How We Live Now: Modern Society Vs. Dystopia.

“BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.” (Orwell, George, 1984, Page 3: Penguin Books Ltd, London, 1949) It’s a statement that strikes fear into the hearts of the characters of George Orwell’s 1984, but should it scare us too? The story drives into existence questions which have become no easier to answer over the last 70 years. In 2018 do we really have as much freedom as we believe we do? Or are we as deeply under the government's surveillance as Winston and Julia were in the Dystopian novel? Are we in control of our own minds? Or are we being manipulated to be mouth-pieces for our government? Over the last decade or so, reports of government surveillance have grown immensely, revealing a lack of privacy for many citizens in the western world. Smart Tv’s with video cameras embedded in them (Raphael, T.J. https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-13/your-smart-tv-may-be-spying-you-and-stopping-it-against-law Accessed: March 26th 2018), phone calls being monitored (Waugh, Rob, http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/26/stop-facebook-logging-calls-texts-7416587/ Accessed: March 26th 2018), devices listening in on conversations in order to target further advertising (Estes, Adam Clark, https://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-anyone-an-echo-1820981732 Accessed: March 26th 2018). Many people are unaware of how little privacy they are awarded within their own homes, especially in the times of technological advancements that we are living in. It is easy, when looking into these reports to draw correlations between the times we live in and the dystopian novels of the early-mid 1900’s, such as 1984 (Orwell, George, 1984: Penguin Books Ltd, London, 1949) by George Orwell (Shown on the top-right).

1984 reveals to us a new world broken into three major states: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. We, as the reader, are focused in Oceania, a state in which everyone is under constant surveillance from their telescreens (Orwell, George, 1984, Page 4 : Penguin Books Ltd, London, 1949), which are not able to be switched off or silenced. This is similar to devices such as the Amazon Echo, Google Home, and even the Siri feature within the IPhone. These devices are also configured to be constantly listening to the users voice, however, in this context it is in order to activate when the user utters a certain phrase, such as “Alexa,” “Ok Google,” or “Hey Siri.” In order to recognise that these phrases have been used the device is in a constant state of listening, and on some occasions this has been noticed by the user. This often leads to targeted advertisements which relate to phrases and topics that are said by the user in the vicinity of the product without it having been activated. In 2015, Samsung received criticism for a similar reason seen in these devices. Samsung’s privacy policy states “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.” (Samsung, http://www.samsung.com/hk_en/info/privacy/smarttv/ Accessed: April 20th 2018) Though Samsung were very open with admitting that conversations would be recorded and that information could be sold it was still considered to be a large breach of personal security and many were upset by the inclusion of the policy.

This is very similar to the telescreens in 1984 due to the constant surveillance that came with them, and also because they would both cause the user to have to self-censor their speech in their own homes.

This constant surveillance can also be seen through the introduction of CCTV (Closed Circuit TV) cameras (Shown on the left) and BWVs (Body-Worn Videos) in public spaces. It is believed that, though these methods can help police and prevent crime, it can also create a negative reaction by causing the bystander effect. This would suggest that because bystanders believe that a crime is being recorded they are less likely to report it to the police as the responsibility has become split between witnesses, which here includes the CCTV cameras that are recording the event. However, Marco Van Bommel et al (Bommel Et Al. ‘Intervene to be Seen: The Power of a Camera in Attenuating the Bystander Effect,’ Social Psychological and Personality Science 5, 2014) proved, in a study into this topic, titled Intervene to be Seen: The Power of a Camera in Attenuating the Bystander Effect (IBID), that it is more likely that the bystander will intervene in a situation of surveillance than they are when there is another witness. But does this mean that constant CCTV surveillance is a good thing? It is easy to argue that CCTV can lower crime rates and protect both communities and individuals from becoming victims of crime. However, many argue that the loss of privacy outweighs this small increase in security and creates a sense of unease in communities. Anna Minton, who studied this theory in 2012 found that extra security measures, such as CCTV, “did not necessarily lead to feelings of increased safety, with residents reporting that the presence of CCTV could instead increase anxiety.” (Minton, Anna, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/30/cctv-increases-peoples-sense-anxiety Accessed: April 16th 2018) Minton also went on to explain that creating a highly surveyed area can create the idea that there is something to be feared within that area, and by doing this “can increase fear of strangers,”(IBID) within communities. This fear of strangers can also be seen in 1984 as Winston is constantly suspicious of the people around him as he is aware of the state using “amatuer spies” (Orwell, George, 1984, Page 11: Penguin Books Ltd, London, 1949) within communities to find anyone who commits a crime. This is why he is so unsure of both the people he works with, but also of Julia who he never fully trusts throughout the novel due to her being young and therefore being more easily influenced by the idea of Big Brother.

