"Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither."
I disagreed with this statement before reading 1984, and my opinion has not changed about this or any of the others. The society in 1984 is full of people who were willing to exchange their freedom (or illusion of freedom) for the "security" of party life, but we must realize that the situations in Oceania and modern America are not really comparable. In order for 1984 to have swayed my ideas about this statement, the society in the book would have had to be more similar to the society I live in. Since the power structure, class system, and general way of life in the two countries are so dramatically different, the meaning of this statement in the book has no effect on the statement when pertaining to our culture. I believe that, though giving up freedom voluntarily for security may show a lack of priorities, there is no excuse for persecuting someone for this; if they don't have the freedom to give up their freedom, they were never really free in the first place anyway. Everyone has a slightly different belief of what freedom and security include, so a statement like this holds no weight; some people believe that one can't be present without the other, and that would make the statement void.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hannah, you are most definitely right about how we can’t compare our society to that of the one depicted in 1984 because it’s true that our society has entirely different regulations for freedom and security. However, in reference to the book, freedom in Oceania exists in the proles since the Party doesn’t care about their actions because they are believed to be ignorant. As for security, it’s unquestionable to know who obtains any type of ‘security’ since everyone, especially the Outer Party members, are always on alert, worried about the consequences that might come with an accidental action. So in this situation, if a prole were to give up that freedom in search of security, they wouldn’t find any. And it’s not because they don’t deserve it, it’s because it doesn’t exist.
-Janice Vong
I agree with the fact that it is not worth exchanging freedom for security, but do they really deserve neither? In 1984, people exchanged their idea of freedom for what they believed was security. Does that make the citizens of Oceania bad people that deserve neither freedom or security? No. The people of Oceania are just regular people, but the Party has corrupted them with their propaganda and inhumane tactics. I wouldn't go as far and say that if someone prefers having security over freedom shows a lack of priorities, it just shows that people have different values for certain things. Do I personally believe that it is worth giving up freedom for security? No. In 1984, the Party was able to manipulate everybody into believing what they were doing was for the good of the state. Freedom was something that did not exists anymore, there wasn't even a word in Newspeak that meant free anymore. So yes, it would be wrong to give up freedom for security, because as George Orwell demonstrated in 1984, a government can totally abuse their power and take control of the minds of the people of Oceania. Can one say that the world of 1984 and the US of today are really that different? True, we haven't reached the state where the very language we speak eliminates the use of thought, but there are some stark similarities. Americans have already given up certain freedoms for "security" with things like the Patriot Act which allows the government to tap phone calls and other invasions of privacy. Also, there is a war that the US are fighting right now, but not that many people know too much about it other than Weapons of Mass Destruction and the like. Or Guantanamo (spelled something like that) where the government can take people who are considered threats and torture them for information about the war. We may not be at the stage depicted in 1984, but the way we are going now, it may not be long until we get there.
Hannah, you made me rethink my point. I have to agree with you though, our society isn't necessarily comparable, like Janice. Although I do believe that security is a part of freedom so if people are essentially forced to give up their "freedom" in exchange for "security" then they weren't really free because security is a large part of freedom, like Hannah previously stated, but I think in a lot of ways people in our society do sacrifice freedom for security, it may not be for legal reasons necessarily, but they should be able to retain that freedom.
-Lillian
Post a Comment