Rousseau’s discourse about the notion of self-love in its two manifestations is an appealing and insightful one. The philosopher differentiates between amour de soi-même (self-love) and amour-propre (vanity), distinct in their virtue. Indeed, on the one hand, self-love as a mere natural feeling of love toward one’s self is opposite to vanity. It might be defined as “a natural sentiment which moves every animal to be vigilant in its preservation and which, directed in man by reason and modified by pity, produces humanity and virtue” (Rousseau, 106). Vanity, or egocentrism, on the other hand, is an opposite sentiment, the one that originates artificially in society due to the coexistence of individuals with others. In particular, the philosopher states that it “moves each individual to value himself more than anyone else, which inspires in men all the evils they cause one another, and which is the true source of honor’ (Rousseau, 106). The two notions are different in the nature of desire, which is natural in the case of self-love, and artificial in the case of vanity.
The natural form of self-love is deprived of comparisons to others and exists in the natural world as a mere characteristic of the need of an individual to strive and survive. Such a form of self-love implies that a person does not need anyone else to validate the value of his or her existence. Indeed, “each particular man regards himself as the only spectator who observes him, as the only being in the universe that takes an interest in him, as the only judge of his own merit” (Rousseau, 106). Such a form of love is good since it leads to human happiness, promoting self-efficacy. On the other hand, vanity or egocentrism is a bad type of self-love since it promotes comparison with others in a society, which ultimately leads to atrocities. Due to vanity, people regard others compared to themselves and judge them as weaker, ultimately committing offenses.
In the philosopher’s opinion, the cause of inequalities in different spheres of the life of societies is in the adherence to the bad type of self-love. Originally, all human beings belonged to a natural world where all species were equal until a physical transformation in their constitution occurred. It ultimately led to the differences in their physical and psychological state. In particular, “improved or declined and acquired various good or bad qualities which were not inherent in their nature, the others remained longer in their original state” (Rousseau, 33). Over time, with social ties, a moral or psychological inequality emerged due to the differences in property and wealth. The wealthy experienced more power and independence than the poor, which led to social, economic, and political inequality.
In his novel 1984, Orwell unfolds the intrinsic features of a totalitarian society. A totalitarian political regime is a system of state laws and conduct that presuppose one-party rule centered around a singular idea, which is commonly pursued by violent and oppressive means. To force the population to abide by the totalitarian rules, the rulers eliminate any opportunity for individual accomplishment and assert control to standardize people as average representatives of an obedient society.
The political regime in Oceania is arranged around the model of panopticism. It is an approach to surveillance arranged to put a panopticon as a central controlling point at the top of society with one center overlooking all individuals in the state. Such an approach is manifested in the signs that “a Big Brother is watching you,” in the hierarchical arrangement of the ministries, and the precise attention to the actions of each citizen (Orwell, 4). Such utilization of panopticism aims to separate individuals into weak units of society for easier control.
Indeed, one of the immediate attributes of a totalitarian political regime is the principle of dividing and conquering. Such a principle implies destructing social groups based on people’s individual responsibility for their obedience or disobedience to the rules of the totalitarian state. Throughout the book, it is demonstrated how “Big Brother is watching” every single individual, separating each citizen from a group and paying attention to one’s behavior (Orwell, 4). Winston, the main character of the novel, works at the Ministry of Truth, where based on the accounts of each individual, historical events are rewritten to match the ideas of the Party. In such a manner, when a disobedient (previously divided and conquered) individual is eliminated, the history might be changed so as to remove the records about that person.
A powerful means of control over the masses of people in the novel is the use of a specifically designed language called Newspeak. It is a form of an official language based on the standard English language that is aimed at minimizing the opportunities for critical thinking in the population. In particular, Newspeak “was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum” (Orwell, 287). Indeed, it is through language that people manifest their thinking process. The simpler and more primitive the language, the more controllable is the thought process of the individuals, who are ultimately easier to oppress and use as mere units in a political and economic machine. For example, the use of doublethink as a term implying a belief in two contradictory statements as true is one of the methods how Newspeak forms citizens’ perception of reality and alters their memories. Thus, it allows for pursuing the Party’s interests on the level of human consciousness.
References
Orwell, G. (1983). 1984. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Rousseau, J-J. (1987). Basic political writings. (D. A. Cress, Ed.). Hackett.