53

According to O'Brien, Winston was followed and closely watched for about 7 years, before their meeting took place. In a society like the one depicted in the book, where people from all walks of life are being "evaporated" on a daily basis — in most instances "just-in-case" and not for actual crimes — I can't understand why a man like Winston, who clearly committed severe thought-crimes (his diary, as the most extreme example), shouldn't be just "evaporated"?

What was the point in the secret meeting, the indoctrination, in passing him a copy of "The Book", in giving him time to read it, and only then arresting him? The only thing I can think of is that the Thought-Police wanted to try and take as many people as possible when they arrest Winston, as his "followers" or something of this sort; but after 7 years of close surveillance, they knew he was no leader of some resistance group. It was just himself, and then himself and Julia, and that's it.

Why give him time and risk him telling someone else about O'Brien, and by that potentially "blowing" his cover? (Such an act might cause a "snowball" effect, where some people might spread rumors about O'Brien, while others might actually talk to the Thought-Police.)

Moreover, what was O'Brien's point in writing "The Book", which actually had much truth in it? What was the motivation for doing such extreme amounts of work, which involve enormous "amount" of Double-Think, instead of just arresting and shooting Winston? Nothing would've changed if the book didn't actually exist at all.

And finally, what was the point in holding him for so long in the Ministry Of Love? What was the value in spending so much time and effort in breaking one individual, which has no social footprint whatsoever? He's no leader of an underground resistance group; Winston is actually, as far as the Party's concerned, no one.

The only reasonable option here, is that the Ministry Of Love employees, just like Winston in his new job, need to show for their supervisors that they actually do the job intended by the Ministry of Love, and they're actually successful in that. That Winston, as quite an extreme case, was also finally broken.

DavidW
  • 128,443
  • 29
  • 545
  • 685
golosovsky
  • 661
  • 4
  • 4
  • 28
    This is part of the point. The Party will spend this effort on everybody, even someone as insignificant as Winston. – Daniel Roseman Jul 09 '21 at 10:03
  • 29
    O' Brien talks about this point explicitly in Room 101, "It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be". No matter how powerless Winston was, they simply have to take the trouble to purify him. – Clara Diaz Sanchez Jul 09 '21 at 11:07
  • 6
    I think the book was not specifically written for Winston. It was a general trick to lure heretics. Also the book wasn't anything special. As Winston noted somewhere, it didn't tell him anything that he didn't already know. – RedBaron Jul 09 '21 at 11:12
  • 3
    @ClaraDiazSanchez that can be expanded into an answer – RedBaron Jul 09 '21 at 11:13
  • 1
    I don't have time to dig up a quote right now, but wasn't part of it also that exercising this kind of power over everybody was most of the point of having the power in the first place? – DavidW Jul 09 '21 at 11:20
  • @RedBaron absolutely agree – golosovsky Jul 09 '21 at 11:38
  • 7
    @RedBaron In addition, the Goldstein book is a demonstration of the Party's power. By allowing it to circulate, they are demonstrating that even when you know the truth, you are still powerless. – tbrookside Jul 09 '21 at 13:32
  • 1
    It's not just that they have to prove they're doing their job, but it also helps ensure their loyalty. Somewhat similar to how gangs will make new recruits commit serious crimes. Once you do, there's no going back. One must prove their loyalty by doing the dirty work, and once you've started doing the dirty work, you won't be accepted anywhere else, so your only option is to keep doing it. – Ryan_L Jul 09 '21 at 17:43
  • 9
    As an out-of-universe note: 1984 is to a large extent allegorical, verging sometimes on surrealism (in the original sense of “more than real”). Expecting to find fully realist in-universe explanations for all details is, to some extent, a wild goose chase. – PLL Jul 09 '21 at 23:20
  • 1
    Yeah, that Smith business must have taken up a lot of O'Brien's time, and kept him from his more important work of . . . what? Seeing to it that the trash is collected and the trains run on time? Maybe stomping people like Smith is O'Brien's main purpose in life? – user14111 Jul 10 '21 at 06:18
  • 3
    "after 7 years of close surveillance" - What is your evidence for this? There's little to suggest that The Party knew of Winston's activities until he moved in to the room above the shop. Why trust O'Brien's words? – J. Mini Jul 10 '21 at 11:36
  • @J.Mini There is some minor evidence to support O'Brien's claim of 7 years of surveillance. As he was falling asleep one night Winston heard the phrase "We will meet where there is no darkness", said in O'Brien's voice. This happened 7 years before his arrest. This could be a sign that O'Brien had begun monitoring him (or I agree, it could also be a surrealistic element of the novel). – Clara Diaz Sanchez Jul 12 '21 at 14:22
  • @DanielRoseman To be fair, Winston isn't a TOTAL nobody. They wouldn't expend this much effort on the proles - if I recall they make an off-handed comment in the The Book that proles would either end up dead, or taken into one of the two parties (forgive me if I'm misremembering precisely - it has been several years since I read the book last). But Winston was a member of the Outer Party, and thoughtcrime was not tolerated for them - they were in the top 15% of the population (with the Inner Party making up 1% IIRC, and the proles the rest) – Andrew Alexander Jul 12 '21 at 17:34
  • 1
    There’s a very minor additional point that I don’t think anyone’s brought up yet, which is: this is literally all there is for the Thought-Police to do! It was conceived as a way of suppressing big plots and guarding the state, but given their level of observation and control, all they have are the low-level plots hatched by the Winstons of the nation. So you can either imagine that he reached a particular level of seriousness in his plot and had to be brought on… or just that everybody under suspicion is brought in sooner or later, and he was just randomly chosen that day. – Gaurav Jul 13 '21 at 06:18

