Exploring a Hopeful Future through Subversion of the Dystopian State
Robin Veenman Student number: 10524320
University of Amsterdam
Master Thesis, English Literature and Culture Supervisor: Kristine Johanson
Hereby I acknowledge to have read the UvA guidelines on Plagiarism and I confirm that this thesis is my own work.
Inhoud
Introduction...7
Chapter Structure...9
Key Terms...11
1. Totalitarian Governments and the Conditions for Subversion...20
1.1 The Dystopian States...20
1.2 The Means Of Control...21
2. Free Thought encouraged Through The Written Word...31
2.1 The Significance of the Written Word...31
2.2. D-503’s Self-Reflection Through Journal...33
2.3. Books Encourage Personal Development...35
3. Longing for The Past Provides a Vision for the Future...39
3.1. Nostalgia Motivates Subversive...39
3.2 Defining Nostalgia in Fahrenheit 451...39
3.3 The Danger of Nostalgia...42
3.4 The Positive Power of Nostalgia...43
3.4 The Past is Better...44
4. Human Nature and Relationships are the Catalyst for Rebellion...46
4.1 Subversion’s True Driving Force...46
4.2 The Power of Love...46
4.3 Failure and Death...48
4.4. The Secondary Characters’s Success...49
Conclusion...51
Works Cited...53
Primary Sources...53
Introduction
There are several novels which come to mind when the ‘dystopian novel’ is mentioned, with George Orwell’s 1984 being perhaps the most well-known example of the 20th century. However, 1984 is neither the first nor the only important example of the dystopian genre. There are two important dystopian novels published before 1984 (1949): Yevgeny
Zamyatin’s We (1924) and Alduous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932). These novels are also frequently mentioned in discussions of dystopias, as is one other: Ray Bradbury’s
Fahrenheit 451 (1953). Written after World War II, this novel can still be categorised with
the other three as prime examples of the dystopian genre. There are many similarities to be found when all four novels are compared, though the differences are certainly worth mentioning as well. All feature an all-controlling central power, which takes the form of a state or government depending on the novel. 1984, We and Fahrenheit each feature
protagonists who are part of their system and who all begin to question their world-views and those who control them. The protagonists of these three novels are clearly defined from the beginning of each story, but this does not apply to Brave New World. Unlike the other three, the identity of the protagonist changes throughout the story. However, in all four novels, the main characters slowly begin to question their governments, and in some cases the seed of doubt is already there at the start. Despite some existing misgivings about the system, all the main characters still follow the state’s laws and would have continued to do so but for a crucial event. In the case of We it is even a model citizen who is driven to rebellion against the government he so idolizes at first. How does it come to pass that even the most dedicated member of such a society turns against all that they have learned? More importantly, why is it necessary for these characters to fight against their governments to begin with? All four
central powers are portrayed negatively and reflect command structures which have existed or still exist. Many novels reflect contemporary events and the dystopic novel is no different, which the writer presenting a bleak world set in the future, based on real events which are political and technological in nature. Thus, the dystopian writer observes contemporary political situations and technological advances which greatly concerns them. Their fears and anxiety are directly reflected in the dystopian society of their novel, often magnified yet at the same time hidden behind a thin veneer. The dystopian novel therefore warns the reader to be cautious of dangerous developments in the world which could potentially lead to a deeply undesirable future.
However, there is more to the dystopian novel then solely this message of concern for the future. The dystopian genre is often associated with nothing but pessimism, yet the warning provided by the author is not solely negative in nature. This becomes clear through the acts of subversion of the characters within each novel. Their struggle against the central power may or may not be successful, with the latter being more frequent. As such, this reinforces the idea of a hopeless situation and a dark future. Yet the very notion that
subversion is not only possible, but also capable of spreading through a population shows that there is hope left. Moreover, the means necessary to control a person entirely are extreme and incredibly difficult to maintain. Apart from the dystopian society, there may also be an alternate society or the promise of one, wherein people live like they did in the past (the contemporary time in which the novel was written) which provides another, more positive option. Though the main characters of each novel are forced to submit to the central power, the sole exception being We, it is made clear that subversion remains not only possible but that it also contagious: no matter the control, there is always room for subversion. The exception here is 1984, though the reader can take solace in the fact that extreme and highly unlikely measures are necessary in order to control the rebellious characters. The specific
manners of subversion provide an explanation as to why it is so difficult to control a human being. At the same time, the author uses subversion what they perceive to be integral to a human being, and that which is key to creating a positive future. Therefore, the dystopian novel carries a warning about problematic political and technological events, but in nearly all cases does it also provide a hopeful message: a terrible future as shown in the novel can be avoided in the real world. This manner of conveying a hopeful message is more successful than simply using a utopic ideal, as the dystopia actually takes into account the dangers that must be avoided in order to reach a better future which the utopia lacks.
Chapter Structure
As stated, the key to understanding the meaning of a dystopian novel is through the different means of subversion. Thus, the chapters are structured according to each type of subversion, though the first chapter will focus on the precise circumstances of the power centre of each novel. Thus, the first chapter will support the fact that the dystopian novel warns about contemporary political and technological situations: that which the author fears has come to pass and the all-controlling government or state is the ultimate representation of these anxieties. The precise fears and the link to the manner in which these imaginary worlds function will be explained, as will the resulting opportunities for subversion. As will become clear, the first step towards subversion is made possible due to the inherent flaws of the dystopic society. Briefly, these flaws can be defined as the overconfidence in the ability to control people and the inability to account for each and every single person’s actions and thoughts. The second chapter will explore the consequences of these flaws through the first conscious act of subversion, which is the use of the written word. Each novel features the written word in a different fashion: In We and 1984, the protagonists take to writing in a
personal journal. The main character of Fahrenheit 451 reads forbidden books, and the main character of Brave New World is obsessed with the works of Shakespeare. There is a good reason why the written word is of such importance in each novel, as journals propagate free thoughts and books enhance knowledge, which are both undesirable to a dystopian
government. The third chapter will then discuss the consequences of writing a journal, or reading books. Especially the latter offers insight into a better past, which was before lost to the protagonist. They long for this lost world and the knowledge and laws that have vanished alongside. Thus, nostalgia plays an important role: though longing and thus nostalgia, the main character begins the realize something is wrong with their world and world views. Only through comparing a good past with their current society do they see what is truly wrong. Yet neither the written word nor nostalgia together are enough to motivate the protagonist to undertake rebellious actions against the true powers of their societies. Chapter four will deal with the last and most important manner of subversion: human nature and relationships. The exact definition of human nature varies among existing work on the dystopian novel. Here, human nature will be defined as a person’s inherent capacity and need for free thought, curiosity, emotions, and love. These aspects are what define a human being. The novels specifically highlight the importance of love and the resulting relationships the protagonists form: they are what ultimately drives the characters to act against their society and their indoctrination. Considering the fact that the protagonists often ultimately fall to power they fight, the reason for this failure will be briefly explained. Thus, the conclusion will touch upon the ways in which the dystopian societies deal with rebellious characters. Thus, there is the option of viewing the failure of the protagonists in a negative light, as is the case with several other interpretations. Here, another stance will be taken: the apparent failure to rebel successfully against the system can in fact be seen in a more positive way. The fact that the protagonists may not be able to survive or remain an individual does not preclude a hopeful
future, as their actions inspire others within the novel to take the first steps of rebellion themselves. As mentioned, 1984 differs again with the other novels and the precise difference in meaning will be explained. Finally, the conclusion will provide each novel’s connection and relevance to contemporary society through this exploration of the subversion of the dystopian society.
