Trust No One: Loyalty and Betrayal in 1984

Betrayal is a recurrent theme in 1984. We see Winston betrayed by Mr. Charrington, O'Brien, and Julia, and see him in turn betray Julia and himself. But in the world of the novel, betrayal is less common then it is now. By the definition of the word, there can be no betrayal without trust, and trust is becoming increasingly rare. Anyone can be a member of the thought police. Anyone could reveal all your flaws to the thought police, resulting in your torture. Even parents and children are potential enemies. For this reason, betrayal is not seen as cruel, but almost as a given. Everyone knows that, in the torture chambers of the ministry of love, one can be made to tell any thing, convict even cherished friends with lies. Winston and Julia, for most of the novel, believe that the only betrayal is a betrayal of the heart, as this is the only kind of betrayal they have control over. One of the things that makes them enemies of the party is the fact that they both still trust in something other than the Party and Big Brother. In the world of 1984, even unsanctioned trust is a crime. But they eventually find out that no part of them is safe from the Party, and that they have no choice to betray everything they can betray. The Party accuses all thought criminals of being traitors, but turns them into further traitors through torture. It may seem illogical, but eventually, this method will eliminate traitors by eliminating trust.
Loyalty is also an important concept in the book, mainly as a contrast to the distrust and betrayal. Winston believes loyalty to be the most important virtue: loyalty to Julia, to himself, to mankind and his own beliefs. He says "Once they get hold of us there will be nothing, literally nothing,that either of us can do for the other... The one thing that matters is that we shouldn't betray one another, although even that can't make the slightest difference,"(173). He goes on to explain he doesn't mean confessing each others sins, or even lying about sins they hadn't committed, but only that they should keep loving each other no matter what. After being reduced to a shell of a man, the one thing he still takes pride in is his love for Julia. Loyalty is also important to the Party, but, as O'Brien says, only loyalty to the Party can be allowed to exist. Loyalty to anything else could compromise their loyalty of the Party. They work to systematically turn people against each other until all loyalty and trust is focused on Big Brother. Like all other aspects of life, they have found, in room 101, a way to eliminate loyalty. The torture is both physical and psychological, and tailored to each persons specific fears. Whatever loyalty is left in the dystopia of 1984 will quickly and intentionally be destroyed. Because of this, there will never be true loyalty towards the Party, but loyalty based on fear and manipulation is perfectly suited for the Party's intentions.

Big Brothers and Little Children

Big Brother is the leader of the Party,  a cruel dictator. But he is also much more than a political figure. Big Brother is the face of the Party, a symbol, and an idea. When he is spoken of in the novel, his name is synonymous with that of the Party. It is true that today, one sometimes speak of the leaders of political parties as if they were their parties, and vice versa. But one is aware of the difference. For Big Brother, the difference does not exist. He has transcended the level of a powerful human so far that it does not really matter whether he exists or not. He, as people think of him, is no longer a human being. As an actual person, if he is an actual person, he is at best a figurehead. But as an idea, he is an extremely powerful tool for the Party. The Party is a large and abstract group of people. Alone, it offers nothing firm or infallible for people to put their faith in. Big Brother is a focus point, a face to put on a concept, and something strong to believe in. The Party has worked hard to cultivate this illusion, to great effect. They alter history so Big Brother is never wrong. They never show an real, flawed, human being, but a handsome face on a poster, giving fantasies of a perfect, strong caregiver. All goodness is attributed to him. The Party does not ask people to love a political group. They ask them to love a man, who will love them in return. Even his name is chosen for this. Big Brother is family, a protector, someone  trustworthy to look after you. It is not a group of politicians spying on you, it is the watchful eye of a protective older sibling.

