The Ministry of Truth

In 1984, Winston works in the Ministry of Truth, which we all know is more like a ministry of lies. They deal with falsifying records so that history sounds how the government wants it to. I wanted to look at incidents in history where a government shaped the way history was told.

Pakistan and India used to be one country before the British split them with the idea one would be for Muslims and the other for Hindus because they couldn’t really get along. But was there ever a time they could? Yeah actually. When the British conquered India, their strategy was to divide and conquer. The colonial narrative split India into “a nation of communities, above all what were deemed the two great communities of Hindu and Muslim”. The British emphasized their differences and shaped the way history was told. The British went to the Hindus and fueled their nationalist ideas by saying they had a Golden era before the Muslims invaded and screwed things up, so “Many Indian nationalist leaders found it useful, specifically, to accept the notion of an Indian Golden Age that ended with the presumed oppression of Muslim rule.” The British also went to the Muslims though and told them the Golden era was during their rule. These ideologies stayed with the people and fuel conflict to this day. So, like the Ministry of Truth, the British changed the way history was told and they ended up fueling hate between the Muslims and the Hindus from which comes conflict.
(My sister was doing a research project for her history class and told me about this. The book is Islamic Contestations Essays on Muslims in India and Pakistan by Barbara D. Metcalf)

Another way I feel like we have a “Ministry of Truth” is not by literally recording history differently, but by framing events in a certain way that helps you make your point. I’m pretty sure we all have read I am Malala at one point. When you learn about her, lessons generally frame the conflict as if it can all be solved by education and that you should always stand up for what you believe in. But people living in northern Pakistan don’t necessarily agree with this. The issues they deal with are more complex and can’t all be solved by getting an education, so saying education can solve everything is an oversimplification. Generally, people there, including the girls (Malala focuses on girl’s education), want to be safe and stay alive more than they want to go to school. People also aren’t necessarily willing to stand up for themselves because Malala did get shot and she got lucky. So, as you can imagine, it’s not easy for them to be convinced to fight for girls’ education. I feel like this relates to the Ministry of Truth because how you learn about these issues changes your view, like how the Ministry changes their records so that Big Brother is always right, which makes the people more willing to love and trust Big Brother.
(Now I’m not saying that fighting for girl’s education is bad, it’s just that it’s not their only problem, their issues are a lot more complex than sending girls to school).

The last thing I want to address is how the media’s portrayal of other countries is similar to the Ministry of Truth. The Ministry of Truth changed its records to say that they have always been at war with Eastasia when they switched from being at war with Eurasia. It was important to them to make it seem like they never switched sides. The portrayal of the war helps them keep their people in check. The media’s portrayal of a country shapes how you view it and media tends to portray Pakistan as a backward, dangerous, poor country full of terrorists. But hopefully, you guys don’t believe that because it’s a terrible stereotype. Once someone was talking with my dad and my dad mentioned how my family often visits Pakistan. The other guy was kind of surprised because “isn’t it dangerous there” to which my dad replied, “it’s about as safe as schools in the U.S.”

There are a lot more examples of “real life Ministries of Truth” but here were a few. Can you guys think of any examples that aren’t well known?

Winston and Humanity

Winston is an intriguing character. He has some terrible characteristics, such as his blatant sexism and objectification of other people, so that presents a barrier to me caring about what happens to him or liking him. And because of this, I struggled to get into the novel.  

I can point out the exact place where I start to care about what happens to Winston: beginning of part 2, page 106. Winston sees Julia (who at this point is potentially a member of the thought police) trip. He considers: “In front of him was an enemy who was trying to kill him; in front of him, also, was a human creature, in pain and perhaps with a broken bone. Already he had instinctively started forward to help her. In the moment when he had seen her fall on the bandaged arm, it had been as though he felt the pain in his own body” (105-106). This is the first time where Winston does something for another person, not because the party tells him that he must, but because he can. In this moment, he shows that he’s still a human who is capable of empathy. It’s interesting that Winston sees it as something that’s not a big deal, that’s just common sense for humans, when the structure of Oceania (and the rest of the world, for that matter) is based on forcing people to disregard empathy entirely. I had to reread this paragraph because I was so surprised. I remember thinking “Wow, he actually can empathize.”

