It Was a Bright Cold Day in April, and the Clocks Were Striking Patriarchy: A Parable on Political Correctness

If you have not read George Orwell's 1984, then go read it. If you have read it, then read this.

Let us go back to that time (or is it now?) in order to understand our time. Winston Smith has been having incorrect thoughts, and he has been found out by the Thought Police and taken to the Ministry of Love for correction and rehabilitation. His Interrogator (and torturer) is O'Brien:

“Humans are like cockroaches.  But if we get in their minds and make them believe us, then we have them. You can make them believe anything. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not make you believe. Invisibility, levitation—anything. That despite biological, obvious differences, and other differences in musculature, in brain formation, despite hormones and how they shape everything about a human before he’s even born, we can make humans believe there are no differences between the sexes.  And alternately we can make them believe all males are natural oppressors and must be punished simply for existing, and all women, no matter how powerful or rich are natural victims and must be appeased.  We can make them believe there are no differences, and at the same time that there are six genders, or ten, or twelve, or a hundred, all of them natural from birth.’ 

“But that’s mad,” Winston shouted.  “Utterly mad.  You can’t make anyone deny the truth of their own eyes, forever.” 

He knew the lever would be pulled. 

“How many genders does humanity have, Winston?” 

“Two!” 

The lever was pulled. 

“How many?” 

“Four.” 

The lever was pulled. 

“How many?” 

“A hundred” 

The lever was pulled. 

“How many?” 

“As many as the enlightened say.” 

“That is right, Winston, you are almost well.  And what is PIV.” 

“Violation.  Always violation.”

“Can’t a woman consent to sex with a man?” 

“There is no true consent, since even in Utopia cis het males are programmed to institute patriarchy.  You must always be vigilant against your own thoughts and your own unconscious privilege, even if you can’t be fully aware of it.  All penetration is violation.  A baby is an invader in a woman’s body.  Utopia is forever and only the enlightened can tell us when we’re wrong. Because the individual is not able to balance the forces of retribution and oppression and greed by himself, or not even within himself. Society is always imbalanced, and there will be oppression till all of humanity is gone, so the enlightened ones must teach us and correct us until that time. 

********* 

Winston gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken zeem to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the androgynous, unreadable face. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of zees nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. Zee had won the victory over Zeeself. Zee loved Big Gender Indeterminate Sibling.

Read the entire article here.

The failure of scientism in an Orwellian world

I was recently teaching George Orwell's 1984. Near the beginning, Winston Smith is thinking about how the Party is able to control history by constantly rewriting it. He himself works for the Ministry of Truth, and his job is to destroy literature that has gone out of favor with the Party and to rewrite historical accounts to reflect the Party's current dogmas. He wonders how this affects reality.

What happens when you are the only one who remembers what actually happened and everyone else believes the rewritten version of history? For that matter, what would happen (Winston doesn't take it quite this far) if no one existed who remembered the true account of things?

Would the Party's version of history then be reality? Is reality actually changed through this process? Is the Party, in other words, actually able to control reality?

I am thinking that just about everybody would say "No": No matter how history is rewritten or revised, there is a reality of which the records of it is only an approximation--a better or worse approximation depending on the extent to which it is in accord with "reality."

I thought about this in connection with all those people (some of whom frequent my comments section) who think that the only way to detect reality is by empirical evidence. If you lived in a world in which all the records had been changed--all of the empirical evidence--then your method would yield the exact reality that those who changed the records chose to portray and, if you believed in "reality," would only lead you astray.

In other words, according to the kind of scientism I hear so much of, the answer to Winston's question would be "Yes": Reality could be changed by the Party merely through the process of historical revision. An analysis of the "evidence" would yield exactly what the Party had revised it to be. The "reality" would then be only a metaphysical abstraction of the kind for which scientism has no patience.