Oliver 1

Jaylee Oliver

Dr. McCarthy

UHON 1020

29th March, 2017

Research Paper

In George Orwells 1984, everything is considered a crime yet nothing is legally

criminal. The main character Winston explains this phenomenon by saying The thing he was

about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no

longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punishable by death,

or at least by twenty-five years in a forced labor camp (Orwell, 8). Orwell juxtaposes two

diametrically opposed groups in his novel- Big Brother and the Brotherhood. This causes the

novel to be littered with conflicts, and according to the Criminological theory known as the

Conflict Theory, this is inevitable. Various sources explain that the conflict theory defines social

structure as the dividing point, as well as the origin of crime itself- Vold states that in complex

societies, there is bound to be conflict due to the normalization of the group in powers ideals as

law. Readers can see this theory being applied in 1984 with groups such as the Spies, the

Ministries, as well as the elusive Brotherhood. By examining actions taken and ideas proclaimed

by characters in Orwells novel 1984 through the lens of a Conflict Criminologist, this paper

plans to show that the world of 1984 and how the characters form criminal tendencies, is

fundamentally similar to the way in which American criminals act today. While this may be a

dramatic comparison, the fact that there are more similarities than differences to the way in
 Oliver 2

which fictitious criminals and legitimate American criminals are developed will be expounded

upon in this paper.

Heralding from the generalist Labeling Theory, the overarching theme within the Conflict

Theory states that society is composed of groups that have opposing values and interests and

that the state represents the values and interests of the groups with the most power (Brown,

399). The delineation of the conflict theory is important because without knowledge such as that

published by theorist Horton Cooley- such as his famous Looking Glass Study which said our

understanding of ourselves is primarily a reflection of our perception of how others react to us

(Cooley, 152) - there would be no foundation for the investigation into group conflict.

Underneath the umbrella of conflict criminology, hangs varying versions of the aforementioned

definition. Marxist criminology proposes that crime is a product of the capitalist mode of

production (Anderson, 211). The Power Threat Theory proposes that as minority groups

increase in economic or political power, majority groups will subject them to greater amounts of

social control (Anderson, 217). Radical Criminology focuses on the political nature of crime

and the oppressive use of the criminal justice system. For the purpose of this paper, we will be

focusing on the Group Conflict Theory as proposed by George Vold. Vold states that groups

come into conflict with one another as the interests and purposes they serve begin to overlap and

encroach (Brown, 401).

Being the nature of this research and the standards of todays scientific method, it is

reasonable to assume that the data previously described is, in general, applicable to the American

demographic. And thus, the research needs to be compared to the criminality found in Orwells

novel 1984 so that one can see the commonalities between the world in which we inhabit and the

dystopian setting of 1984. Since the Conflict Theory is the daughter of the Labeling Theory, we
 Oliver 3

should first analyze evidence of the latter present in the novel. While locked up in the holding

cell in the Ministry of Love, Winston is confronted by his old neighbor and colleague, Parsons.

In his warm greeting, Parsons immediately admitted his guilt by saying Of course Im guilty!...

You dont think the Party would arrest an innocent man, do you? (Orwell, 236). Then as their

conversation continues, Parson reveals who denounced him- It was my little daughter. He goes

on to say Im proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit This sounds like the

willing confession of a guilty man. However, after reading the context included in the novel,

these quotes hold a different meaning. Parsons mentions that he was caught committing his

crime while in his REM sleep. He expresses how thankful he is that his daughter eavesdropped at

his door and was horrified at what her disciplinarian was saying in his sleep, so she went to the

police. Miss Parsons actions are parallel to those of her and her brothers earlier in the novel

when Winston recognized the siblings as belonging to the Spies which were ungovernable little

savages who adored the party and everything connected with it (Orwell, 23). The Parson

siblings called Winston a traitor, a thought criminal, a Eurasian spy, and even the name of Big

Brothers enemy at large- Goldstein. Mr. Parsons son even threatened Winston by saying Ill

shoot you, Ill vaporize you, Ill send you to the salt mines (Orwell, 23). And once Winston gets

back to his house, he is quick to admit that he was a dead man (Orwell, 29). This follows, quite

exactly, the Labeling Theory. Stephen Brown studies George Herbert Mead, a forerunner in this

field of criminology, in his text, Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context. Brown

mentions that Mead focused on the interaction between an emerging self and the perceptions of

others reactions to that self (381) As one can see in Winstons reassessment of his or her

personal identity (Brown, 381) when he assumes he is a dead man for writing his journal, when

he had only recently gotten the nerve to write anything at all. Winstons retrospection can
 Oliver 4

reasonably be assumed to have stemmed from the slurs that were thrown at him only minutes

earlier. Thus proving the Labeling Theorys claim that crime is an effect of the dramatization of

evil in which the subject is singled out from his peers and treated as a criminal (Anderson 185).