Still, it takes him the entirety of part 1 to get to this. (I’m not impressed.) Perhaps this is why it’s so hard to relate to/care about Winston in the beginning of the novel: he is mostly controlled by Big Brother. He goes to work, he doesn’t care who gets vaporized, he participates in two minutes hate. He questions, but not openly. Rather than take up the act of rebellion himself, he always says that the proles must do it.

Winston directly addresses his humanity in a conversation with Julia just before they go to find O’Brien. He says that Big Brother “can’t get inside you. If you can feel that staying human is worth while, even when it can’t have any result whatsoever, you’ve beaten them” (166). By this point, he is not only invested in himself, he’s invested in Julia and the possibility of undermining Big Brother. He actually cares about things.

When we had to make predictions about what happens next, I said that Winston and Julia would get caught. That happened. I also thought that they would “lose their humanity” somehow—a loss of empathy, a horrible crime, something. What happens with that remains to be seen. However, once they were caught, Winston phrases his feelings similarly as in his first interaction with Julia: “Even in his terror it was as though he could feel the pain in his own body” (223). I don’t know if Orwell meant for there to be a such strong parallel in the phrasing, but it would be interesting if these encounters functioned as bookends to “empathetic Winston.” I wonder what side of Winston we’ll see now that he’s in captivity.

Do you struggle with Winston? Do you think humanity is a main theme in the novel, and is it dealt with enough for you?

Representativity

Dr. E once told us to take a long time to write essays and think about them constantly: “imagine it as you go to bed, and wake up glistering in the middle of the night with ideas.” He gave us a month to write the paper, but being Uni students, we disregarded his sage advice and turned in subpar essays written in two days, with as little thought put into them as possible. I have found in many classes that, surprisingly, spending time on papers really does make them better. I once wrote a paper in 20^th Century Novel about a topic I found really compelling, and I talked people’s ears off about it given the opportunity. I worked a little bit on it every night and found myself thinking about it in the shower and when I woke up. I was glistering, and I ended up with a paper I could be proud of.

But busy students with six extracurriculars and five sports and 16 video games to play like us never have the spare brainspace to think about school outside of school if we’re not being forced. And that’s good in some ways: time to play, to relax the mind, is really important. But all too frequently, our “play” time is spent on stuff that really just keeps the mind spinning. Action-packed video games are my favorite example of this—you get a rush of adrenaline, you think fast, you process information as fast as you can and you get overloaded. The downtime your body was expecting after a long day of attention is replaced by more information, and that causes us to feel stressed. I really liked Dante’s post a while ago about meditation. While I’m not asking everybody to go listen to Glass compositions for an hour every day, I think we could all use some downtime, and that’s something that, like Dante, we need to force ourselves into.

Another thing Uni students are missing is sleep. Sleep is the most extreme kind of “downtime.” It organizes your brain and reduces stress, especially REM sleep. Many studies have shown that the amount of sleep you get directly affects your academic performance. And Uni students are pros at getting less than 6 hours and continuing to truck through the school day. As with the other stuff I’m talking about, there are some underlying issues on this that our Utopias and Dystopias class could never hope to solve with class policies. And as AA says, acknowledgement of your problem is the first step. Why do Uni students get so little sleep? Is it a status symbol to not sleep, implying you studied really hard? What causes insomnia, and why? Are we just that bad at time management, watching Youtube until 2 and doing homework until 4? Importantly, are we unique in this or do other schools with less “driven, intelligent” students (quotation marks because Uni tends to control for other variables besides those nominal ones: for example, it more controls for driven parents) feel the same pressures, implying wider societal issues in addition to Uni-specific issues?