Key Terms
Before delving into the different types of subversion, several key terms must be explained first. At this point, the term dystopia has been mentioned several times but the exact
definition has not been given yet. As stated before, a dystopian novel often carries a message of hope alongside an actual warning about contemporary society. This interpretation does not align with the general definition of the dystopia. There are several definitions of the
dystopia, such as the one found in the Oxford English Dictionary: “an imaginary place or condition in which everything is as bad as possible; opp. utopia”. Another relevant definition is as defined in Abram’s Glossary: “The term dystopia (“bad place”) has come to be applied to works of fiction, including science fiction, that represents a very unpleasant imaginary world in which ominous tendencies of our present social, political, and technological order are projected into a disastrous future culmination” (414). Both definitions clearly state that the dystopia is a very bad place, and the Glossary adds that the dystopia reflects on
worrisome contemporary events. Thus, the warning about the future is implied specifically in the second definition due to the fact that the dystopia represents a fictional world which not only reflects but exaggerates on developments in the present. However, the warning is only implied and not literally stated and neither is there any mention of a hope for a better future in either definition. Therefore, these definitions only convey the most basic meaning of what the
dystopia actually is. This simplification becomes even more obvious through analysis of the second part of the Oxford definition, namely the part which states that the dystopia is the opposite of the utopia. Upon closer analysis this proves to be incorrect, as being each other’s opposite would imply there is no common ground between them. Yet in the novels, the three of the four central powers (the exception being 1984 once again) were founded on the principles of the utopia but were in fact dystopic. Thus, there must be some sort of a
connection between the utopia and the dystopia in order for this shift from one to the other to happen. Unlike the previously mentioned definitions and other unmentioned ones, the stance that the dystopia and the utopia are each other’s counterparts is not taken here. The dystopia and the utopia are not entirely opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin.
The definitions of the utopia and the dystopia have for example a lot in common in terms of setting. This in turn brings the two concepts much closer in the sense that both convey a hopeful message about the future, albeit in a different manner. It is not so strange that this perception of the two terms, the acknowledgment that there is a connection between the utopia and the dystopia, is not mentioned in any definitions found in dictionaries. At first glance, it seems to be impossible that the two terms have any connection. The term ‘dystopia’ enters common currency only in the twentieth century and after the creation of the utopia. It does appear intermittently beforehand (dys-topia or ‘cacotopia’, bad place, having been used by John Stuart Mill in an 1868 parliamentary debate)” (Claeys 107). Thomas More first coined the term utopia when he wrote Utopia in order to describe his ideal world and state. His work lent its name to a new literary type, of which the following definition will be used: “The term utopia designates the class of fiction writings that represent an ideal, non-existent political and social way of life” (Abrams 413). The term utopia has two clear definitions according to the Oxford Dictionary, the first being: “an imaginary island in Sir Thomas More’s Utopia (1516), presented by the narrator as having a perfect social, legal, and political
system”. More constructed the word utopia to have an etymological meaning, that of a place which is simultaneously a non-place: “More resorted to two Greek words – ouk (that means not and was reduced to u ) and topos (place), to which he added the suffix ia, indicating a place” (Vieira 4). The definition already causes immediate conflict in the sense that it is a place which can never truly exist. Specifically, the definition implies that the perfect place is simply unattainable and limited to the imagination. This idea is reinforced by the following quote: “More created a tension that has persisted over time and has been the basis for the perennial duality of meaning of utopia as the place that is simultaneously a non-place (utopia) and a good place (eutopia)” (5). When it comes to the eutopia, the second part of the Oxford Dictionary’s definition is of interest: “Any imaginary or mythical place (without implication of perfection), imagined as existing in some remote location on earth”. This part stresses that the utopian place is not necessarily perfect, which immediately brings it much closer to the dystopia. Both share the fact that the societies they describe are set in a far of location: “the dystopia is an imaginary place or condition in which everything is as bad as possible”. While still imaginary, the dystopic society is often more defined than any utopic counterpart. The former can be an unnamed city in a future America, as is the case with Fahrenheit 451. Unlike the utopian society, the dystopian state is generally set in an existing place, though set in the future. Having a future setting is not limited to the dystopia however as there is another interpretation of the utopia which brings the utopia and dystopia much closer in terms of setting. This kind of utopia is called euchronia: “The projection of the utopian wishes into the future implied a change in the very nature of utopia – and thus a derivation neologism was born. From eu/utopia, the good/non-place, we move to euchronia, the good place in the future” (Vieira 9). By placing a utopic world in the future, suddenly whatever model is being presented is placed within time and thus within the realm of possibility. While the old utopias remained but a wish for something that would never happen, new utopias offer hope for a
better future. The dystopian novel is structured similarly and set in the future, as is the case with the four novels discussed in this thesis. This shift is precisely what brings the utopia one step closer to the dystopia. Both concepts now carry a message that is projected onto the future and as such the reader is left with the idea that they may work towards that future. The messages of both become a very real possibility, and the as of yet imaginary places become relevant to the reader as they get a glimpse of what might be their future one day.
The manner in which these messages about a positive future are presented do differ a great deal. This difference highlights the reason why the dystopia is actually more effective than the utopia when it comes to helping people imagine a better future. The utopia is limited in several ways: “Utopists depart from the observation of the society they live in, note down the aspects that need to be changed and imagine a place where those problems have been solved” (Vieira 8) and “society does not evolve slowly towards Utopia but rather appears as an instant or imminent transition from the present system, a break with history” (Bowditch 129). Thus, how these problems are solved is not explained, there is simply an outline of what the author perceives to be a good future. “Such utopias reject their past (faced as
anti-utopian), offer a frozen image of the present, and eliminate the idea of a future from their horizon: there is no progress after the ideal society has been established” (Vieira 9). In other words, such utopias are static in the sense that they only offer a model of a perfect society to compare with the present one. As such, these utopias do not provide possibilities for the future, nor do they change. They only exist as an unchanging imaginary model. The dystopia is the opposite in this regard: it presents a problematic society and explains how it came to be. The reasoning behind the decisions that led to a dystopic society can be found in the acts of rebellion of the characters, as they too are in search of answers of what happened and how they can change the situation. In doing so it provides an answer how to avoid the bad decisions and how to create a better world at the same time.
