Skip to main content

What is the meaning behind the gender definitions, and what do they mean to the story as a whole in George Orwell's 1984?

This is an interesting and complex question. In the novel, we perceive gender both through the eyes of Winston, a male, and through the lens of the Party, which wants to neuter gender. 


Winston, at first, reacts hostilely to Julia, for she activates within him the sexual frustration he feels in a system that exalts chastity as a high virtue. The narrow red anti-sex sash she wears around her attractive waist symbolizes to him the way he is barred from a normal sex life with a beautiful woman. Julia is to Winston at first solely a sex object, and worse, a wholly forbidden sex object, flaunting both her desirability and her inaccessibility. He has conflicted desires: he wants to have sex with her but since she presents as frigid this causes him to engage in violent fantasies about her. Later, when they have an affair, he falls in love with her, and she comes to represent completion and wholeness to him, much of this is based on sexual fulfillment, but some of it is clearly a response to appreciating Julia as a whole person: body, mind and spirit. 


The state of Oceania wants to destroy gendered relationships of the old-fashioned type Julia and Winston represent, where a man and woman place their first loyalty at the feet of the other. This kind of relationship is obviously at odds with total devotion to the state and worship of Big Brother as the ultimate goods. To ensure they put the state first, O'Brien (or his proxy in the case of Julia) manages to destroy the trust between Julia and Winston by manipulating each into betraying the other. At the end of the book, we see Julia, particularly, as degendered in a way no red anti-sex league sash could ever accomplish: she is lumpen, thick, without a spark and beyond interest in sex. In reducing Winston and Julia to broken, degendered states, Orwell shows that the Party has won. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.