 These are questions to answer in an essay, not a blog post. I’ve had 5 years to notice this trend and taken personal effort to prioritize sleep, mental health, and downtime for myself. I’ve also had parents who support me in this, which many do not. I think Uni students should think about these issues of stress and relaxation for themselves, and honestly evaluate their own behavior and how it affects them.

A Variety of Endings

In class we discussed whether or not we were satisfied with The Handmaid’s Tale ending and if we thought the historical notes were a good addition. I liked the final section, as it gave us hope for Gilead to fall and it closely resembled how we discuss similar real-life tragedies—somewhat coldly, but also informatively. Not as personally affecting as the emotional personal recount, but it filled in some informational gaps. Then again, it did take away from the narrative by dulling the ambiguity that Offred left us as the end of her story. The addition made it strange to have Offred end on the note she did in the first place. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t ambiguity at all—we don’t know Offred’s ultimate fate, for example—but it was a weird structural choice.

I haven’t watched the Hulu series yet (I probably will over break), but from what I understand, it expands on characters and even continues the story, going further than the book did. Does this imply that the characters are going to cause big change within the regime? I didn't think it was important that the characters we meet quickly cause a revolution, so I’m a bit worried that the show could go in that direction. I could be wrong, though.

Margaret Atwood announced a sequel to her novel, called The Testaments, but has given few details besides it being set fifteen years later and there being three narrators. After reading The Handmaid’s Tale, I’m curious about the sequel, but part of me also wonders how necessary it is. Atwood said that on top of readers’ questions about Gilead’s “inner workings,” her “other inspiration is the world we've been living in.” I want to see what else Atwood will have to say about politics and women’s rights, especially since attitudes about certain things may have changed since The Handmaid’s Tale was published. What’s odd is that the new book is even further away in time from the original takeover, further from a world we are more familiar with. How will that allow her to incorporate the problems we are facing now?

So what is the purpose of ending a story a certain way? The ending of Offred’s story is artistic, but the historical notes are informational. The tv show has potential to end in an uncomfortably "Hollywood" fashion, but I’m guessing (and hoping) that it will stick to the tone of the books. Both the show and the sequel are able to explore Gilead’s citizens and their issues more deeply, and put a bit of modern context into things, which is super cool. But I’m still left with questions. What is the purpose of expanding this world? How are we supposed to end these stories, and what do those endings mean to us? Do all of the endings stand alone well and work together well at the same time? Do you have an ending or approach that you favor over the others?

Faith

Something that I find remarkable about The Handmaid’s Tale is how much detail is packed into the novel. Take, for example, Offred’s room. I know exactly what it looks like: every little detail, from the lack of chandelier to the windows to the ceiling. One of the details that is particularly sticking with me, for whatever reason, is the cushion in Offred’s room that says “Faith”. It seems a bit out of place for many reasons, but it also got me thinking about the role of faith in The Handmaid’s Tale.

Faith, or lack thereof, plays an important role in this new society. People are forced to adhere to a faith that is standardized for the government’s purposes. Household duties, reproductive roles, even speech patterns are dictated by faith. An accusation of being unfaithful can get you punished, even killed. Having a variant of the same faith doesn’t work either, as Offred and Ofglen see on their walks.

The cushion is one of many reminders of the before that seem to have slipped through the cracks when the new regime took power. At a basic level, it is an unnecessary item in a world that seems to value function over anything deemed frivolous (like love and family). It is a word in a room where only women go, reminding Offred of times where women could freely read. It is also something for her to read, to help her remember the language.

Offred assumes that the cushions are Serena Joy’s doing: “I wonder what has become of the other two cushions. There must have been three, once. Hope and Charity, where have they been stowed? Serena Joy has tidy habits. She wouldn’t throw away anything not quite worn out. One for Rita, one for Cora?” (110). It makes sense that Serena would leave the pillow—she’s not fully bought into this new regime, bending rules where she can. And faith would be the most appropriate one to leave, after all, considering this society must have an abundance of faith, particularly the handmaids.

