ONE
GEORGE ORWELLâS BIG BROTHER
IN THE WAKE OF THE Edward Snowden revelations, interest in George Orwellâs novel 1984 soared, leading to an exponential rise in sales. Less than a week after the first leaks were revealed by the Guardian in June 2013, the Los Angeles Times reported that sales of Orwellâs book had increased by nearly 6,000 percent.1 One edition in particular, which includes a foreword by Thomas Pynchon, increased in Amazon sales by nearly 10,000 percent, becoming âthe third hottest book on Amazon,â according to its âMovers and Shakersâ list.2
Editorialists across the globe instantly drew the connection. Alan Rusbridger, the Guardianâs editor in chief, announced that the âNSA surveillance goes beyond Orwellâs imagination,â while the newspaper quickly assembled letters to the editor under the headline âOrwellâs Fears Refracted through the NSAâs Prism.â3 At the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof jumped on Twitter to ask, âI wonder if NSA has to pay a licensing fee for its domestic surveillance program to the George Orwell estate. #1984.â4 Even the International Business Times ran a story that read âNSA PRISM: 3 Ways Orwellâs â1984â Saw This Coming.â5
President Obama stoked the fire, alluding to Orwellâs novel just two days into the revelations: âIn the abstract, you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a potential program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, then I think weâve struck the right balance.â6 Edward Snowden refreshed the allusion in his Christmas 2013 greeting, speaking directly into the TV camera from Moscow, telling anyone who would listen that the NSA surveillance capabilities vastly surpass Orwellâs fears. âThe types of collection in the bookâmicrophones and video cameras, TVs that watch usâare nothing compared to what we have available today. We have sensors in our pockets that track us everywhere we go,â Snowden said. âThink about what this means for the privacy of the average person.â7 Glenn Greenwald also invoked Orwellâs 1984, emphasizing that âthe echoes of the world about which he warned in the NSAâs surveillance state are unmistakable.â8 And the metaphor continued to persist, with District of Columbia federal district court judge Richard Leonâwho had been appointed by President George W. Bushâstriking down the bulk telephony metadata program in Klayman v. Obama, calling the NSA technology âalmost-Orwellianââtechnology that, in his words, âenables the Government to store and analyze phone metadata of every telephone user in the United States.â9
These constant references to 1984 have fueled a rich debate about whether the metaphor is aptâwhether Orwellâs dystopian vision accurately captures our political condition today, whether it exceeds or minimizes it, whether it is a useful lens with which to analyze the present.
For some, the similarities are practically perfect. Richard Jinman, in the British news magazine The Week, highlights five matches: the environment of perpetual war in the fictional Oceania and the United Statesâ own perpetual âwar on terrorâ; the âcharismatic leaderâ of Big Brother and the popular president Barack Obama; the two âanti-heroes,â Winston Smith and Edward Snowden; the âbeautiful heroines,â Julia and Snowdenâs girlfriend, Lindsay Mills; and âthe sinister technologyâ and âthe sinister languageâ of doublespeak present in government and corporate responses to the Snowden leaks.10
Ian Crouch at the New Yorker also highlights a number of symmetries between 1984 and the Snowden affair.11 Crouch notes that Snowden is much like Orwellâs Winston, especially had the latter âbeen a bit more ambitious, and considerably more lucky, and managed to defect from Oceania to its enemy Eastasia and sneak a message to the telescreens back home.â Second, the technological capabilities of NSAâs surveillance apparatus mirror those in Oceania in 1984âespecially the âsafe operating assumptionâ that most of our daily, non-face-to-face communications are capable of being recorded. This, despite the fact that the âtechnological possibilities of [the NSAâs] surveillance and data collection and storage surely surpass what Orwell imagined,â Crouch adds.12 Third, todayâs language and words âare manipulated by the three branches of government to make what might seem illegal legalâleading to something of a parallel language that rivals Orwellâs Newspeak for its soulless, obfuscated meaning.â13 Crouch adds: âIndeed, there has been a hint of something vaguely Big Brotherian in Obamaâs response to the public outcry about domestic surveillance, as though, by his calm manner and clear intelligence, the President is asking the people to merely trust his beneficenceâwhich many of us might be inclined to do.â14 Nonetheless, Crouch does point out a key difference with 1984: âWe are far from the crushing, violent, single-party totalitarian regime of Orwellâs imagination.â That is, our own political regime does not resemble the âboot stamping on a human faceâforeverâ that Orwell described.15
Along the latter lines, Robert Colls at Salon.com argues that the world depicted in Orwellâs novel differs in key respects from the particularities of the current NSA surveillance programs. For one thing, Colls suggests, the means by which Orwellâs dystopian society was monitored were far more visible and more encompassing than the NSAâs surveillance apparatus. The figure of Edward Snowden himselfâan individual employee, working at a private consulting firm, with access to bulk dataâis different from the coercive figure of Big Brother, who listens in every possible way to every possible conversation (though Colls is careful to note that Snowden âleaves no one in doubt that in slightly less serious hands this infinity of tapping could disfigure not only other peopleâs lives but other peopleâs countries tooâ). But âthe decisive difference,â Colls asserts, between the reality of Snowden and Orwellâs depiction of Winston Smith âis that Snowden is not really alone.â Edward Snowden has forms of public support that were not possible for Winston Smith:
When the New York Times, Der Spiegel, the Guardian, the American Civil Liberties Union, and some very influential legal and political opinion, including that of former President Jimmy Carter on the left and libertarian lawyer Bruce Fein on the right, and influential Democrats and Republicans like Patrick Leahy and Jim Sensenbrenner in the middleâwhen they and head of US Intelligence James Clapper all voice their various and diverse levels of support for a debate started by a man whom the other side calls an out and out traitor, then you know that unlike Winston Smith, Edward Snowden will not be a traitor forever. The 9th December statement by the giant American information companies is just as significant. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and the rest are American brands as well as American corporations. Money counts.16
Clearly, opinions are divided on the relevance of Orwellâs novel. Some emphasize the similarities with our present condition, others the stark differences. In this case, though, it may well be the differences that make the novel so relevant.