Aside from terms such as euchronia, another term is useful to understanding the message of the dystopian novel. The term itself has already been mentioned above, namely the anti-utopia. The exact definitions of anti-utopia and satirical anti-utopia are not entirely reliable. Unlike utopia and dystopia, the meaning of anti-utopia is not as clearly defined and has been a source of confusion for several reasons. For that reason, the term dystopia will be used to refer to all four novels, though it is worth looking at several of the anti-utopia’s definitions. They offer more insight into the critique offered in all four novels, in particular the warnings regarding mass-consumption, capitalism and consumerism.
First, a couple of reasons why the term will not be used throughout the entire thesis. The most important reason is that many authors use the term interchangeably with dystopia:
“Dystopia’ is often used interchangeably with ‘anti-utopia’ or ‘negative utopia’, by contrast to utopia or ‘eutopia’ (good place), to describe a fictional portrayal of a society in which evil, or negative social and political
developments have the upper hand, or as a satire of utopian aspirations which attempts to show up their fallacies, or which demonstrate, in B. F. Skinner’s words, ‘ways of life we must be sure to avoid’ – in the unlikely event that we can agree on particulars.” (Claeys 107)
Here, it is stated that the exact meaning of the dystopia is not entirely set in stone and it is no different than the anti-utopia. The fact that the anti-utopia is mentioned at all is not
necessarily a given. There are enough works on the utopia and dystopia which do not even mention the term, as is the case with Abram’s Glossary or the Oxford English Dictionary. This would imply that even if there were a difference between the anti-utopia it is negligent as it would have been mentioned otherwise. Others insist that there is a difference between the dystopia and the anti-utopia but even then, the exact definition varies per author. For
example, “Lyman Tower Sargent’s anti-utopia is in common use as a substitute for dystopia, but as such it is often inaccurate, and it is useful to have a term to describe those works that use the utopian form to attack either utopias in general or a specific utopia” (Balasopoulos 60). The author here disagrees with using anti-utopia in the same manner as dystopia and instead suggests that anti-utopia takes the form of an already existing utopia but twists it in such a way it critiques itself. The reason why the difference between the two is perhaps difficult to grasp is because the two terms are not mutually exclusive. According to this and other likeminded definitions, a dystopia can be anti-utopia at the same time: if the above mentioned definition of the anti-utopia is used (thus critiquing an existing utopia, taking its form and highlighting the flaws), at no point then does it clash with the dystopia. The dystopia means a bad place at its simplest and if a utopia becomes a bad place through the twisting of its own form, then it would be both a dystopia and an anti-utopia.
Apart from being connected to the dystopia, the anti-utopia is also related to the satirical utopia. This matters because the definition helps with locating one of the warnings given in all four the novel and because the critique on the utopia connects it to the dystopia. In order to understand how the two concepts are linked together, satire itself must first be defined. Satire can be understood “as a pleasurable and instructive censure of human vice” (Heiserman 164) and “a poetic genre in that it employed feigned matter, and that unlike other poetic forms it taught virtue by attacking vice, perhaps by revealing the causes of vice” (163). Thus, a satirical work pretends to be one thing while meaning the complete opposite.
“Satirical anti-Utopias […are] works which attack previous works or intellectual traditions by exposing them as impractically and unrealistically “Utopian”, and which use this critique to delegitimize the authority of their prescriptions concerning the good life or the good society” (Balasopoulos 61). Simply put, when applied to the utopia, satire means that the work takes on the form of a utopia and uses the apparent virtues and ideals in such a way they are now
vices, thus instructing the reader in the hidden dangers of a utopia and turning it into a dystopia at the same time. Considering the fact that the anti-utopia takes the form of the utopia as well in order to criticise it, the anti -utopia, the satirical utopia and the satirical utopia are arguably the same thing. Claeys’ explanation offers insight as to why the anti-utopia and the concept of satire are important when it comes to understanding dystopic novels, including the four discussed in this thesis.
“The Satire[…] is as much upon contemporary materialism and consumerism as upon the eugenic super-state; it is upon the threads which connect America with the Germany of Hitler and the Russia of Stalin, the human willingness to renounce a more diverse life in favour of certainty and stability, the ‘primal and the ultimate need.” (116)
All four novels have some degree of materialism and consumerism in them as part of the system to main control over all the citizens, though Brave New World truly fits this
description. Materialism and consumerism play a significant part in keeping the people placid and the government (the World Controllers) Considering our contemporary societies in which materialism and consumerism play a very large role, the novels and their critique become even more relevant. On top of that, the satirical utopia proves that it is relatively easy to make a dystopia out of a utopia. Thus, the two cannot be all that different, and it proves that there is a dissatisfaction with the utopic form.
The critique on utopic form is not misplaced. It lacks the awareness of the flaws of society and of human beings in general is limited to the dystopia. The utopia is as a result blindly optimistic which in turn leads to another connection to the dystopia: a utopia can become a dystopia:
“However, Sally L. Kitch in Higher Ground: From Utopianism to Realism in American Feminist Thought and Theory (2000) warns of the dangers of Utopia in feminist thought, arguing that utopianism can easily slip towards totalitarianism (55). According to Kitch, utopias establish a destructive false dichotomy between “us” and “them” (56)” (Bowditch 127).
Essentially, there are those who obey the utopic ideals and those who do not. But who decides what ideas are the ideals? In both the dystopia and the utopia the government is key to creating and maintaining ideals. This provides a reason how a utopia can change so
dramatically, consider this: in a perfect place, one would expect its citizens to be very happy. Happiness is the underlying goal to utopia, but also to many dystopias. Three of the four novels discussed (except 1984) make it very clear that they wish to attain happiness and thus they started out as utopias. Where these states went wrong is made obvious by the following quotes: “Dystopia, it could be argued, is the other side of Utopia. Barbara Goodwin and Keith Taylor argue, in The Politics Utopia, that the quest for Utopia is highly subjective and
culturally specific: “One man’s paradise is another’s Inferno” (1?)” (Bowditch 128) and “Whether a given text can be described as a dystopia or utopia will depend on one’s
perspective of the narrative outcome” (Claeys 108). What both Bowditch and Claeys argue is that interpretation matters and that a concept can have two entirely different meanings as a result. This is what happened to the definition of happiness: its interpretation has from its original meaning, either due the governments, historical events or a combination thereof. Happiness now means order, complacency and control: the utopian impulse is itself inherently dystopian. That is to say, the desire to create a much improved society in which human behaviour is dramatically superior to the norm implies an intrinsic drift towards punitive methods of controlling behaviour which inexorably results in some form of police state” (Claeys 108). The value placed on control can be a utopia’s downfall, as the need for
control becomes greater than the need for happiness and any other goal. All four novels have such a police state, and three of the four states (apart from 1984) have the aim to keep people
happy. Of course, the price for happiness is a lack of freedom and in all three cases the true
meaning of happiness has been lost. Rather, the desire for happiness may have been there once but has since then changed to mat h the State’s desire to keep people calm and
functioning. Still, the intentions were born from goodwill though they went too far in trying to create the perfect state, much as Claeys says. Therefore, Fahrenheit 451, We and Brave
New World might have started out as utopias but have since then been transformed into
dystopic worlds. In order to achieve both control and the illusion of happiness, the definition of the happiness had to be adapted so it does not clash with control. Thus happiness has come to mean a tranquil and completely controlled life and utopic ideal can unwittingly turn dystopic. This is not the intention of the utopia as it intends to give a positive image of a place, but it may be a consequence. The dystopia, though inherently negative in its way of providing a message about the future, is more successful in giving a more reliable vision of a hopeful future. The dystopia is already aware of the dangers hidden within the utopia, as a dystopia itself is a direct reflection of the utopia gone wrong. The dystopia is in no danger of accidentally becoming the complete opposite of what it was intended to be. Unlike the utopia, the dystopia can carry a message of a positive future while at the same time acknowledging the dangers of society.
1. Totalitarian Governments and the Conditions for Subversion
1.1 The Dystopian States
The dystopian novel presents the reader with a government or state which uses its all controlling power in a very bad way, resulting in the necessity of subversion. The central powers in charge are generally all based on the same type of system, which is the totalitarian state. This term is defined as a “system of government which tolerates only one political party, to which all other institutions are subordinated, and which usually demands the complete subservience of the individual to the State” (OED). This chapter will define how each government seeks to control it subjects and how this may drive people to rebel. The flaws of the system and the resulting opportunities for subversion will be explained as well. All four novels have either a city, government or state which is totalitarian as they demand obedience from their citizens. In We there is the One State and the leader is only referred to as The Benefactor. Brave New World has the World State which is controlled by ten World Controllers in total. The part of the World State as shown in the novel is West Europe whose World Controller is Mustapha Mond. Then there The Party which controls Oceania in 1984, with its four ministries of Love, Peace, Plenty and Truth. The leader of The Party is called Big Brother, though it is unclear if it is really a single existing person. Lastly, Fahrenheit 451 is located in an unnamed city in future America. The true leader or leaders are not mentioned, although one group of enforcers are named and shown. These enforcers, called Firemen, are there to ensure on very specific law of the city is carried out. What becomes clear from these names and titles is that most of them carry a positive message, or at least do not evoke an immediate negative association. Only the World State and the World Controllers sounds ominous, and to a degree the One State. However, The Party’s ministries convey a positive
message, as do the titles of the Benefactor and the Firemen. They imply that whatever it is they exactly do, it could not be bad. It is ironic then, that they mean the exact opposite, such as the ministries of The Party. In truth, the Ministry of Peace handles everything war related, the Ministry of Truth concerns itself with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. Fahrenheit 451’s Firemen do not douse the flames but create fires instead. The Benefactor is not a good leader in the sense that he is at the head of a system that does not benefit anyone at all. The fact that all of these concepts have had their meaning completely reversed so that they appear positive but are in reality extremely
negative has two important implications. Firstly, satire as defined by the previous chapter is at work here, as virtue becomes vice. It takes utopic ideals but gives them a dystopic
meaning thus once more connecting the two. Secondly, there is a very good reason that States make use of positive designations, because this tactic helps to keep a State’s citizens under control. The totalitarian government employs this tactic in order to undermine its totalitarian nature. The totalitarian states requires absolute obedience and this is made easier through positive associations. This is not to say that no person sees through this tactic. The main character of 1984, Winston, knows very well what the ministries really are and the tactic employed only serves to make him more angry and promotes more subversive thoughts. This is the case with many of the other means employed to control characters: the characters who deviate from the norm are motivated towards rebellion rather than placated by most of the measures taken to control people.
1.2 The Means Of Control
All four novels have a single central power in the form of a state or government which attempts to control everything, down to each individual. In general, the tighter the leash, the more people tend to fight against it. “What is more important and perhaps not so obvious is
that all three books (Brave New World, We and 1984) share an implicit assumption: that the more complex and highly organised a society becomes, the less free are its individual members. All three works assume the direction of modern European society is toward larger and more complex organization , and that the regimented world of Ford, Taylor, or the proletarian extremists will result at last in the disappearance of the individual human being in favour of the mass” (Brown 221). Bearing in mind that the totalitarian government tries to do away with freedom entirely, the leash would be very tight. Thus, in order for rebellion to exist, the totalitarian government is an absolute necessity. Then what is it about a totalitarian system which makes the existence of subversion a given? The answer to this is because these states demand absolute obedience and are willing to use extreme measures to reach this level of compliance. Some governments are far more controlling than others, such as the World Controllers.
It is totalitarian system itself which allows for subversion to grow. Any totalitarian state will always reach the conclusion that in order to ensure the compliance of all and thus maintaining order, the thoughts of every single individual must be controlled:
“The twentieth century saw the emergence of dystopian fiction and satire such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984, and Ray
Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. These novels imagined a world where the individual loses all agency and everything from thoughts to reproduction are controlled by the state. Big Brother, a mechanical hound, and other methods of surveillance become the status quo” (Bowditch 128)
It is the loss of agency and the demand to give up free thought which will not sit well with people of such a society. The main character of 1984 in particular resents the Party because of these reasons. The characters in Fahrenheit 451 and We are less resentful and only come to
realise the true extend of the severity of the situation after going through a long process. In all cases however, the characters of each novel are already different than the general citizen. In one way or another, they slightly deviate from the norm with the result that they do not entirely feel comfortable with the rules placed upon them. Due to the incredible strictness of these rules, which is especially true for the totalitarian system, these characters feel
increasingly more ostracized by their own government. This in turn breeds contempt and in the end, rather than questioning themselves the characters begin to question the state: it is not they who are wrong, but the State who enforces such strict views of what an individual must be. They cannot reconcile themselves with the demands of the totalitarian government and as a result they see no other option than to rebel against the system.