But Offred, and many others, unable to envision a good future in this new society, maintain faith that they will someday get the chance to go back to their old normal.  It’s a faith common to all the Handmaids, as demonstrated by some of their customs: “As long as we do this, butter our skin to keep it soft, we can believe that we will someday get out…” (96). When Offred describes her room and mentions the faith cushion, she often recounts a memory from before, with Luke and her daughter. She describes what could have happened to both of them, prefacing with “Here is what I believe” (104). Rather than buying into the society’s faith, Offred keeps her own faith in the people in her life and the idea that things will somehow go back to normal. She isn’t the only one: much of the household does not think that the society is the best, but they’ve accepted the position that they are in. Serena Joy has merely put the other cushions into storage, not thrown them away.

Going into the end of the book, do we as readers have faith that things are going to change? I don’t know. I don’t doubt that the society could be toppled. However, I hesitate to think that Offred could accomplish a total overthrow by the end of the novel. But I do have a lot of faith in Offred. What else would compel me to read?

Handmaids or Test Tubes?

Fertility rates have been dropping, and in some countries, like the US, they have dropped below the level needed to replace the population. So the concern is if they keep dropping, then will we end up creating a society like in The Handmaid's Tale? It seems possible as this book is "at once a scathing satire, dire warning, and tour de force" (taken from the summary on the back cover of my book). Would our society turn to the use of Handmaids if birth and fertility rates decline even further?

I think we would hope that we as a society have progressed enough to realize that we shouldn't treat women in this way, but have we? There is still fear that we haven't done enough to prevent this and that we would be easily overpowered and be forced to like in a society like the Republic of Gilead.
On the other hand, maybe we have and there would be enough push back to make sure we would find an alternate solution.

What would that solution be though? As much as Brave New World sounds like a terrible society, there are some elements that might be useful. The way they create humans in a kind of test-tube baby way and a conveyor belt that replaces gestation might be a solution for declining births and fertility rates. The other thing that BNW did is they figured out a way to get an egg to keep multiplying to create a bunch of twins. With this method you don't have to worry about if you will get pregnant or not because they fertilize the eggs outside of the body. You also don't have to care about will there be a miscarriage or a still birth or a birth defect because they have the system perfected. And with the egg dividing you can make multiple babies which would really help birth rates rise. Also, you wouldn't have to do the Ceremony once a month to potentially get pregnant. Clearly, Offred doesn't want to be a part of the Ceremony, she is more forced to (even though she said she made the choice to be a Handmaid). Also being pregnant kinda sucks so not having to do that is pretty fun.

The issue with this is that using BNW's baby-making method, it might lead society to become BNW. Then instead of living in dystopian The Handmaid's Tale, you live in dystopian Brave New World. What's better - the World State or the Republic of Gilead?

Soma.

Even in a seemingly perfect futuristic society like that of Brave New World, people feel sadness and despondency. It’s a human emotion that, no matter how far medical and technological advancements will get in the future, is bound to happen. So naturally, the government of this utopian realm tries to smother these emotions completely with their questionable new drug, Soma. “Euphoric, narcotic, pleasantly hallucinant”… that's what Mustapha Mond calls this powerful new invention the government has created, clearly made in an effort to control the population. people take it for the high it gives them; the drink tranquilizes & diverts the individual's mind from the things they think and feel, but most importantly from realizing that there is something more sinister is going on with the government. 

The government uses this drug to trap individuals in their own happiness, an attempt to make themselves look as least suspicious as possible and conceal their hidden manipulation of the people. What they don’t want the people to realize is that they are a part of a twisted scheme with population control and a caste system determined by synthetic birth.

The great aftereffects of the drink are emphasized by Mond and others, clearly to encourage people to undergo a consequence-free high.

But why do they insist on pushing people to submit themselves to this distraction? What secrets are they trying to hide?