WHAT MAKES ORWELLâS NOVEL 1984 such a precious metaphor today is precisely that Orwell was prophetic in so many ways, yet he got the most crucial dimension flat wrongânamely, the role that desire would play in enabling digital exposure today. It is precisely in the jarring contrast between the myriad aspects of the novel that are so prescient and this one thing that is so offâthe place of pleasureâthat the 1984 metaphor is so telling. What it highlights and brings out is the central operating mechanism of our own dystopian present: our fancies, our predilections, our simplest desires, all recommended, curated, and cultivated in this digital age.
Across a range of dimensions, Orwell was clairvoyant: on the technologies and pervasiveness of surveillance, on the very idea of thoughtcrime, on the form of punishment, especially on what and how we punishâor at least punished until recently. On everything analog, on the bars and the cinder blocks, on the physical, tangible reality of punishment, Orwell got it. But he misfired at the core of the digital. Orwell got one key feature wrong, marvelously wrongâmarvelously, because it sheds so much light on our current condition. In 1984, the fundamental political strategy of oppressionâof Big Brother, of OâBrien, of what the fictitious traitor Emmanuel Goldstein described in his splendid book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivismâwas to crush and eradicate desire. With their Junior Anti-Sex Leagues that âadvocated complete celibacy for both sexesâ and their drive to abolish the orgasm, the central tactic was to hollow out the men and women of Oceania, to neutralizeâin effect, to neuterâall their drives and passions, to wear them down into submission, with the smell of boiled cabbage and old rag mats, coarse soap, blue uniforms, and blunt razors. To eviscerate all desire and fill them instead with hateâwith the âHate Weekâ and the âTwo Minutes Hates.â
Today, by contrast, everything functions by means of âlikes,â âshares,â âfavorites,â âfriending,â and âfollowing.â The drab blue uniform and grim gray walls in 1984 have been replaced by the iPhone 5C in all its radiant colorsâin sharp pink, yellow, blue, and green. âColorful through and throughâ is our marketing slogan today, and it is precisely the desire for color-filled objects, for shared photos on Instagram, for vivid emoticons, for more âlikes,â clicks, and tweets, that make us expose our most intimate desires and deliver ourselves to the surveillance technologies.17
It is almost as if someone had learned from Orwellâs greatest error: it is far easier to tame men and women by means of their passionsâeven passions for the simplest things, like real tea, real coffee, and real sugar for Winston and Julia, or for us, lattes, frappes, and free Wi-Fiâthan it is by trying to quash desire and lust, by trying to defeat âthe Spirit of Man.â18 Orwellâs misfire, I would say, is so terribly revealing because it is precisely through our passions, desires, and interestsânurtured, curated, and fed by Facebook, MySpace, Google, Instagram, Flickr, YouTube, and Snapchatâthat we, at least in the United States, have become so transparent and so exposed today to pervasive (one might even say Orwellian) surveillance, not only by the government and the police, but by private corporations, social media, retailers, nonprofit entities, foreign countries, and each other. It is our passionsâin tension with our ambivalences, anxieties, and discomforts, to be sureâthat feed the expository society.
SO, PLAINLY, THIS IS NOT to deny that there is much that is prescient in the novel. Written in 1949, Orwellâs 1984 accurately prefigured a range of deep transformations that would take place in the area of crime and punishment, and in surveillance, over the course of the second half of the twentieth century.
Orwellâs novel foreshadowed a fundamental transformation in what we punish: instead of punishing people solely for the commission of acts, we began to punish peopleâand we punish them todayâfor who they are. As OâBrien exclaimed to Winston, âWe are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care aboutâ (253).19 The thought, or more precisely, the person: the habitual offender, the sexual predatorâin short, the dangerous individual. The invention of actuarial methods at the dawn of the twentieth century and the steady rise in their use over the past fifty years fundamentally transformed what we punish in the twenty-first centuryânot just the act, but the character of the offender, who he is, his age, his schooling, his employment record, his marital history, his prior treatments and incarcerations. And while I trace this shift back to the implementation of the actuarial in American criminal justice rather than to discipline or governmentality, I agree fundamentally with Foucau...