That a character must deviate from the norm in order for them to become a rebel partially explains why there seem to be so few rebels inside the totalitarian society. Another reason is that the system is generally self-aware enough that it expects resistance and there a many systems set in place in order to ensure that few people will ever fight the system: “a common theme the quasi-omnipotence of a monolithic, totalitarian state demanding and normally exacting complete obedience from its citizens, challenged occasionally but usually ineffectually by vestigial individualism or systemic flaws, and relying upon scientific and technological advances to ensure social control” (Claeys 109). The dystopian states of the four novels rely very heavily upon science and technology when it comes to controlling everyone. Before the characters are able to turn against rebellion, they must first overcome the systems used to control people which the totalitarian state has put into place. The systems do differ between the novels, but there are certain key elements which are required in order for the level of control to work. It all comes down to controlling every inch of an individual’s life, the most important parts of their lives: reproduction, relationships, education and work. To begin with reproduction and relationships, the act of sex is either reviled or promiscuity is
encouraged and even the norm. In either case, attachment is forbidden. In We, every citizen belongs to another thus everyone can have sex with whomever they want, as it the case in
Brave New World as well. However, long-term relationships are a taboo and the concept of
parenthood is something barbaric. This is done very deliberately so that the state may create and raise the children, making sure to control their lives and thus thoughts from the earliest moment. 1984 shies away from the act of sex altogether, though with the similar goal of dissuading any attachments to another. Fahrenheit 451 does allow for people to marry, but relationships are very shallow and there is a lack of emotional attachment here as well. There is a state of superficiality: there are no radical emotions, thus no bad emotion either. The act of severing attachment to any person is done for one specific reason. By manipulating each citizen to abhor attachment to a person, attachment to the ideals of state a formed instead. If a person loves another person more than they love the state and its ideals then there is no true obedience, at least the complete compliance the totalitarian state demands from its citizens. As will become clear in chapter four however, eradicating love in its entirety is incredibly difficult which in turn makes subversion much more likely.
In any event, children are essentially property of the totalitarian state and by erasing the concept parenthood, the education of children can be influence as early as in the womb or bottle. In 1984 it is through technological and scientific advances that babies now grow in bottles instead of a womb. This advanced form of genetic engineering ensures that each citizen is made according to the wishes of the World Controllers (the government) as well as ensuring that certain social values are being upheld, such as the abhorrence of the parental figures. This is but one example of the extend of the control of the government and a very extreme one at that. In a totalitarian state, education becomes indoctrination: children are no longer taught about the world, they are fed the ideals from the state from a very early age and are taught to obey the State’s wishes. The opinions of the dystopian state are literally forced
upon them. A very grim example of this is the tactic seen in Brave New World’s, in which babies are taught to hate that which the state wants them to hate, such as books or nature. This is achieved by electrocuting the children while they are exposed to books and roses (Huxley 23).This in turn ensures that when grown, these people will have an aversion to anything that has to do with nature and the intellectual. In a similar vein, the children are taught to like whatever has to do with their preordained job. By teaching children from such a young age, any thoughts that are not in line with the ideals of the State are minimized.
Indoctrination proves to be imperfect as clearly there are still characters who defy their teachings. This is possible due to the fact that the totalitarian state has the paradoxical habit of both acknowledging and ignoring any flaws within the system. We provides an excellent example of this flawed thought pattern while at the same time demonstrating that an ideal of the state can be turned against it. The One State in We reveres logical and mathematical reasoning above all, as this creates order. To a state which seeks to control every individual, order is of the utmost importance. Therefore, one would think that in order to rebel against the system, people would have to think anti-mathematically as math is essentially used as a means to control the masses. Even the language of the book reflect this: “And in the novel We with its clipped telegraphic manner and swift ellipses he attempts to suggest the
rationalized thought and simplified language of the twenty-ninth century, disturbed, it’s true, by constant interference”( Brown 35). Language and thought have been made simpler
through math, with the goal of avoiding complicated thought patterns and affirming loyalty to the One State in the form of adoration of its mathematical principles. However, ‘the
arithmetic design of the constituent parts of the Single State and the mathematical indoctrination of its citizens do not suffice to make the utopia mathematically secure, let alone politically state’ (Cooke 150). The main character, D-503 proves this mathematical insecurity by being incredibly focused on math. He connect everything to formulas and
mathematical rules, even the appearance of other characters. I-330’s smile seems ‘X-ishnness’ to him for example (Zamyatin 9) It is his intelligence and his mathematical knowledge which provide both insight in the flaws of the system and how to exploit them. The citizens of the One State have been indoctrinated according to the State’s ideologies, but “the ideologists of the Single State, to judge by D-503’s statements, are only comfortable with simple notions, such as were developed at the beginning of mathematics” (Cooke 151). There is a limit to what is being taught because ‘advanced notions are considered to be threatening and, consequently, are largely ignored’(Cooke 151). What the One State fails to realise is that ignoring the problem will not make it go away. This example essentially holds true for all four states. It demonstrates that there remains a possibility that some people may develop more advanced knowledge or free thought in general. As long as this is ignored then there will be room for subversion to grow.
Even so, there are more systems put into place which keep people in check as best as they can. Again, there are flaws in the execution of control which result in possibilities for rebellion. As for the measures, there are many similarities between the four dystopic states. Technology and science are of great importance and the means with which the states control people make use of future advances. In order to keep people complacent, the States favour a combination of drugs, addictions, scheduled days and constant surveillance. In Brave New
World, citizens voluntarily take soma, a drug which allows them to escape reality. In the
book, this is literally referred to as going ‘on vacation’: “Lenina felt herself entitled, after this day of queerness and horror, to a complete and absolute holiday. As soon as they got back to the rest-house, she swallowed six half-gramme tablets of soma, lay down on her bed, and within ten minutes had embarked for lunar eternity” (Huxley 122). Drugs prevent any sort of extreme emotion, self-reflection and thus individual thought. Order is kept and due to the addiction to drugs, people are handily kept in a perpetual state of complacency. That is, if the
drugs are taken. While taking soma is heavily encouraged, it is not forced upon people. Coincidentally, the characters in the book who choose not to take soma are already prone to self-reflection and to doubting the system. Even when the drugs are taken, they do not prevent the rebellious thoughts from occurring. Instead the outsider Bernard Marx took them, and begins to question life in the State more as the drugs do not have the desired effect. They only serve to reinforce his status as outsider. As for technology, the means based on
technological advances have a similar function and a similar problem. We features ‘Seashells’ which are essentially modern day earbuds through which radio mindlessly chatters on and on unless they are taken out (Bradbury 10). The main character Guy Montag never wears them but his wife does. To his horror, he finds that he is losing her to her Seashells and the parlor, room where the walls are screens with programmes in order to keep people from thinking: “Well , wasn’t there a wall between him and Mildred, when you came down to it? Literally not just one wall but, so far, three! And expensive too! And the uncles, the aunts, the cousins, the nieces, the nephews, that lived in those walls, the gibbering pack of tree-apes that said nothing, nothing, nothing and said it loud, first” (Bradbury 41). The ‘family’ as spoken of, are simply people on TV who react to the watcher and use their name. The watcher in turn feels more connected to this fake family then actual people, and this alienation is precisely the goal.