4 Answers4

65

There are a lot of sub-questions in this question. I will focus on the title-question, "What was the motivation of O'Brien, and other members of the Thought Police, in spending so much time and effort on Winston?"

This was explained in detail by O'Brien to Winston, during his interrogation. Winston asks what the purpose of the torture was, offering explanations such as to extort confessions or as punishment, which O'Brien contemptuously dismisses, pointing out that Winston could be destroyed utterly, so that no one would ever hear of him again, or even remember that he had ever existed. O'Brien continues:

since we intend to destroy you utterly, so that nothing that you say or do can make the smallest difference — in that case, why do we go to the trouble of interrogating you first?

The reason is:

You are a flaw in the pattern, Winston. You are a stain that must be wiped out... We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will.

The power of the Party is so complete that "It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be". As a consequence the Party is prepared to spend any amount of effort in correcting flaws like Winston, even though he himself was completely innocuous.

Clara Diaz Sanchez
  • 65,162
  • 6
  • 291
  • 318
  • 2
    Thank you for a great answer. Maybe it's for a different thread, but nevertheless allow me to ask - was Winston actually really such an "extreme" and uncommon individual in the depicted society? I mean, O'Brien must've known that although, officially speaking, Winston is indeed a criminal, practically he wasn't extreme at all, he was quite an ordinary person, which only differed in the fact that he'd reached a certain breaking point, which makes him hard to keep on "playing the game". There must be hundreds of thousands of individuals just like him, which just didn't reach that point yet. – golosovsky Jul 10 '21 at 08:41
  • 2
    @golosovsky That would make another good question! But in my view Winston Smith is not extreme or uncommon at all, he's more of an "everyman". BTW if you like my answer, would you consider accepting it, by clicking on the tick next to it? – Clara Diaz Sanchez Jul 10 '21 at 09:26
  • 2
    That doesn’t explain why the best way to get rid that “erroneous thought” wasn’t used as it clearly was for so many others. The nay way that makes sense is to suppose that the others were all actually “innocent” and the “guilty” must live to change their minds. – jmoreno Jul 10 '21 at 13:19
  • "It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world," The Internet must be keeping them pretty busy... – user_1818839 Jul 10 '21 at 20:43
  • @user_1818839 That's why China has The Great Firewall... – auburg Jul 12 '21 at 10:16
  • @auburg Honestly I think it's more about internet protectionism. China already has a pretty great firewall built into the language itself - Chinese isn't spoken by too many people outside of China proper (Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia are about it). I've been to China, and while it is certainly more oppressive than the west, it's not 1984. – Andrew Alexander Jul 12 '21 at 17:38
  • I don't think Winston was likely particularly unique even in his rebellion against the system--O'Brien may have given that "you are a flaw in the system" speech to many people guilty of thought-crimes over the years. The motives of the people in the Inner Party seemed to be largely reduced to sadism, the pleasure of exerting control over others (see my comment about Goldstein's book in the comments on Upper_Case's answer), and O'Brien probably enjoyed finding people to entrap and then mentally "correct" before executing them, just to show that he could. – Hypnosifl Jul 18 '21 at 14:43
29

In addition to Clara Diaz Sanchez's excellent answer, there are several other elements of note:

  1. The society the Party strives for has an excess of productive capacity, along with a specific desire to never allow people's standard of living to improve. To this end they can't really waste effort, especially not in pursuit of Party goals. Efficiency is far less of a concern than efficacy, and for most purposes waste is better than efficiency.

