That Hideous Strength and 1984, Part 2

A few more similarities...

Jun 09, 2022

Ok part two. Transferring this over with the (fortunately) few footnotes was a pain. Substack, if you are looking for a new feature, something that makes it easier to split a draft into two or more drafts would be great. Especially since exceeding the gmail email limit apparently jacks up the system.

The Crisis and the Enemy

Power needs a justification. Historically there have been two key justifications for willingly obeying a master: fear and hope.

Hope is why we follow a leader: we like where they seem to be going, and would like them to tell us how to get there, too. Yet hope for the future, and the admiration of a leader that seems able to bring it around, is, as Machiavelli pointed out, voluntary. People only obey a leader when they want to go where he wants them to go, and wander off to do their own thing when they no longer agree.

Fear, while not entirely involuntary, is in very large part something that can be inflicted upon others, and so is more reliable. Yet here the would be tyrant has a dilemma: to make people obey through fear is to inspire them to hate, and with enough hate fear can become voluntary, and from voluntary to violent towards the source of that fear. If your subjects fear you enough to obey your every command, they fear you enough to put a dozen blades into your back. The tyrant needs people to see him as a leader offering hope while being in fear of disobeying him, yet not fearing him enough to see him as a source of fear to be removed.

One solution is the “tough, but fair” model of tyranny, where laws are clearly outlined and punishment is both fair and harsh. The offender knows they offended, and so can see their punishment as just because they brought it on themselves. The trouble here is that clearly outlined laws also tie the hands of the tyrant, who cannot change them at a whim and must sometimes punish those he would rather not for violating them. Generally tyrants do not wish to comport with principles of behavior laid out ahead of time.

1984 demonstrates the preferred ideal for the tyrant:

He has no freedom of choice in any direction whatever. On the other hand his actions are not regulated by law or by any clearly formulated code of behaviour. In Oceania there is no law. Thoughts and actions which, when detected, mean certain death are not formally forbidden, and the endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations are not inflicted as punishment for crimes which have actually been committed, but are merely the wiping-out of persons who might perhaps commit a crime at some time in the future. A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts.

The other solution is to rely on something else the people can fear and so look to you as savior. The crisis, the invading enemy, the devious enemy in our midst, these offer the ideal out to the tyrant, something to fear and hate other than him, yet making disobeying his leadership something to fear. Any arbitrary desire can be thus justified.

THS: Need increased police control over a town? Incite a riot, and sweep in with your police force to restore order.

1984: Need to keep your populace poor and below the level of sustenance so that they might never consider rebelling? Maintain a constant war that absorbs and destroys any surplus created, ensuring grinding poverty absorbs their attention.

Additionally, the crisis and the enemy can be blamed for any setbacks, mistakes, or simply hurtful decisions made by the tyrant. “Inflation is only temporary, not the result of over spending. It’s that darn pandemic. It’s the Putin Price hike! That’s why inflation has been going up for a year before the war…” “No, oil prices are not related to shutting down pipelines and reducing drilling for oil. Clearly it is Russia.”

1984 of course has fear dripping off every edge. The outer Party members live in constant fear of spies turning them in for wrongthink, of the knock on the door in the middle of the night.

Yet there is also the enemy within, Goldstein the heretic who sabotaged the great works, the focus of the daily two minutes of hate.

Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party—an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it.

Beyond the borders was also the enemy Eurasia, or was it Eastasi now, just waiting for the first sign of weakness.

Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room. The self-satisfied sheep-like face on the screen, and the terrifying power of the Eurasian army behind it, were too much to be borne: besides, the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically.

The most frightening thing about this nearly transparent web of lies in the shape of existential threat is that even when you saw it for what it was it was nearly impossible to keep from infecting your mind. Our human minds are ill adapted to reject the emotions of those around us, and hate and fear most of all.

what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were—in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State.
…
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.
…
Winston’s entrails seemed to grow cold. In the Two Minutes Hate he could not help sharing in the general delirium, but this sub-human chanting of ‘B-B! . . . B-B!’ always filled him with horror. Of course he chanted with the rest: it was impossible to do otherwise. To dissemble your feelings, to control your face, to do what everyone else was doing, was an instinctive reaction. But there was a space of a couple of seconds during which the expression of his eyes might conceivably have betrayed him. And it was exactly at this moment that the significant thing happened—if, indeed, it did happen.