Similarly, the constant surveillance becomes increasingly more frustrating to the characters who already have doubts about the system. Constant surveillance such as Big Brother and the Firemen makes potential rebels hesitant to take action. Mass surveillance is generally a very effective means of keeping people in line: “mass surveillance would make the transition to a disciplinary power, as people’s every movement would be recorded” (Foucault 1977). The fear of getting caught and the consequences are terrible so even the few who have subversive thoughts might not act on it. Moreover, there is another type of
surveillance going on in all four novels, one that is much more effective and can understood through Foucault’s view on surveillance: “Suitable behaviour is achieved not through total surveillance, but by panoptic discipline and inducing a population to conform by the internalization of this reality” (Foucault 1977). The citizens of each state have mass
surveillance completely internalized. Not only do they feel as if they are being watched every moment of every day even though they are not, the average citizen is part of the surveillance system itself as well. People keep each other in line, correct each other or even warn higher-ups about any misbehaving citizens. In Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451, any statements which contradict the ideals of the State are frowned upon and considered as shocking. Thus, people who have them are hesitant to state any of these thoughts out loud. That does not prevent free thought on its own though. Apart from that, the more frustrated a character is, the more motivated they are for a like-minded person or group. Mass surveillance, even internalized, does not stop atypical thoughts and serves to create dissatisfaction and bring those unhappy with the system together .
For some characters the process of finding other rebels is made easier because there are other factions then the state out there in the world. In those case, the states often maintain an ‘out of sight out of mind’ policy. In Fahrenheit 451, if you manage to escape the city and the Hound (a mechanical monster which hunts down dissidents), then that means freedom has been won. That and there are other people in small groups living in the outdoors. We and
1984 have a rebel base, though the main character in 1984 was deceived when trying to
contact the rebels. In a Brave New World, those who think differently are exiled to remote Island and there is also the Savage Reservation, a place where people still live as they used to do. There are families, gods, illnesses and old age but there is also freedom. In other words, there are other rebels or even better, an outside world where things are the way they used to be. This outside world is generally the complete opposite of the totalitarian states. The living
conditions as described are radically opposed but also the setting matters. The other place is set in nature, either a village or as a group of people wandering through the rolling hills. That which has been lost in the totalitarian systems can be found in such places:
“All three works (Brave New World, 1984 and WE) assume that certain indispensable human values- respect for the individual person, love, honour, and even poetry – are “somehow” (and this somehow conceals another logical trap) preserved on the lower and less well-organised levels of life while they disappear from the higher. “If there is hope for humanity,” says Orwell’s Winston, “It is in the proles,” who have not forgotten how to sing, the hairy creatures “outside the wall” in We must revivify the effete automatons of the City ; and in Huxley’s novel the romantic theme of the “noble savage” (Brown 222)
Thus the vices have been assigned to higher organised societies, such as the totalitarian systems. The values which are important for a person to truly be a happy individual can be found in those cities and villages outside the system. Those who rebel against the system may realise this or project their own fantasies upon the outside world. “In We, I-330 and D-503 similarly attempt to escape the conventions of their time by finding their way outside the glass wall to the hairy creatures who still live among the “debris” of nature” (Brown 23). This quote does not only show that the outside provides an opportunity to escape, but also that the manner in which they live outside of the State is very basis. In Brave New World, the outside is treated with ridicule and no one wants to be banished to Iceland. Even so, in general the world outside is meant to provide hope for the future and a motivation for subversion as it allows the character to think they’re not alone.
What can be concluded here is that even though the extensive systems set in place to limit subversion, they cannot erase it entirely. The dystopic state expects resistance and to counteract this they implement even stricter rules. This in turn results in more and more people growing increasingly frustrated with the rules and so a vicious circle is created. There are always flaws within the totalitarian system and the system itself will always push those who deviate from the norm towards rebellion. The lack of freedom can and will not be tolerated by those with individual thought. The solutions provide prove to be effective, but only to a certain degree. Subversion is therefore as inevitable as it is necessary.
2. Free Thought encouraged Through The Written Word
2.1 The Significance of the Written Word
The totalitarian and dystopic society allows for little leeway when it comes to rebellious thoughts. As described in the previous chapter, there are all sorts of measures take in order to prevent people from rebellion and thus primarily preventing them from thinking. Because the systems are imperfect, they allow for subversion to grow. In 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave
New World, the main characters are dissatisfied with the system which is the first step
towards subversion. At the beginning of the story they already have doubts about whether the State is truly the best option. The exception to the rule is D-503 in We, who at the starts clearly adores his society, its rules and customs. He was in every aspect a model citizen who obeyed every law and who was highly dismissive towards the past. The State encourage this view: they were better than those barbaric people of the past who lived without order and structure. Yet much like the other characters, eventually D-503 develops rebellious thoughts as well. The implications of an exemplary citizen doubting the Totalitarian system are significant. If someone like D-503 can develop such thoughts, then others could follow as well, if they followed in his footsteps. As for D-503, his first step towards subversion is due to the written word. D-503 is an engineer who has helped design a spacecraft and he has been asked to write a journal which is supposed to be send along with the spacecraft. The journal is meant to explain why the One State is a great system and though the journal starts out
praising the State, it certainly does not remain that way. Somewhere along the line, the tone of the journal starts to change. D-503 begins to write down questions instead of certain answers and later on even his doubts. This is precisely why the written word matter, either in the form of a journal or a book. A journal helps a person with self-reflection and the
rather than those of the state. Writing a journal is the first step towards self-awareness, to the individual and thus also to subversion. Reading a book leads to the acquisition of knowledge which in turn too helps a person develop a self. A reader has to think about what they have read and often unwittingly form an opinion, which is most likely not the same as that of the State, especially not if the book is forbidden. Thus, the written word is generally one of the first instigators of subversion.
All novels deal with the written word in different way, though at the same time they overlap as well. In We and 1984, the main characters both write a journal. In this chapter, We will be used for analysis rather than 1984 because Winston writes his journal because he already is dissatisfied with the system: “his pen had slid voluptuously over the smooth paper, printing in large neat capitals- DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER […] over and over again, filling half a page” (Orwell 20). He has rebellious thoughts from the very beginning of the story and used the journal to express himself, which reinforces the idea that the journal helps to form an individual opinion. As explained however, D-503 has not yet arrived at that point when he begins writing. The significance of being able to read his changing thoughts and opinions in his journal allow for an even more substantial connection between the written word and subversion. For a similar reason, Fahrenheit 451 rather than Brave New World will be used for an analysis of the value of books in the road towards rebellion. Savage John is the second main character of Brave New World who later turns out to be the real protagonist, and he has grown up reading Shakespeare and as such has based his morals on what he has read. These values do not line up with those of the London which is part of one of the World States. Much like Winston, John is quick to become disillusioned with the State and holds on to his books as his moral guidelines. Guy Montag has an even more noteworthy relationship with books. His job as a fireman demands that he burns down any and all books, yet later it turns out he had quite a few books stowed away in his own house. He was drawn to all those
books despite the rules which were very clear in the regard that he is supposed to burn every last page. The reason for this attraction is the fact that the books inspire him to think, to learn and to question and above all, form his own opinion. At the end of the story it is also made very clear that books are the key to a better future because they allow people to learn from their mistakes.