Even in the most recent news we are still learning of scandals surrounding the illegal surveillance of mobile phones and personal data through social media apps. This has been seen most recently with the report (BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-43650346/how-the-facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-scandal-unfolded?intlink_from_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftopics%2Fc81zyn0888lt%2Ffacebook-cambridge-analytica-data-scandal&link_location=live-reporting-map Accessed: April 16th 2018) that Cambridge Analytica had been harvesting information from over 85 million Facebook users, which included both the users personal details as well as the details of their facebook friends, by buying the data from a quiz app that could be logged in to through facebook. Since this story broke it has been discovered that many apps have access to personal data from cell phones and that many companies pay to receive this data in order to target advertising. It has also been suggested (Cadwalladr, Carole, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/06/facebook-suspends-aggregate-iq-cambridge-analytica-vote-leave-brexit Accessed: April 16th 2018) that this information was used by multiple advertising companies, which held ties to Cambridge Analytica, to help influence voters during the 2016 Brexit campaign and that this could have affected the final results of the vote.

Similarly, the government in 1984 use advertising tactics in order to influence the minds of the people who live in Oceana. This is done through the use of the “Two Minutes Hate,” (Orwell, George, 1984, Page 15: Penguin Books Ltd, London, 1949) which is used to create hatred within Oceana of the other states. “The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in.” (IBID) This shows that Winston knows that they are attempting to indoctrinate him to think in a certain way but that there is nothing he can do to stop it. This is common in modern society as almost every internet user is aware of the advertising being tailored to their personalities, however, it does not stop them from following the adverts and buying the products.

The “Two Minutes Hate” (IBID) is also reminiscent of the fearmongering that has become commonplace in modern news and politics. This has been seen most frequently when looking at transgender rights in the US and more specifically the bathroom bill, which would allow transgender people to use the bathroom that they felt best fit their needs. One article claims that “Massachusetts is about to be force-fed a fantasy: The boogeytransman is coming for your children.” (Ramos, Nester, https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/04/19/heart-transgender-ballot-question-fearmongering-and-distaste-for-differences/JrTu5lvbnCROcBY2P8AY0H/story.html Accessed: April 20th 2018) Due to the current success of fearmongering within US politics it is likely that this will have a negative effect on the vote and that the bill will end up being repealed. And fearmongering is not limited to politics; for years the media has been using fearmongering tactics to further islamophobic ideals. “Mainstream media perpetuates some of the worst stereotypes of Muslims simply in how it chooses to cover or ignore certain violent acts.” (Elghawaby, Amira, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-quebec-mosque-killer-epitomizes-islamophobia-in-its-deadliest-form/ Accessed: April 20th 2018) This was seen in 2017 with the Las Vegas shooting, where 59 people were killed, including the shooter. As Stephen Paddock, the perpetrator, was white he was not deemed to be a terrorist by the media. In January of 2018 an article was posted on the Chicago Tribune website claiming that Paddock was “a high-stakes gambler on a losing streak, obsessed with cleanliness, possibly bipolar and was having difficulties with his live-in girlfriend.” (Balsamo, Michael, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-las-vegas-shooting-stephen-paddock-20180120-story.html Accessed: April 20th 2018) At no point in this article was Paddock referred to as a terrorist, though ISIS made an attempt to claim the attack as one of their own.

However, in 2016 there was another shooting, this time at a gay nightclub in Florida. Omar Mateen’s attack had many similarities to the Las Vegas shootings, bar a couple of things. One: Mateen was a Muslim, though he was born in the United States. Two: ISIS claimed the shooter as one of their own. Three: Mateen’s attack focused on an LGBT club. However, it has been said that he had originally “intended to attack Disney World's shopping and entertainment complex by hiding a gun in a stroller but became spooked by police and instead chose the gay club as his target.” (CBS News, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooter-omar-mateen-intended-to-attack-disney-shopping-complex-prosecutors-say/ Accessed: April 20th 2018) This suggests that the motives were not politically focused and therefore the attack was not considered a terrorist attack. However, in June of 2016 the Chicago Tribune website posted an article on the attack (Gomez, David, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-omar-mateen-orlando-shooter-fbi-terrorism-20160614-story.html Accessed: April 20th 2018), naming Mateen a terrorist and asking why he had not been caught by the FBI sooner. This blatantly shows the way in which the media is creating these Islamophobic ideals and creating this perpetual fear of Muslim people in America. Though Orwell may have not gone into much detail around the differences between the states in 1984, it is very visible in the writing that the government in Oceana are attempting to create both fear and hatred of anything different, and more specifically, of Eurasia, Eastasia, and Goldstein. Winston thinks in the novel that “The sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically,” (Orwell, George, 1984, Page 15: Penguin Books Ltd, London, 1949) and this is similar to what modern media has been doing with minorities for years.

However, we are also able to see many stark differences between modern life and the fictionalised world created in 1984. We have yet to be fully segregated into states which have little to no communication, with the exception of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and we, as westerners, are able to travel with very few limitations. This is something that seems to be highly limited within Orwell’s world, as the constant surveillance and the governments fear-mongering is enough to stop anyone wanting to travel beyond the boundaries of home and work.

In summary, it is easy to draw correlations between the way we live in modern society and the world created by Orwell in 1984, but it does not mean that we are living in a dystopian world. The fact that I am writing these thoughts and theories proves that we are in control of our own thoughts and that we can make up our own minds. It is important for us to see the injustices caused by the surveillance states that we live in, and to verbally tear them down, as it is the only way that we will ever become free of them. We should all grow to a point where we don’t believe the government when they tell us that “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” (Orwell, George, 1984, Page 26: Penguin Books Ltd, London, 1949)

#essay #university #dystopia #society