According to Thomas Bernards textbook Volds Theoretical Criminology, conflict

between groups tends to develop and intensify the loyalty of the group members to their

respective groups (Bernard, 401). A prime example of this aspect of the Conflict Theory in

1984 is Winstons profession. Winston works at the Ministry of Truth, and he holds the position

that erases and rewrites history. Winston mentions a port that is located next to his desk, and

once he is finished rewriting historical documents to align with Big Brothers agenda, he drops

the original piece in the port to be incinerated. This is important because Winstons career sits

him right in front of conflict. When he reads the original piece, he is subject to actual historical

evidence, and when he has to rewrite the document to say whatever Big Brother wants it to, he is

subject to falsified and conflicting information. According to Bernards explanation of crime,

this would naturally bond Winston to the idea he has of the Brotherhood. Vold states that these

groups form because members have common interests and needs that can best be met through

collective action (Brown, 401). Therefore, Winstons actions are seemingly a mirror image of

what defines the Group Conflict Theory- two groups, factual historical documents and falsified

information, come into conflict with one another as the interests and purposes they serve begin

to overlap and encroach (Brown, 401). Another application of this theory in 1984 is the 2

Minute Hate that is played out in the beginning of the novel. Winston describes the 2 Minute

Hate as a hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in

with a sledge hammer, [that] seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric

current, turning one even against ones will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic (Orwell, 24).
 Oliver 5

While the two minute hate does not make Winston [turn] against Goldstein at all, but on the

contrary, against Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police (Orwell, 19), the 2 Minute Hate

is very effective for the majority of the population. Winston says before the hate had proceeded

for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in

the room (Orwell, 14). By facilitating this incredible showcase of anger and hatred, the Party is

molding its citizens to be optimal disciples. The Party induces its people into a frenzied state

during their mandatory viewing of the telescreen. For the 2 minutes that comprise this exercise,

Winston describes coworkers as leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of

their voices in an effort to drown out the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen

(Orwell, 15). There is a deep seeded hate that arises in these citizens when they are forced to

look at the face of their believed enemy, and this comes from the fact that the Party has

conditioned them to feel anger, nausea, and hatred for Big Brothers enemy, Goldstein.

According to Volds theory that conflict between groups increases loyalty within the respective

groups, the 2 Minute Hate is a tool manipulated by the Party in order to develop and intensify

the loyalty of group members (Brown, 401) to the Party itself. This is why it makes it so easy

for the Party to influence its members- by requiring participation in an act portrayed to be a

promotion of the Party, Big Brother is able to intensify member loyalty exponentially.

In order for this paper to continue, there needs to be an expansion upon the earlier claim

that the Group Conflict Theory and the like are applicable to the American population.

Therefore, real world applications and findings will be detailed as the paper continues. Firstly,

according to Giorgio Gallo, a deep understanding of conflicts requires a system thinking

approach (Gallo, 158). Gallo recognizes that conflict does not end simply when violence is

stopped or when a satisfactory compromise between the parties is signed (156). He proves this
 Oliver 6

later in his writings when he calls upon the historical example of the Iraq War. He qualifies his

explanation of the war by quoting Max Boot, an American political analyst as writing the USA

and its allies won so quickly [that it] ranks as one of the single achievements in military

history (Gallo, 157). Returning to his earlier claim that the cessation of violence does not equate

the cessation of conflict, Gallo points out the fact that following the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq,

the civilian deaths due to gunfire, vehicle bombs and suicide attacks today, are still of the order

of hundreds per month (157). With this information as described in Gallos research paper,

there are noticeably some parallels in the plot of 1984. For example, in Winstons job, he sees

older newspapers and articles that describe past conflicts that have since been resolved. Big

Brother, however, has an entire workforce in place to change these documents and make the

articles say whatever they want them to, or in other words to edit history with conflicting

information. Gallo takes into account boundaries definitions, state and activity variables, as well

as causal loops and feedbacks when examining conflict as a complex system. In his paper,

Conflict Theory, Complexity, and Systems Approach, Gallo points out that it is us who define

the system and its boundaries, that is, which variables are to be included in the system and which

are not (159). Gallos study found several real-world boundaries that shape a conflict- the