That Hideous Strength does not have a strong parallel to Goldstein, a Eurasian menace, or even a perpetual war to drive the people. Although the NICE takeover of Bracton’s civil authority by way of a planned riot and rescue points to the danger of the crisis to liberty, the would be tyrants have no need of an enemy to scape goat. Instead, Lewis recognized a more insidious type of fear, one more destructive because it is entirely within our own heads: the fear of being outside the inner ring1.

This fear is related to what I called “Respectability Disease,” when one’s priorities change from “doing what is right” to “not losing the respect of others.” Lewis focuses on the desire to be inside a particular clique, the in crowd, those in the know, the smart set, whatever it is called. The power of the inner ring phenomenon is that it is forward looking. If you want to advance your career you must get in with these guys. No one in the smart set believes those sorts of things anymore, so you had better shape up if you want to get ahead. Everybody who is anybody is involved in this sort of work. While Respectability Disease only afflicts those who have achieved some level of respectability and status, the inner ring twists even those who never even sniff real influence or power. Those who succumb to its siren’s call of belonging among the elite will commit all manner of atrocity, both to others and to their own minds, just to prove they are worthy.

Yet gaining entry to the inner rings of the group provides no guarantee of security. Being cast out to live among the lesser beings itself becomes a horror to be avoided, a horror the real inner ring of the NICE holds over everyone’s heads, yet cannot fully escape itself. For just as in 1984 there are no explicit rules of behavior, nor even guidelines that make sense.

Wither replied, “I think, Mr. Studdock, we have already mentioned elasticity as the keynote of the Institute. Unless you are prepared to treat membership as—er—a vocation rather than a mere appointment, I could not conscientiously advise you to come to us. There are no watertight compartments. I fear I could not persuade the Committee to invent for your benefit some cut and dried position in which you would discharge artificially limited duties and, apart from those, regard your time as your own. Pray allow me to finish, Mr. Studdock. We are, as I have said before, more like a family, or even, perhaps, like a single personality. There must be no question of ‘taking your orders,’ as you (rather unfortunately) suggest, from some specified official and considering yourself free to adopt an intransigent attitude to your other colleagues. (I must ask you not to interrupt me, please.) That is not the spirit in which I would wish you to approach your duties. You must make yourself useful, Mr. Studdock—generally useful. I do not think the Institute could allow anyone to remain in it who showed a disposition to stand on his rights—who grudged this or that piece of service because it fell outside some function which he had chosen to circumscribe by a rigid definition. On the other hand, it would be quite equally disastrous—I mean for yourself, Mr. Studdock: I am thinking throughout of your own interests—quite equally disastrous if you allowed yourself ever to be distracted from your real work by unauthorized collaboration—or, worse still, interference—with the work of other members. Do not let casual suggestions distract you or dissipate your energies. Concentration, Mr. Studdock, concentration. And the free spirit of give and take. If you avoid both the errors I have mentioned then—ah, I do not think I need despair of correcting on your behalf certain unfortunate impressions which (we must admit) your behavior has already produced. No, Mr. Studdock, I can allow no further discussion. My time is already fully occupied. I cannot be continually harassed by conversations of this sort. You must find your own level, Mr. Studdock. Good morning, Mr. Studdock, good morning. Remember what I have said. I am trying to do all I can for you. Good morning.”
…
“But what do you want me to do, Sir?”
“My dear young friend, the golden rule is very simple. There are only two errors which would be fatal to one placed in the peculiar situation which certain parts of your previous conduct have unfortunately created for you. On the one hand, anything like a lack of initiative or enterprise would be disastrous. On the other, the slightest approach to unauthorized action—anything which suggested that you were assuming a liberty of decision which, in all the circumstances, is not really yours—might have consequences from which even I could not protect you. But as long as you keep quite clear of these two extremes, there is no reason (speaking unofficially) why you should not be perfectly safe.”

