orwell's 1984 and the early theories of wilhelm reich

Post Reply New Topic

it appears to me that one of the main premises of george orwell's 1984 is the idea of sexual repression rendering the population open to oppression by the party. the repression of freely expressed sexuality by the party is clearly an overt theme in the novel. junior anti-sex league, winston and julia's "subversive" affair, etc. this idea is very similar to the ideas put forward by wilhelm reich in his "the mass psychology of fascism".

http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf

reich's main point in this book is that oppressive fascist regimes are manifest only in situations where sexual repression is endemic in a society. he covers more than this, but this is the main thrust. i wonder whether orwell had been exposed to reich's ideas, or whether they just came to a similar conclusion independently?

Sexual repression was just one of many means the Party used to gain control. It certainly is not required in all fascist regimes. Have you ever read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?

1984 is what is called "predictive programming". In other words, Hollywood likes to brag and tell us what is going to happen, because they know that the people won't take it seriously (and yes, hollywood is run by the CIA as well, in fact Hollywood gave America it's entire culture;-- culture creation). Here is the skinny on "predictive programming:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... =369709908

It's all a big breeding/eugenics expirement, in fact the 1st half of the bible (old testament) is a pure eugenics program. It tells who breeds with who, capitalism and communism are both forms of eugenics programs. The "elite" only breed in other "elite" bloodlines. So it's not uncommon for them to have arranged marriages. The "elite" can be politicians, celebrities, etc.... Obama for example is related to bush and cheney, and also brad pitt. Hell John Trevolta and the rest of the scientology crew, I don't really trust those cats too much either. Like, civilization ended up creating the status ladder we call society, as a way of segregating who breeds with whom. Before "civilization" there was no status ladders, history channel admitted this in their documentary "history of civilization". So that goes wayyyyy back before ancient Sumeria...

Once again, here is the link on predictive programming, read it before writing anything slandering my post here, actually read it first, all of it, the whole thing, and then once you've read it all, then if you wanna criticize anything i've said then I am more willing to listen. Here is the link again:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... =369709908

snake's got a lot of interesting conspiracy theories, I generally let them slide past unnoticed. I actually think Huxley may have been closer to Orwell, though both deal with separate aspects of a hypothetical totalitarian state. The proles in 1984 are controlled in somewhat the same manner as the people in Brave New World, but not in as sophisticated a fashion.

I'll concede that the issue of sexuality is pretty big in 1984 (not quite as big as in BNW) but I don't know if I would consider it central. There's the hints of post-modernism with debates over the nature of objective reality, and also, as you mentioned, linguistic determinism. 1984 also explores whether there is any such thing as fundamental human nature, and Orwell seems to come to the conclusion that there is, though it can be beaten into submission.

I haven't read Reich's theories, I might do so later when I have more time.

Huxley does seem to be more inspired by Skinner.

It would be a mistake to write off Orwell as criticizing Stalinism. He wrote an excellent essay, "Politics and the English Language," which you might find interesting. He talks more about his views on linguistic determinism, which aren't quite as extreme as S-W. He also specifically states that he's not just talking about "fascist" regimes. He was warning against trends he saw in his own country.

i would recommend the mass psychology of fascism. whether or not you agree with reich's views, it is an interesting read nonetheless.

I think Snake321 made an interesting point with his reference to the bible, about how society has always controlled sexuality, and how sexual practices are enforced/imposed, either with laws as in religious societies, with both population and racial control as its purpose, aswell as maintaining male dominance/control of this process, or with shiny/glamour/star endorsement as in Hollywood's images of sexuality, which were once/are still very carefully designed and had/have a powerful effect on many people in the west, in a way not so unlike in Brave New World, modelling/advertising the socially-sanctioned kind of sexual behaviours.

Ironically Reich may have been particularly sensitive to fascist tendencies/expressions because his own perspective was one which Umberto Eco points out is closely related to fascism, believing that a perfect/glorious liberated human existence is possible if "just get it right"/find the key to unlock the door, if free oneself of restraints etc.

His chosen "pollution"/corruption just happened to be "sexual repression" which is in itself an illusion if referring to some essential hidden sexuality, as if sexuality wasn't itself a social construct.

I think one reason why the state in "1984" represses sexual activity may be because Orwell imagined that sexuality was a private/personal matter, and therefore that having sex in itself would weaken citizens' devotion to the state, whereas as both Michel Foucault and radical feminism pointed out sexuality is political, public, and having sex does not represent a threat to the state except when the sexual practice is different to that which is sanctioned, for instance in which male or white supremacy/control is menaced, etc.

On the other hand that may have been the only way he could find to represent the extent to which our society interferes with/controls sexuality/sexual activity.

I think both books are about trends already existing in the west, things already in well established existence; neither are about the future particularly.

Where all three ( Huxley, Reich, and Orwell), may have had an idea in common is in suggesting that a link might exist between bodily experience and control over people. That how bodies are allowed to express themselves, what the body experiences, ( bodily processes), has a significant effect on what and how we think. Double-Think can only exist/flourish if bodies are already being restrained/controlled/subdued ( by clocks, spaces, diet, furniture, selected sensory stimulation etc)?

In fact those are things that society can and does control, whereas I think that language is under noone's direct control, that it has a life of its own and just grows in certain ways in certain situations depending on the bodily experience of its hosts.