2.2. D-503’s Self-Reflection Through Journal
Before having a closer look at Montag and his books, D-503’s journal inspired journey will be explored first. As mentioned in the first chapter, The One State is very much focused on math and simplified rationale. Like any other totalitarian government, the One State seeks to control every individual and this manifests itself in the Table of Hours. This Table control the hours: it decides what and when everybody does everything. The Table has one flaw which is the Personal Hour. As the name already implies, everybody has some time alone to do what they want to do. The control exerted over the citizens is near complete, but it is this one Personal Hour which allows D-503 to write his journal which help him develop a sense of self. D-503 is a smart man compared to many others and if given the chance capable of self-reflection but had before no time to do so as the One State realizes the importance of keeping its citizens occupied as demonstrated by The Table. This way, citizens are both productive and they will not have the time to reflect back upon anything, much less think dangerous thoughts. However, the Personal Hour is the opening D-503 needs. It seems highly unlikely at first that D-503 will become an individual capable of free thought as he acts according to the Table and even disapproves of the Personal Hour. At this point, his indoctrination proves to be very successful: “but I firmly believe- call me an idealist or fantasist- I believe that sooner or later, one day, we’ll find a place in te general formula for these hours too, one day all of these 86,400 seconds will be accounted for in the Table of Hours” (Zamyatin 13).
D-503 is completely convinced that the Personal Hours will no longer exist one day in the future and heartily approves of this. He is thoroughly entranced by the State’s ideals and wishes. At the beginning, his journal reflect these values: “I’ve come to read and hear many unlikely things about the times when people lived in freedom, i.e., the unorganised savage state. But the most unlikely thing , it seems to me, is this: how could the olden day governmental power-primitive though it was- have allowed people to live without anything like our Table, without the scheduled walks […]” (Zamyatin 13). However, even these statements already make it clear that he is deliberating opinions and starting to question that what was. At this point he still follows the ideas of the One State, but he is writing down his thoughts and in doing so exploring what he knows and more importantly, that which he does not know. D-503 intention was to create this journal in order to contribute knowledge about the State which would be taken with the spaceship. He does explain his State, but at the same time frequently looks back upon the past and he has a lot of questions which he tries to answer through the journal. Lacking a partner to hold discussions with, D-503 holds these
conversations with himself via the journal which help him organise his thoughts so he may form an opinion of his own.
The importance of writing down one’s thoughts is not entirely apparent at the start but with every page the tone of the journal changes. Even the stylistic choices aid in this
visualisation of change. D-503 sentences at the beginning of the journal are much short, more concrete and factual then they are during the middle, when he begins to question his life and the State. It is a gradual process, and the final result only truly reveals itself when all the events in the journal are compared with each other. Only then does the personal journey of D-503 truly reveal its worth. The journal provides an excellent opportunity for both D-D-503 and the reader to reflect upon D-503’s thoughts. By writing down his thoughts, D-503 was capable to interact with his own ideas which led to them developing as they were given the
time to do so. This was a process uncontrolled by the One State and the results are significant. D-503 begin to grow conscious of his own place in the system and its flaws, especially when he meets I-330. Their relationship will be further touched upon in the fifth chapter. For now it the way D-503 uses the journal proves that the smallest amount of leeway can be exploited to the fullest. First writing about the wonder of the One State, then the questions about the Ancients and finally his tumultuous interactions and eventual relationship with I-330: what D-503 values in life changes drastically.
The journal plays an important role in the development of awareness though it is not enough to motivate him to take matters into his own hand. D-503 needs more to fight his indoctrination and the key to this is his relationship with I-330. What can be concluded is that the journal serves as a conduit for thought and emotions. Without the ability for
self-reflection, the change in opinion would most likely have taken longer.
2.3. Books Encourage Personal Development
Fahrenheit 451 is straightforward in how to handle any book: burn them all. Books are
deemed to be no longer useful and the people no longer have a need for them. Yet Guy Montag, once a dedicated Fireman, now hoards the very same books he is supposed to burn to ashes. Unlike his fellow citizens, he sees the worth of books and thus of knowledge. The act of hiding books itself is a gross breach of the rules set. Curiosity wins out and now
Montag seeks to find more. With every text he finds, he learns more both about the world that was and about himself. Again the written words inspires and leads to a self-awareness that lacks in those who do not read or interact with books.
Unlike The One State, where books are still allowed though they’re dumbed down, in Montag’s unnamed city books are a taboo. This was apparently not a conscious decision of a
totalitarian state but rather a slow development of people as whole. At one point, people simply read less and less, and institutions which promoted knowledge were shut down one by one. Montag’s boss Beatty clearly explains the general view on books as a whole:
“I’ve had to read a few in my time, to know what I was about, and the books say nothing! Nothing you can teach or believe. They’re about non-existent people, figments of the imagination, if they’re fiction. And if they’re
nonfiction, it’s worse, one professor calling another an idiot, one philosopher screaming down another’s gullet. All of them running about, putting out the stars and extinguishing the sun. You come away lost!” (Bradbury 59). The situation as described here is actually worse than a totalitarian government banning books, people decided they were no longer of value. They stopped to read voluntarily: “Orwell imagined a world where free thought and speech were suppressed, and books were banned. Huxley saw a world where people could say or read whatever they wanted, but no one had anything to say or any desire to read” (Heybach xii). Much like Fahrenheit 451, the citizens of Brave New World too have simply lost the desire to read and think for themselves. The contradiction presented here is that the people in these novels have more freedom but have no desire to use it, while the citizens of 1984 actively struggle, and those of We divided. This type of behaviour is not entirely unexpected as “complexity and contradiction,
recognition of diversity, mutuality and compromise and dialogue-all the basics of life as it is actually loved- these are the enemies of every form of fundamentalism on earth” (xiii). Fundamentalism as defined here means “an economic or political doctrinaire” (OED). The need for simplicity has already been mentioned several times and what now becomes clear is not just the need for a simple language but also simplicity of thought. Indeed, totalitarians have nothing to learn since all the answers are ready-made and at-hand, and nothing to lose
since the goal is one-dimensional and rather simple: my way or no way, and therefore, a vicious fight to the finish with the infidels.” (xiii) The ‘us versus them’ rhetoric has returned and Montag firmly plants himself in the camp of the other with his actions. What is
remarkable about the fact that he rebels against the above stated totalitarian pattern of thinking is that he manages to be inspired into action at all. But his actions prove, alongside those of other rebels, that subversion remains possible even under the worst circumstances.
