Thursday, 21 January 2010

In Part 3 of "1984", how are common criminals and political criminals treated differently in the temporary lock up?

In the
temporary lock-up, the guards treat the common criminals


"with a certain forbearance, even when they (have) to handle them
roughly...positions of trust (are) given only to the common criminals, sepecailly the gangsters,
and the murderers, who (form) a sort of aristocracy...all the dirty jobs (are) done by the
politicals". 

Even more astonishing is the
"difference in demeanor between the Party prisoners and the others".  The Party
prisoners are always "silent and terrified", while the ordinary criminals show no
fear.  They fight back with the guards, write obscenities on the floor, openly eat smuggled
food, and even defy the voice on the telescreen when it tries to keep order.  Some of the common
prisoners even seem to be on good terms with the guards, and it is conceivable that
"bribery, favoritism, and racketeering of every kind" abound.


Thoughtcrime is looked upon in the society as the worst transgression imaginable, far
more lethal than ordinary lawlessness and vice.  's belief that mind-control is far more
dangerous and effective than ordinary societal constraints is evident in the dichotomy between
the treatment of common and political prisoners.  Although it appears that ordinary insolence
and lack of fear are more effective in guaranteeing survival, however, the commoners are unaware
of the power they might wield.  If they were to join together and rise against Big Brother, they
could rule, but in their ignorance and focus on only themselves, they are insignificant (Book 3,
Chapter 1).

No comments:

Post a Comment

To what degree were the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, the USSR, and Japan successful in regards to their efforts in economic mobilization during the...

This is an enormous question that can't really be answered fully in this small space. But a few generalizations can be made. Bo...