Physical land is the most typical case, but there are also several kinds of resources, such as oil,

water, minerals, access to the sea, and others (159). We see examples of both the literal and

figurative boundaries in Orwells 1984, with Winstons boundaries surrounding the land Winston

can see Julia in, as well as the boundaries surrounding coffee and liquor. Next Gallo describes

state and activity variables as being modelled in the salience of ethnic identity (160). This is

commonplace in the world of 1984 as we read Winstons explanations of people, being that he

often identifies their party or prole affiliation before anything else about them. Next Gallo
 Oliver 7

identifies causal loops and feedbacks as being at the basis of the difficulty to devise the right

actions to bring a conflict to a solution (161). Gallo exemplifies these loops in reference to

counterinsurgency operations in poor areas. He explains that these operations include promising

police protection yet reserving the right to control them at the same time. As Gallos theory has

been widely accepted amongst sociologists and criminologists today, in addition to being

applicable to Winstons world, reveals a similarity between the world in which we inhabit and

the dystopian setting of 1984.

In another extensive study of group conflict, The SAGE Handbook of Conflict

Communication examines four assumptions of the conflict theory. The author points out their

first assumption that communication is constitutive of conflict and vice versa (Oetzel 502). In

the world of 1984, this is present on an even greater scale as seen with the destruction of their

newspeak language. The second assumption is that there exists a material, social basis for all

conflict. Culture, understood as a way of life, is determined by the logic of material interests

(Oetzel, 503). This is demonstrated in 1984 as Winston reveals what is legal for him to have and

what is not, he mentions that at any given moment there was some necessary article which the

Party shops were unable to supply (Orwell, 49). Thirdly, the author claims that conflict is a site

of identity construction, management, and performance (Oetzel, 503). He expands upon this to

include shaping or perceptions of how others see us. In 1984 an example of conflict shaping

ones identity would be how Winston painfully and unwillingly absorbs the teachings of Big

Brother and eventually as he realizes he loves Big Brother. Finally, the SAGE handbook reveals

that conflicts materialize from our actual lived experiences (Oetzel, 503). He adds that the

mainstream literature on interpersonal conflict looks a lot like the story of White America

(Oetzel, 503). An example of this in 1984, is the unspoken, yet graphic explanation of conflict
 Oliver 8

between Winston and Julia. By combining examples from the SAGE handbook, which is a text

that integrates theory, research, and practice, with the examples from 1984, the similarities are

obvious, and unavoidable. And they have been for some time now, according to the Sociology

Inquiry, five of the past six ASA Presidents have focused on the paradigm crisis in sociology

calling for new directions in research by the profession and later, author Timothy Lehmann

states that the study of conflict, force, and protest [is] a major agenda item for the discipline

(17).

Since the publication of such studies as those mentioned above, numerous conflict

avoidance strategies have been created, for example, as many people have been undergone the

collegiate bystander intervention programs. However, in an interesting study published by

SAGE publications on the relationship between social conflict and television news, researchers

found that the greatest perceived importance of knowing about social conflicts was in South

Africa, followed by the United Kingdom, West Germany, Israel, and the United States (Cohen,

138), later he adds that only twenty two percent of Americans claimed they believed it was

important to know about social conflict. This fact is stunning because for an issue that affects

nearly everyone, social conflict is largely avoided by the public. For example, Frank Williams

points out a major social conflict in the argument between criminologists William Wilbanks and

Coramae Richey Mann, in which Wilbanks has claimed that no systemic discrimination is

present in the criminal justice system and Mann has claimed the opposite. With social

differences as gaping as the civil rights movement which Lehmann defines as [typifying] events

that require basic change in the fabric of society. Williams makes it clear that while the more

radical theories have had largely no effect on policy, conflict theories have shed light on and

increased concern for equality within the justice system. Many people however believe that
 Oliver 9

revealing the inequality within the courts is not enough, and that there needs to be more done. On

a small scale, researcher Marilyn McShane conducted a study of one of the most oppressed

groups- the Texas Department of Corrections: immigrant inmates. In her study she found that

alien inmates, on average, were serving more prison time than their resident counterparts

(Williams, 81). Many theorists have labored over the response to such discriminatory facts, and

there have very few successful attempts to solve this specific aspect of social conflict. However,

Elliot Currie, published a policy- conscious article that in which he proposed several healthcare,

education, and support programs that should be implemented in order to start at the source of

solving group conflict. Author Frank Williams claims that with the emergence of the left realist

movement, we anticipate many, very practical proposals will be made (181). And concerning

White-Collar Crime, conflict criminologists would advocate for the implication of regulatory

agencies, additional ethics courses, as well as a redefinition of crime to include most cases of

harm inflicted on society (Williams 181).

Oliver 10