Apathy is the real enemy as proposed here and the true underlying danger, and Montag manages to beat this off. He seeks out books because they make him emotional. For the same reason, his fellow citizens swear books off: they no longer know how to deal with their emotions. Many of them feel nothing, or even worse claim they feel nothing but are secretly deeply unhappy. The definition of happiness returns: people have been convinced of that the definition of happiness is apathy and mindless actions. They are incapable of
realising their own unhappiness, as demonstrated by Mildred’s suicide-attempt. At the beginning of the novel, she took too many pills and was saved though it was all without any emotion. In fact, the machine which saved her claimed it was just a routine procedure, implying that many others faced similar circumstances. Thus, the population is unhappy but has unlearned how to act. Only those who remember books or where intellectuals know what a good life should look like. Mildred herself did not know how to react when Morgan tried to read out loud to her and she never managed to understand the meaning of books. She along with the rest of the city perished in a bombing due to the war no one cared about. Morgan survived, his books burned but the knowledge safe in his mind. This proves the importance of knowledge and books: they are vital for subversion and even more important, in order to avoid the terrible fate of that city the reader should stay away from technology once in a while and most of all never stop reading. In any case, both the journal and the book prove to be significant in both subversion and decoding the warning of the book. Yet what should be
kept in mind is that Montag survived, with several other people who do know the value of books. There is a light at the tunnel, though the tunnel is very long from the looks of it.
3. Longing for The Past Provides a Vision for the Future
3.1. Nostalgia Motivates Subversive
So far, physical objects which can result in subversive behaviour have been discussed. A less tangible means of subversion is nostalgia. Longing can be incredibly powerful and it does not necessarily have to be negative or problematic. When it comes to the dystopia and the
totalitarian system, nostalgia can unite people who already have doubt about the present and offer them a vision of the past so that they may better the future with it. Out of all four novels, there are two in which nostalgia plays an important role when it comes to bettering the future. The protagonists of Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World both long for a past they never knew but get to now through the books they read. Thus, apart from helping to develop a sense of individuality, books are connected to nostalgia as well. Books are banned an thus the only books left are those of the past. When the characters encounter these books, their sense of wrongness in regards to the State suddenly makes sense: there was once a better world, and with the help of the knowledge in the books, the best parts of the past may be brought back in an act of subversion. Nostalgia is therefore used as a way to critique the dystopian society. Through longing, the flaws of the system become clear and without
longing serving as motivation and inspiration, no action would be undertaken to rebel against the system. Nostalgia is what enables subversion of the dystopian society as it brings the flaws of the system to light and provides the motivation to do something about the situation.
3.2 Defining Nostalgia in Fahrenheit 451
There always remains the possibility for subversiveness as human nature is what enables resistance, but it is nostalgia that makes Montag want to rebel in the first place. Without
longing, Montag would never have undertaken any action to help shape a better future. The definition of longing and thus nostalgia is crucial in understanding Montag as a character. The exact definition of nostalgia in literature varies greatly, and Montag’s version of it seems a combination of several. To begin with, “nostalgia can be conceptualized as distinct from homesickness. Nostalgia is yearning for aspects of one’s past, a yearning that may include but is not limited to one’s homeland. This yearning may pertain, for example, to events, persons, or sights” (Sededikes 3). Not all definitions include the possibility of longing for a person though this is certainly the case for Montag. He meets his new neighbour, a young girl named Clarissa. Unlike the norm set by society, Clarisse is observant and inquisitive, endlessly so. Montag completely baffled by her behaviour and even scared but she inspires him and makes him question his own beliefs as well. When he overhears the family actually talk with each other, instead of against each other, he truly wonders what he is missing. He longs for such discussions, for their curiosity and their shared knowledge. Thus, his nostalgia takes form and can be defined as a longing for a home he never experienced. He imagines that all the things he longs for have existed in the past. As such, his longing can be connected to Bassin’s extended meaning of nostalgia, which denotes an incomplete form of mourning for an idealized past (Batcho 4). Though Montag may idealize the past, what he longs for has existed at some point and more importantly, this idealization of the past gives him hope. This positive effect of nostalgia is not defined in any of these definitions, yet it is crucial to
Montag’s motivation.
The full force of nostalgia sets in when Clarisse and her family suddenly go missing. He longs to have them back as they represent the past he so dearly misses. Lacking the option to do so, he moves on to the next best thing: reading his hidden books. It is here when he first acts on his longing and tries to bring back parts of the past in the form of books. He tries to talk to his wife as he had seen Clarisse’s family do. At this point in the story, Montag’s
longing manifests as “an over- whelming craving that persists and profoundly interferes with the individual’s attempts to cope with his present circumstances” (Batcho 4) This may imply that his nostalgia something undesirable but through melancholia and nostalgia he becomes self-aware. “Kant saw in the combination of melancholy, nostalgia and self-awareness as a unique aesthetic sense that did not objectify the past but rather heightened one’s sensitivity to the dilemmas of life and moral freedom” (The Future of Nostalgia 13). The growing
realization that he is indeed different than the people around him changes him. Montag begins to recognise the flaws of the system for what they are. Nostalgia becomes a political impetus and the means for Montag to critique the system.
The fact that Montag develops as an individual set apart from society invokes another sort of nostalgia, one Neumann describes as “a reaction to the potential alienation of
individuation, “being oneself is still a wearisome and painful experience” (Batcho 3). Again, the focus here is connected to a negative experience. While not stating that nostalgia is negative itself, neither does this definition offer the possibility for positive influence. Peters definition rectifies this by “proposing that many cases of nostalgia manifest unresolved problems in oneness/ separation and omnipotence/ helplessness, with nostalgia providing the motivation to persist in “the grueling work of individuation” (Batcho 3). Montag’s personal development is grueling and it is through nostalgia that he maintains the will to actively rebel against the system. It is this powerful longing for a better past that continues to serve not only as hope for him, but also for the other pockets of rebels living outside of the city. It is here when the dream of a utopia becomes real again: “Within historical narratives, utopias are, more often than not, nostalgic projections on a reconstructed past or a distant locale. Even in the fictional realms of literature, they rarely occupy a present time and real place but, rather, an imaginary past, an invented present in a faraway site, the future, or the world of fantasy” (Greene 2). Apart from serving as the driving force for change, nostalgia is also what allows