  2. The idea that Winston could in some way cause trouble for the Party is... optimistic. Considering the intense degree of observation he has long been subjected to (as are all Party members), the idea that he could "blow O'Brien's cover" in some meaningful way significantly underestimates what the Party can know and do. Even if he tried to spread the information, what would he say, and to whom, and how long would he be permitted to do it? What, if anything, could the people he told do with the information?

    One of the major themes of 1984 is that Ingsoc has been successful. Their methods work, and their power is far beyond what individuals can realistically combat.

  3. O'Brien's capacity for and practice in doublethink is enormous. Very few people are members of the Inner Party, and they are groomed to be fanatical proponents of Ingsoc. No amount of doublethink is an exertion or in any way troublesome for him. He can turn his viewscreen off because he doesn't need its intervention, after all.

  4. Power is its own end to the Party, and the sensation of victory is the only real pleasure its ideology permits. As O'Brien describes:

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever. (Part III, Chapter III)

The entire charade around Winston's experiences is certainly a subtle expression of power, and Ingsoc's victory over him is complete and always was. Even Winston knowing a lot of true information about the state of the world doesn't help him him in any way, and ultimately serves only to clearly illustrate to him how helpless he has always been, just in time for him to be utterly broken. Even though he physically survives the Ministry of Love, his rebelliousness is completely destroyed.

Upper_Case
  • 3,068
  • 1
  • 14
  • 18
  • 8
    In fact, his survival itself is an expression of the party's power. If he had died he would have in some sense escaped. Instead he has been fully absorbed. I wonder if maybe O'Brien had gone through a similar ordeal as Winston some time long ago. Maybe Winston will be the O'Brien to some future dissident. – Ryan_L Jul 09 '21 at 22:13
  • @ryan_l, that will not be possible – Orejano Jul 09 '21 at 23:14
  • 2
    How do we know that The Book was written by a machine? – J. Mini Jul 10 '21 at 11:38
  • @J.Mini I bought another copy for review, and have clearly conflated an entry from Goldstein's book along with Julia's job to conclude that Goldstein's book was written by machine (which the book, itself, suggests all books are), but this was a mistake. O'Brien explicitly states that he collaborated in writing it, with no other entry I can find giving any more information. I've edited that section out of my answer. Thanks! – Upper_Case Jul 10 '21 at 19:44
  • "We are the priests of power" – Buzz Jul 12 '21 at 00:58
  • O'Brien's comment about the desire for power as the only remaining motive might be the answer to the rhetorical question in Goldstein's book, which Winston stopped reading before it was answered: "But there is one question which until this moment we have almost ignored. It is; WHY should human equality be averted? ... deeper than this lies the original motive, the never-questioned instinct that first led to the seizure of power and brought DOUBLETHINK, the Thought Police, continuous warfare, and all the other necessary paraphernalia into existence afterwards. This motive really consists . . ." – Hypnosifl Jul 18 '21 at 14:20
3

Rather than based on any thorough analysis of the context, the following is an attempt at extrapolating it towards the most natural conclusion.

It is crucial to ensure that all motivations of every acting member of the society are exclusively those known and approved. While it is very easy to get rid of any given individual, one has to ensure that desires of all those that remain alive are completely known and controllable. Hence each outstandingly difficult case is an excellent material of research to test reliability of existing methods of control. It is very difficult to detect remnants of individual independent will that might still exist buried deep in the soul of such a specimen. Even when any attempts at acting as a separate entity are eradicated, there is no guarantee that, for example, memories from the time when some tiny amount of freedom was still available would remain pleasant or, for another example, feeling of regret for loss of individuality would be still present. To ascertain that all such remnants are totally absent requires much attentive, patient careful work and observation.

მამუკა ჯიბლაძე
  • 219
  • 2
  • 5
3

One way to try and understand the sociopathic reasoning of the Party is to look at many other areas where people go to great lengths to change something instead of destroy it. (Proselytizing would be an example, but we'll skip it.)

Scientists try to change the DNA or modify a virus or split a particle in an accelerator. In all those cases, the main goal is the process and its outcome. Just destroying something is not [as] satisfying.

The Party wants to have and use absolute power over people. Not use it for some other goal, but just use power for the sake of using power. The harder something is, the more interesting it is for people. In the case of the Party, their area of experimentation is the society.

Instead of working to overcome the gravity to make a human fly, they work to overcome human conscience to make people believe that the Party members can fly. Instead of "amputating" a faulty human, they work hard to experiment with "curing" such people.

And the Party is surely not alone in wanting great power over the society while not caring that much about material resources.

For this very reason, some people perform seemingly irrational actions (that hurt their financial of business success) to make other people suffer. But this becomes easy to understand if we consider that the power to affect other people is their ultimate goal, not financial success that can later be used to buy some power.

Ark-kun
  • 131
  • 3