?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

1984: How George Orwell Got it Wrong

When I was in high school, one of the many books on our required reading list in my AP English class was George Orwell's 1984. As a naive, inexperienced teenager, I was deeply affected by it, in much the same way many other naive, inexperienced teens are deeply affected by Atlas Shrugged. I wrote a glowing book report, which, if memory serves, got me an A+.



1984 was a crude attempt at dystopian fiction, partly because it was more a hysterical anti-Communist screed than a serious effort at literature. Indeed, had it not been written at exactly the point in history it was written, near the dawn of the Cold War and just prior to the rise of McCarthyist anti-communist hysteria, it probably would not have become nearly the cultural touchstone it is now.

From the vantage point of 2014, parts of it seem prescient, particularly the overwhelming government surveillance of every aspect of the citizen's lives. 1984 describes a society in which everyone is watched, all the time; there's a minor plot hole (who's watching all these video feeds?), but it escaped my notice back then.

But something happened on the way to dystopia--something Orwell didn't predict. We tend to see surveillance as a tool of oppressive government; in a sense, we have all been trained to see it that way. But it is just as powerful a tool in the hands of the citizens, when they use it to watch the government.




As I write this, the town of Ferguson, Missouri has been wracked for over a week now because of the killing of an unarmed black teenager at the hands of an aggressive and overzealous police officer. When the people of Ferguson protested, the police escalated, and escalated, and escalated, responding with tear gas, arrests, and curfews.

Being a middle-aged white dude gives me certain advantages. I don't smoke pot, but if I did and a police officer found me with a bag of weed in my pocket, the odds I'd ever go to prison are very, very small. Indeed, the odds I'd even be arrested are small. If I were to jaywalk in front of a police officer, or be seen by a police officer walking at night along a suburban sidewalk, the odds of a violent confrontation are vanishingly tiny. So it's impossible for me, or real;y for most white dudes, to appreciate or even understand what it's like to be black in the United States.

This is nothing new. The hand of government weighs most heavily on those who are least enfranchised, and it has always been so. All social structures, official and unofficial, slant toward the benefit of those on top, and in the United States, that means the male and pale.

And there's long been a strong connection between casual, systemic racism and the kind of anti-Commie agitprop that made Orwell famous.



It is ironic, though not unexpected, that the Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is raising a "reward" for the police officer who "did his job against the negro criminal".

So far, so normal. This is as it has been since before the founding of this country. But now, something is different...and not in the way Orwell predicted. Surveillance changes things.




What Orwell didn't see, and couldn't have seen, is a time in which nearly every citizen carries a tiny movie camera everywhere. The rise of cell phones has made citizen surveillance nearly universal, with results that empower citizens against abuses of government, rather than the other way around.

Today, it's becoming difficult for police to stop, question, arrest, beat, or shoot someone without cell phone footage ending up on YouTube within hours. And that is, I think, as it should be. Over and over again, police have attempted to prevent peopel from recording them in public places...and over and over again, the courts have ruled that citizens have the right to record the police.

It's telling that in Ferguson, the protestors, who've been labeled "looters" and "thugs" by police, have been the ones who want video and journalism there...and it's been the police who are trying to keep video recording away. That neatly sums up everything you need to know about the politics of Ferguson, seems to me.

Cell phone technology puts the shoe on the other foot. And, unsurprisingly, when the institutions of authority--the ones who say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from surveillance"--find themselves on the receiving end rather than the recording end of surveillance, they become very uncomfortable. In the past, abuses of power were almost impossible to prosecute; they happened in dark places, away from the disinfecting eye of public scrutiny. But now, that's changing. Now, it's harder and harder to find those dark places where abuse thrives.

In fact, the ACLU has released a smartphone app called Police Tape, which you can start running as soon as you find yourself confronted by police. It silently (and invisibly) records everything that happens, and uploads the file to a remote server.

If those in power truly had nothing to hide, they would welcome surveillance. New measures are being proposed in many jurisdictions that would require police officers to wear cameras wherever they go. The video from these cameras could corroborate officers' accounts of their actions whenever misconduct was alleged, if--and this is the critical part--the officers tell the truth. When I hear people object to such cameras, then, the only conclusion I can draw is they don't want a record of their activities, and I wonder why.

William Gibson, in the dystopian book Neuromancer (published, as fate would have it, in 1984) proposed that the greatest threats to personal liberty come, not from a government, but from corporations that assume de facto control over government. His vision seems more like 1984 than 1984. He was less jaundiced than Orwell, though. In the short story Burning Chrome, Gibson wrote, "The street finds its own uses for things." The explosion of citizen surveillance proves how remarkably apt that sentiment is.

