Part Two, Section 2
In one of the most famous lines from 1984, Winston Smith describes the consummation of his affair with Julia as follows: "It was a blow struck against the party. It was a political act."
Listen to this interview with Barbara Demick, author of the new book Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea. She tells the story of Jun-sang and Mi-ran, their means of "courtship" over many years, and the limits of their forbidden bond.
How does this story from North Korea in the 1990's compare with Winston and Julia's relationship? In a totalitarian society is love really a political act?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
In order to begin discussion of this topic, an agreement as to what a "political act" entails must first be made. Upon searching both google and the Oxford English Dictionary, I found that apparently no one has yet really defined the term. So in this we shall define a "political act" as an action that has political consequences.
In the case of the story from NPR, I would say that the "love" between these two individuals was in many was a political act. They would run around the streets at night in defiance of what I'm sure were numerous rules, and in doing so they were directly defying the state. However, I wouldn't say that using love as a political act is limited to a totalitarian society. I think everyone can agree that the United States isn't a totalitarian society, and we have had an enormous history in regards to the history of love and it's political consequences. The "Summer of Love" resulted in further protests against the Vietnam War, for instance. Love has always been used for political action, be it the story of Jesus dying for our sins because God loved us to the destruction of Troy to the rise of counter-culturalism. I would therefor argue that, while Smith's affair with Julia "was a blow struck against the party," it wasn't something that was particularly out of the ordinary. Almost anything can be labeled as a political act with enough spin on it. North Korea has certainly gotten good at that, as it needs as many excuses as it can get to continue to undermine the natural rights of its citizens. Love is a political act in all definitions of the saying, what matters is how a government responds to it.
Both Winston and Julia, and Jun-sang and Mi-ran cannot be together due to social standings. In 1984, Julia could not be in a public relationship with Winston since she was part of an abstinence group, and Mi-ran could not be with Jun-sang since she was from a lower class family. Even though both couples could not show their affections toward each other openly, both couples found safe places to do so. Winston and Julia used the room above the antique store and a circle of saplings to openly share their affections while Jun-sang and Mi-ran used the cover of darkness to show theirs. If either relationships were open, both couples would have been killed, or maybe in Jun-sang and Mi-ran’s case, they would have at least have been ostracized. Both relationships were political acts against the state in some regards however their acts had no political repercussions, and upon agreeing with Kalind’s definition of a political act, their relationships were not political acts. Love is a political act because government, no matter how hard they try, cannot control love.
Political act- an act that has a political effect. That’s what I will be using.
Love means that there is something more important than the party. That is seen as disloyalty to others, because that person is not fully devoted to the party anymore, and ends up finding faults in it (like Winston and Julia) and becomes even less devoted to the party. Then the people in love will eventually stop following the party and leave (like the lovers in North Korea). The followers need to love the party with their entire mind and soul in order for the party to work well. If people drop out, the party will crumble and lose power. That is why love is so dangerous, and is a political act. It is like switching from being a Democrat to a Republican all of a sudden (although love is more secretive).
The couple from North Korea obviously was restricted by the real pressures and dangers of North Korea, where they could communicate but not ever doing anything, even holding hands, unlike Winston and Julia, who cannot communicate but seem to be able to do things.
If a political act is something with a political effect, then ANYTHING is a political act in the 1984 and North Korean societies. When the government is so involved in the individual's life, anything that individual does, says, or even thinks is the government's business. So, yes, in these types of societies love is a political act.
However, a "political act" can have different meanings. I think a political act, in terms of love, is a relationship intended out of political motives, rather than emotional ones. So, arranged marriages, for example, are often political acts because they are usually for political/economic gain. "It was a blow against the party." Do Winston and Julia actually love each other, or do they have a relationship only because of their common hatred towards The Party? Their love affair might merely be a way to spite The Party and rebel against the harsh law. Likewise, Jun-sang and Mi-ran can rebel against North Korean government by sneaking out and meeting in the middle of the night. In a society where the one's actions and emotions are controlled by the government, there a loss of self identity and individuality. Thus it is hard to know if love is really true in a totalitarian society.
Love as a political act is common. In the ancient Roman Empire, the "Ara Pacis Augustae", commissioned by Augustus, of course, depicted the abundance of the empire, the peace, and the fruits of the Roman people. Cherub-faced babies bounce on the laps of young, virtuous Roman mothers, with adoring armor-clad husbands standing approvingly. Here, love is absolutely political. It is propaganda. It shows what Augustus has created for his people.
In 1984, Winston and Julia share a love that instead of condoning the government, defies it. They are not allowed to share love. Love is meant for the government. People are supposed to dedicate every ounce of their being toward Big Brother and to stray from that model is to be a traitor. Their love is political because it is the only thing left sacred.
The same goes for the two lovers in North Korea. They are forbidden to love, in all romantic senses of the world. People are married for the sake of producing children who will be loyal and perfect followers of the government. People cannot be distracted by love. The fact that these two lovers defied the government in the way they did is remarkably political, but at the same time, remarkably pure. I don't think defying the government was in their minds; it was simply a part of continuing to see each other. But, they must have realized at some point, that everything, like Michelle said, is inevitably political when nothing in society hasn't been made so.
I believe that love is something that holds great potential threat to a society like that of 1984 and North Korea where personal emotions are controlled and restricted. Emotions are dangerous and perilous feelings that may lead to many things that would defy a totalitarian society. Not only love, but also every other similar actions can be considered a political act, and I agree with Michelle on this. Basically anything can be considered a political act. In a society where deprivation is apparent anywhere, it is not surprising that love should be one of the deprivations. The relationship between Jun sang and Miran seems rather similar to that between Winston and Julia where they seem to take advantage of the covert opportunities; where they would not get caught and would have to pay consequences. For the very reason that love can lead to a gradual defiance of the political parties, like Emily had said earlier, the society restricts love affairs and personal emotions. It poses a serious threat to the totalitarian regime, and the authorities would not want to risk being overthrown caused by a distraction that leads to a gradual defiance.
Kalind, I directly repudiate your last claim as "anything can be a political act if you put enough spin on it" in relation to the book. Yes, you are technically correct, but I feel like you're missing the point than when Winston said "It was a political act," there was no spin in that. He is striking at the very core values of the Party, of Oceania, and of those subservient around him. His wife, Katharine, lives by the party, by the rules of politics; a relationship with Julia, in all of its overwritten glory, is still an act of love, something that is against the very baseness of the Party. I mean, doesn't O' Brian say that the Party is attempting to "kill the sex drive?"
The same is the with North Koreans. When, by age twenty, they still don't know where babies come from, their government is obviously trying very hard to make sure that information does not leak. Any attempt to find that information out for yourselves, as in the relationship those Koreans had, is an act of political defiance.
I agree with Michelle that in a society like the one in 1984 anything can be a political act, yet if a political act is one that has political consequences, this is an extremely minor one. Not enough information was given about the two North Korean lovers to state their reasons for doing what they did. It is not known what the nature of their "affection" for each other was. We don't know whether it was sexual, whether they were lonely, or a vast number of other possible reasons for their relationship. As BJ stated, they interact in a way that is similar to the way Winston and Julia interact, covertly. Winston and Julia are supposedly in love, (love is a very broad term) and show this through emotion and physical interaction. Similarly to the North Korean's they are very limited in what they can do. Love, like Michelle said, like any other action is a political act in a totalitarian society. However, it can be debated whether it is a political act first or love second. Is love really love if it used mainly as a political act? It may be an act of defiance, but if Winston and Julia really are in love then it being a political act is nothing more than a nice perk. Even if it is a political act, it affects almost no one other than the two of them so the political ramifications are hardly noticeable. It may always be a political act in a society like this, but one of little actual importance except for in the lives of the lovers.
Winston and Julia were not your typical Romeo and Juliet; Winston and Julia's relationship had a purpose: to strike back in the dark against the omniscient behemoth that is the Party. They clung to each other in desperation, united by a common despair. This is as close to the classic Victorian romance as one can get in the dismal world of Oceania.
Yes, their relationship was politically motivated - but that does not detract from their love in the slightest.
Jun-sang and Mi-ran, however, did not enter a relationship together with the purpose of striking out at anybody. That is to say, they probably did not have the same "down with the system" mentality as Julia and Winston. Forbidden love is not necessarily a political act against whatever entity is forbidding it.
So, no, the impossible North Korean relationship was not an act of political defiance (or, at the very least we cannot simply assume that it was, with the given information) while Winston and Julia's relationship was almost entirely an act of political defiance.
I believe that love within a strong political setting can potentially be extremely dangerous for a couple. In a sensitive and monitored environment like Oceania, any sign of teamwork to make a strike against the government will ignite a flame and will be found out. In 1984, Winston and Julia absolutely have a primary goal of breaking down the government. The Party is the enemy and something must be done, even if that means being separated
After listening to the North Korea story, it seemed as though the courtship between Jun-Sang and Mi-Ran did not have any external goals besides being together
Post a Comment