The name Big Brother also perpetuates a feeling of helpless trust. If the Party is an older brother, than the people are children, unable to look after themselves, relying on older family members. And does not the person looking after them deserve their love and devotion? By putting a face onto the principles of Ingsoc, they appealed to human nature in a way that could not be duplicated. The Party attempts to replace actual family with the figurative family of the Big Brother. O'Brien says "There will be no love, except  love of the Big Brother,"(280). This shows how they want to lodge themselves firmly in the hearts of the people. People cannot survive without love. When raised in an environment where they are deprived of attention, children have serious developmental problems. By taking away all other bonds people would feel, the Party created a need for love and trust. They then established a figure to fill this need. Big Brother could be nonexistent. He could be a useless leader. He would still be the most important figure in the Party, and the best at his job. He fulfils his purpose. He is more a public relations act then a dictator, but an extremely effective one.

Power, Absolute

Power is both a very simple and very complex idea. It is instinctual and intellectual at the same time. Human history is built around the use and abuse of power: in the case of the party, quite literally. The party claims socialism, but their government and ideology is built around absolute power. Power can be defined as the ability to exercise control over the external, whether this means objects or other people. The party attempts to control every aspect of life, from work to free time to the past to speech to ideas to thought itself. They seem to have achieved absolute power. But can absolute power really exist? Even when all ideas are streamlined and controlled, there are still small things that slip through the cracks, and other things that are completely beyond control. Even if complete control of peoples thoughts and emotions was achieved, their dreams would still remain beyond control. Even if the physical world could be manipulated in every detail, the laws of nature and physics still could not be bent. It would therefore seem impossible to achieve absolute power. But the Party, and only the Party, can come extremely close, if not all the way. This is for a very special reason.
The Party has achieved absolute power, not by a magical ability to change reality however they wish, but by the technique of doublethink. They can hold two contradictory ideas as true simultaneously. They know that they have no control over physics or the larger universe, but at the same time they know they have control over everything. As O'Brien says, "There is nothing we cannot do. Invisibility, levitation- anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wished to. I do not wish too, because the Party does not wish it...We make the laws of nature,"'(277). Through doublethink, they create there own reality in which their power is absolute. If they live completely in this reality, and they have the power to bring other humans into this reality, than they do have absolute power. The real world doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect them. At the moment when it touches them, it ceases to be the real world and becomes part of their reality. Through doublethink, absolute power becomes a possibility. Their power is also everlasting as it is separate from reality. It cannot be broken as long as those under it's thrall do not realize the separation between the reality proposed by the Party and the reality laid down by the universe. Even if the Party is somehow overthrown, for a brief time it will have gone on forever, because that was the reality they created for themselves.

Newspeak vs. Oldspeak: Is Language Freedom?

In 1984, Oceania is in the process of creating a new language as part of their revolution. Why do they choose to do this? All of Ingsoc's actions are related to limiting freedom, so it can be assumed that Newspeak is designed to restrict people. How does Ingsoc espect a different language to stem freedom? Are they right in thinking this? Newspeak attempts to take away concepts by removing the words for them. It removes shades of meaning, synonyms, antonyms, and many descriptors to create a mechanical language devoid of beauty. In adding to a sense of hopelessness and dull, singleminded purpose, Newspeak works well. But are concepts really dependent on language? If a word is removed, does the thing it names cease to exist?
Concepts can be limited by language, but not defined by it. The only way to remove a concept completely is to actually remove the concept. For example, to remove the idea of freedom, Ingsoc plans to remove the word free. To remove the concept, they would have to eliminate all freedoms: freedom of thought and emotion as well as physical freedom and freedom of speech. It would be impossible to do this completely, so they will never completely remove the idea of freedom. However, it will be severely limited. Humans think in words. With the limitations of newspeak, people would have a vague concept of freedom, but would not be able to understand it without words to organize and express it. As Syme says, "Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of conciousness always a little smaller,"(55). This shows how adept Ingsoc has grown at limiting thought through language. Even if it cannot work completely, Newspeak works well enough for Ingsoc's purposes. The concepts may still exist, but only as fragments to vague to expand into something more dangerous.