It almost seems trite to point out that this is exactly the state of modern academia, and Lewis describes it perfectly 80 years ahead. The ambitious young academic will do almost anything to get into a top school, be published in a top journal, find a top assistant professorship, and cling to that role through tenure. “Almost anything” includes doctoring CVs, plagiarizing papers, committing research fraud, and claiming to believe any madness required and punishing those who step out of line2. Academics cringe in fear of being outed for some mistake, decrying the excesses of the academy on anonymous forums, yet bay for the blood of every new victim lest they be seen as insufficiently devoted.

This use of fear to acquire power is also an important point of difference between Lewis and Orwell. THS sees less in the way of direct violence and coercion (although certainly greater than zero), whereas 1984’s power structure is almost entirely predicated on open coercion. The former power says “Do as we say if you want to be anybody,” the latter “Do what we say or become only a body.”

Rings Within Rings, But One Ring To Bind Them

The notion that the monolithic entity is indeed made up of concentric rings of people with different motivations and understanding of the organization’s goals is key in both books. Neither Orwell nor Lewis would be entirely comfortable with a statement like “The Party wants X because it thinks Y.”

1984’s Party is not the monolith Winston describes at the beginning of his story, but rather made up of an Inner Party that wields true power, and an Outer Party over whom this power is wielded. At once the victim of the Inner Party and its enforcers, the Outer Party is the middle class crab bucket, who are deceived and kept low so that they may never rise up yet also those spies and informers of their oppressors. Indeed, part of the horror for Winston is the discovery that not only is “The Brotherhood” resistance against the Party a creation of the Inner Party itself to lure out dissent to be crushed, but the Inner Party purposefully creates the drudgery, poverty and suffering of the people as a means of control. There is no goal for the Inner Party but power itself, no higher purpose to pursue with that power, only the lust of possessing it. Why does the boot stamp on the human face forever? Simply for the sake of doing so.

THS’s inner rings have motivations more detailed, and maybe more disturbing, and highlighting the very different ends pursued by the different rings via the same means seems to be Lewis’ intent.

The outer most face of the NICE is the social scientists beavering away at their studies, providing the technocratic framework to reshape English society. Many seem like the normal breed of ambitious men of system we see all over academia, not necessarily evil but possessing that tendency towards “The world would be better if they just listened to what I say instead of doing whatever!” Little scuffles for status, funding, and just being the center of attention are the norm, as all see the NICE as the place to be to make a difference and your career in the process.

Go in a ring or two and we see the social upper crust that supports the NICE, and in turn use it to further their own careers. The financiers, nobles, politicians and their ilk who see it as one more machine generating influence and wealth for their benefit. They are above the scientists as they see that the bills are paid, and use the scientists to generate support for whatever goal they had in mind. You know what the report should say, worry about the science later and start writing. Their goals are only tangentially understood by the outer ring, yet the outer ring believes they are using them just as they are being used.

A little farther in and things start getting strange. More conventionally we see the functional heads of the NICE, Fairy Hardcastle who runs their security force, and the top science and political positions within that make decisions for the direction of the institute as a whole, and the guys who maintain the machine animating the literal head. Power, dominance, reshaping Britain, these are the goals of this circle, manipulating the financiers, nobles and politicians to serve their ends, raising them up and casting them down as is convenient. This secretive and ever shifting ring controls the NICE agenda, for their own ends which are mysterious to those outside who nevertheless go along believing their ends are the same.

A little farther in still and there are a few guys who intend to end all life and be the single living entity in the cosmos, able to change it at will. Which of the guys will be that single entity? Well…

The key point, subtly and wonderfully made by Lewis, is every outer ring serves an inner ring believing it does so for its own purposes, whether aligned with the more inner ring or not, and cannot grasp that it is actually forwarding a goal entirely antithetical to its own. If they were to play a game of “write down what you are really in this for, then read it aloud to the group one by one” most everyone would eventually start to shriek in horror and flee. But instead it’s fine, you are just using them to advance your career and make the world better, you will leave when it gets bad or stops serving your interests.