1984 and Harrison Bergeron – Human Experience

Although it might seem attractive at first sight, the human experience is most commonly
portrayed as an unappealing way of life. George Orwell’s dystopian satirical novel, 1984, and
Kurt Vonnegut’s short story, Harrison Bergeron, demonstrates this and provides
thought-provoking insight into the human experience through the use of key themes such as
individuality versus collective identity, and government control. Both of these themes in both
texts have striking yet deliberate parallels to the Stalinist Soviet Union. In contrast to the positive
and hopeful message prominent in the 1920s, Orwell is critical in his assessment of the human
experience in 1984. Both texts are cautionary tales that aim to teach audiences, however
Orwell’s successful later works were immensely different to his hopeful early writing. He was
deeply worried about the rising power that totalitarian dictators were gaining and he was also
deeply worried about saving humanity from itself. It is with this context and through the themes
of the individual versus collective identity and government control that Orwell and Vonnegut
portray the human experience as an unappealing way of life.

The human experience is thoroughly explored through communist and totalitarian governments,
no doubt an unattractive system. One way a totalitarian regime seeks to stay in power is by
denying human beings their individuality, eradicating independent thought through the use of
propaganda and terror. Through this theme of individuality versus collective identity, the human
experience is portrayed as a dystopic and unattractive lifestyle. This is shown in George
Orwell’s ‘1984’ in the quote,

“When once you were in the grip of the Party, what you felt or did not feel, what you did
or refrained from doing, made literally no difference. Whatever happened you vanished,
and neither you nor your actions were ever heard of again”

In this quote, Winston, the story’s protagonist, has just told his lover Julia, that he has spent his
life feeling guilty for his mother’s death. Having just made this confession, Winston is bitter
about the way that the Party has dismissed his feelings, while also robbing him of any structural
power within the Party itself. The statement "what you did or refrained from doing, made no
difference. Whatever happened you vanished" highlights the lack of individuality due to the
overpowering nature of the government. The first person perspective and high modality
language also helps personalise the text reinforcing it as a real human experience.
The way in which the collective identity of the overpowering government leads to a lack of
individuality is also demonstrated in Kurt Vonnegut’s ‘Harrison Bergeron’ in the quote,

“George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn't be
handicapped. But he didn't get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio
scattered his thoughts.”

In this quote, George, the story’s protagonist, is watching ballet on a television but notices how
heavy bags of lead balls tied around the dancers necks – what the story’s government calls
handicaps – is impeding on their performance. His thoughts begin to wander towards a critique
about the government’s rules about absolute equality, however his thoughts are cut off by his
handicap device – a radio earpiece that plays sharp sounds every 20 seconds or so. The noise
coming from George’s handicap depicts the government’s control over individual’s thoughts, not
allowing anyone to think outside the acceptable norm. This ultimately prevents citizens from
having contradictory opinions or even minor criticisms of the current state of affairs. The use of
stream of consciousness allows readers to gain insight into George’s mind and the ideologies
that the government is instilling in his mind. It is through the use of the theme; the individual
versus collective identity, that Orwell and Vonnegut, portray the human experience as an
unappealing way of life.

The control of reality by the government is also common between the two texts and their
portrayal of the human experience. All totalitarian governments exercise an extremely high
degree of control over all citizens public and personal life. As both texts adopt this type of
government, this type of control is evident. This is seen in ‘1984’ in the quote,

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the
world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other
modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted
once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging
from the principles of Ingsoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is
dependent on words.”

In the appendix to the novel, ‘newspeak’ is thoroughly explained, as well as the plan to
completely replace ‘oldspeak’ by the year 2050. The point of this plan is ‘crimestop’, a concept
introduced in a book written by Emmanuel Goldstein, an exiled former Party leader, who is
vilified by the party as the Enemy of the People. Goldstein describes ‘crimestop’ as a way of
preventing the possibility of subversive or rebellious thoughts. This quote shows that simply the
existence of ‘oldspeak’ - what we know as the English language - could be a threat to complete
dominance of the Party, since it is possible to express any feelings or to think any thoughts in
‘oldspeak’, almost all of which do not conform to the Party’s ideologies. Given this information, if
instead of being set in 1984, the novel was set 2050, none of the events that take place in it
would be possible. Winston’s controversial thoughts about the Party, his diary, and Julia’s note
that reads ‘I love you’ would not be possible to express in ‘newspeak’. Having said this, the final
phrase, ​“at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”​, could suggest some ambiguity
about the possibility of resistance in the future. These symbols of ‘newspeak’ and ‘crimestop’ all
display the government’s relentless power and control over all citizens’ and their reality. This is
similar in ‘Harrison Bergeron’ in the quote,
technique?
“The music began again and was much improved. Harrison and his Empress merely
listened to the music for a while-listened gravely, as though synchronizing their
heartbeats with it. They shifted their weights to their toes. Harrison placed his big hands
on the girl’s tiny waist, letting her sense the weightlessness that would soon be hers.
 And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang! Not only were the
laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well.”

This moment displays the power of the arts - a symbol prominent throughout the text - and its
ability to disrupt the government’s power. Harrison - the story’s titular character - and his
treasonous act is so moving and ethereal that it renders all other laws useless and irrelevant -
even physical laws which perhaps implies that the arts has a supernatural and sublime power
that exists all else. This passage shows the consequences of disobeying the government’s
control, which further demonstrates the magnitude of said control. Immediately following this
passage is the quote,

Diana Moon Glampers . . . came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge
shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit
the floor.”

The governess, Diana Moon Glampers, appears in this passage with a shotgun, subsequently
killing the two rebels. This quite literally, and shockingly shows the control that the government
has over the people of the state. The use of hyperbole in this passage, that is, the complete
absurdity of the story, helps communicate the sheer amount of power that the government has
over its citizens. It is through this theme of government control that Orwell and Vonnegut portray
the human experience as an unappealing way of life.

In their novels, ‘1984’ and ‘Harrison Bergeron’, George Orwell and Kurt Vonnegut portray the
human experience as unappealing, and dystopian through the use of the themes: the individual
versus collective identity and government control. Although the human experience may seem
attractive at first, these two composers portray it as much less appealing than first thought.

If you have time be more consistent with techniques otherwise it reads well and detailed