Reading Discussion: The Ministry of Truth

[Morley]

I read this book, as I do with much of my reading these days, trying to figure out where we’re going and how we got here. Democracy, and the institutions that nourish it, seems to be in decline. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

I wish I’d found more answers here.

I do wonder if some of the decline has to do with an abandonment of a shared national mythology. Basically, we no longer believe that Romulus and Remus really suckled the she-wolf’s teat, and we’re struggling with what should be substituted in its place.




An aside.

Before reading this, I hadn't been aware that the Tehran Conference between Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, and the creation of their respective country’s 'spheres of influence', was an impetus for Orwell's work.

In Iran, at the time, the 1943 conference instilled a reactive patriotism that led to the creation of a boldly nationalistic 'Screw you' anthem that is still aggressively sung today. That the Near East could be divvied up among the great powers was insulting to the Iranian and Arabic worlds and has had repercussions that reverberate to this day.

[honorentheos]

I do wonder if some of the decline has to do with an abandonment of a shared national mythology. Basically, we no longer believe that Romulus and Remus really suckled the she-wolf’s teat, and we’re struggling with what should be substituted in its place.

As do I. Social cohesion seems to require the members of the society share something they esteem in order to maintain civic order. I think the American experiment has been largely a successful attempt to replace traditional shared cultural markers such as ancestry, religion, or traditional class hierarchy with purely an ideal around which institutions and a national identity were created. It seemed dangerous at the time and destined to fail. A good book on the not exactly pure interests of the Founders in that regard is The Framer's Coup, by Michael Klarman. The expansion of western democracy and belief in it's triumph in the 1990's was largely a story of nations replacing those traditional identifiers with value-based identities...kinda. It seems the reality is the ideal was always being propped up by the vestiges of those old frameworks. A national identity that can hang democratic institutions over shared traditional heritage and helped by a floor to the economic situations of those who share that identity is proving resilient even as the same fractured structures are threatening the stability of nations with higher levels of pluralism and economic inequality. It seems the post-modern realization of the rise of the individual, united in small tribal cohorts of shared narrow identities is a challenge that makes our future very unclear. I feel like we've seen the present before and it's usually preceded violence. The late 18th century through the Spanish Civil War seem to align, as if the Allied victory in WWII became a temporary reinforcement of a shared mythology. That renewed myth probably both helped and hindered the examination of the prior failings of the nation and world to realize the values claimed. Thus giving force to the voices pointing out our national hypocrisies when we avoid the confront those failings which have had fits and stops ever since in the attempts to rectify the promise with the real. Whether one sees that as progress to continue or cause to burn the whole down in favor of imposing new institutions that will realize the Perfect Promise of Equality (TM) is a major conflict. I kinda find the latter too closely aligned with the French experience to not be concerned while agreeing we need to move in thar direction. But that but that doesn't seem to be zeitgeist so I'm left to imagine whatever we get won't be healthy.

Before reading this, I hadn't been aware that the Tehran Conference between Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, and the creation of their respective country’s 'spheres of influence', was an impetus for Orwell's work.

In Iran, at the time, the 1943 conference instilled a reactive patriotism that led to the creation of a boldly nationalistic 'Screw you' anthem that is still aggressively sung today. That the Near East could be divvied up among the great powers was insulting to the Iranian and Arabic worlds and has had repercussions that reverberate to this day.

It didn't occur to me to think of it exactly this way and it's a great insight. Thanks for sharing it

[Gadianton]

It didn’t maintain its most needed differentiation from totalitarianism of being the rule of the few in the name of the many.

I didn't read the book, but I've followed along the posts here. The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism was one of the most important insights for me. Right-wingers also like 1984, and see easy parallels in government-mandated masks and vaccines. They see Democrats as the architects of Big Brother. They think they are paying attention. They think their publicity stunts and unhinged behavior is preserving their freedom. Acting like a clown means you're free. Making crap up instead of accepting guidance from experts or officials means you're free.

Point 4 is the other big idea. If you have a narrative, then you can save vast amounts of money on technology. Even on a board as remote as this one by social media norms, we see posters pop up just to pass along memes and regurgitate talking points. The right-wing has a tremendous force at their base for self-policing, as it were.

[honorentheos]

It didn’t maintain its most needed differentiation from totalitarianism of being the rule of the few in the name of the many.

I didn't read the book, but I've followed along the posts here. The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism was one of the most important insights for me. Right-wingers also like 1984, and see easy parallels in government-mandated masks and vaccines. They see Democrats as the architects of Big Brother. They think they are paying attention. They think their publicity stunts and unhinged behavior is preserving their freedom. Acting like a clown means you're free. Making crap up instead of accepting guidance from experts or officials means you're free.

Point 4 is the other big idea. If you have a narrative, then you can save vast amounts of money on technology. Even on a board as remote as this one by social media norms, we see posters pop up just to pass along memes and regurgitate talking points. The right-wing has a tremendous force at their base for self-policing, as it were.

I thought his insights in the Stanford discussion on the leverage technology represents that we have as policy option was one of the best among many great insights. But like I think you are saying, the acceptance and distribution of propoganda is inherently more important than are the tools of enforcement. Hutchinson doesn't testify in Congress if she believes the narrative, while threatening her to remember which team she was on ultimately backfired once she rejected it.

His associated policy point was that thriving democratic institutions weaken those narratives. Thriving democratic bodies that maintain the rule of law and a commitment to justice undermine the worldview of the Ajax's of the world who imagine everyone is just engaging in self-interested politics. He sees the lockdowns of 2020 as politics because, like a Soviet who only knows a world of political combat and lies, he can't imagine that we all may have accepted it as a sacrifice that was for a greater good. He can't imagine a horizon beyond it being an attempt to undermine Trump before the election. The narrative is strong, so the commitment to justice has to be stronger. It shines a light on why choosing to engage in counter-partisanship is suicide. One may win battles and that way, but one gave up the cause worth fighting for in favor of a replica of the opposition.

[honorentheos]

It has a parallel in Mormon studies where I sincerely believe the most damage caused by mopologists came from the contrast of their approach with those whose reliance on facts and minimizing vitriol created opportunity to get past the narrative about the evil of anti-Mormonism. Of course, rfm and the like had their place and once someone has moved past the narrative threshold to be open to the Church being wrong it seemed catharsis was also needed. But I don't imagine the Church was as damaged by anger as it was by facts. The facts are the rocks on which the lies broke, the mopologetic hostility the waves pushing the honest doubter into them, perhaps.