt mindless ideology. I do not think that people adopt mindless ideology, but rather tend to adopt other peoples' ideology mindlessly, without actually bothering to check the facts. Case-and-point: television Conservatism. The Republican Party is a very respectable establishment (see what I did there?), but whatever the drivel is on Fox is without a doubt not actual Conservative though, but strange xenophobic, nationalistic niche-focused commentary.
My example would be a pseudo-variation on Calvin’s idea waaaay at the top of the page: the depressing assembly. They come along every once in a while. It’s a super sad story about some everyman who has either fallen on his luck super hard, or has risen to become a champion of the people. Throw in a couple morals, and PRESTO! You have a bunch of high school students [pretending] to wait anxiously for every word.
At Rachel’s Challenge, the both times I have seen it, I feel out of place. Like I’m missing some sort of grand message that is popping over my head. Because I look over and sane people are sobbing hysterically and blowing through Kleenexes at a faster rate than the pre-Sanchez Jets went through quarterbacks. So I feel like I should be sad, and eventually convince myself that I am sad, so that I don’t feel like a soulless demon.
Post a Comment