The famous first TV commercial for the Apple Macintosh includes the line "why 1984 won't be like 1984." The success of the iPhone and other camera-equipped smartphones, shows how technology can turn the tables on authority.

The police commissioners and state governors and others in the halls of political power haven't quite figured out the implications yet. Technology moves fast, and the machinery of authority moves slowly. But the times, they are a-changin'. Orwell got it exactly wrong; it is the government, not the citizens, who have the most to fear from a surveillance society.

And that is a good thing.


Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
tabouli
Aug. 23rd, 2014 09:02 am (UTC)
Orwell vs Huxley
Interesting post. I presume you've seen this? http://ionamiller.weebly.com/huxley-vs-orwell-comix.html
kawakiisakazuki
Aug. 23rd, 2014 12:08 pm (UTC)
Regarding the "plot hole", I think the point isn't so much that all these video feeds are being watched, but rather that everyone is potentially watched all the time, and there's no way to tell whether or not you're being watched right now. It's the Panopticon principle...
tcpip
Aug. 23rd, 2014 02:26 pm (UTC)
partly because it was more a hysterical anti-Communist screed

Well, anti-totalitarian. After all, Eric Blair did fight with the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification in the Spanish Civil War.
peristaltor
Aug. 23rd, 2014 04:59 pm (UTC)
Nice post, but a tad ironic. That Mac ad . . . today Apple appears to be gearing itself as the next big corporate watcher. Consider:

  • That little "glitch" with the iPhone remembering every GPS coordinate.
  • Losing the random play function on iTunes, thus forcing people to decide which of their music to play, and thus further giving Apple consumer information they can use later.
  • And don't get me started on the whole need to have an app "approved" by Apple for their smart devices.


Gibson was right. We're focusing on the officials wielding—and abusing—power right now. We need to expand that focus, IMNSHO.
mr_z
Aug. 27th, 2014 06:45 am (UTC)
Apple's Mac ad was ironic when it aired in 1984.

Apple always tightly controlled the Mac, while the PC was far more open. The original Mac was designed not to be opened by end users. It didn't have arrow keys, on purpose, to force software designers to build their software to use the mouse. It had strict user interface guidelines from day one. And, except for a brief, failed experiment in the 90s while Jobs was away, you couldn't (and still can't) buy a Mac compatible machine from anyone but Apple.

The PC world has comparatively been wide open. PC compatibles sprung up early and have been a fixture ever since. (When was the last time you or anyone you know bought PC hardware from IBM?) Sure, Microsoft decided to copy Apple and built a near-monopoly on the OS front and office application front, but hey... all my "PCs" run Linux.

The 1984 ad was genius marketing, but completely backward.

I actually kinda liked Trent Reznor's take on a dystopian near future expressed in Year Zero. It's an interesting combination of corporate greed and political ambition. Government gets in bed with big business, which then uses technology on one side to monitor and suppress, and on the other uses a mix religious fervor, fear, and eventually mass medication (in the water supply) to keep the populace compliant.

Yeah, it was just an album and an "Alternate Reality 'Game'", but I thought it made a nice storyboard for something that could be developed further.

It points to the real problem: Greed, and the corresponding consolidation of power among the wealthy and the corporations they control. These folks are deeply in bed with government. They also control all the major media outlets, consume massive amounts of public surveillance (in the form of click-tracking ad networks, etc), and are more than happy to distract us from what they're really doing with red herrings and fear tactics. "Don't hate on us Job Creators, 'cause we're your friends because We Create Jobs! There's terrorists over there, and these folks over here want to let gays teach your children! They want to teach evolution and not let you pray! And don't forget the WAR ON CHRISTMAS!"

My actual thoughts on the matter are a bit more sophisticated than I care to elucidate in the space of an LJ comment. I took a few rhetorical short cuts above, I admit. Hopefully, though, you get the idea.


Edited at 2014-08-27 06:49 am (UTC)
fallingupthesky
Aug. 23rd, 2014 07:33 pm (UTC)
Who cares if you film the police if few ever see it?

What Orwell and others didn't foresee was the advent of the World Wide Web, and sites like YouTube. Then again, neither did much of anyone else... and when they did, it generally wasn't expected to be a thing until the late 21st or early 22nd century. (Meanwhile, flying cars and Mars colonies are a bit "overdue".)
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )