See now, that got your attention. Now reply to my bloody topics!

Hannah Arendt describes totalitarian movements as "mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals". The individul is seperated from all ties to family, friends, comrades and even acquaintences, because such people could and would easily betray him if he were accused of being against the regime. Thus deprived of all other contact, the individual's sense of place in the universe is derived only from his belonging to the movement, to the party.

During the Soviet show trials*, the accused confessed to the most egegriously ridiculous charges. This behaviour has confused psychologists and historians for some time. I believe that this behaviour was the result of the extreme atomism that Hannah describes above, and also of the accused's need for power.

*Audience groans "there she goes again"*

The victim of the totalitarian regime submits to the regime when it "devours its children" because he has identified his possession of power with the government/movement so completely that to rebel against the party by refusing to go along with his show tiral would be to destroy his own possession of power. He is powerful as a cog in the machine of the party/government. To break away would make him nothing. He has no family, no friends, and no other source of power. He sacrifices his life, his integrity, his very honour simply to stay part of the machine that dominates his life.

The machine is his life. He is nothing without it - in it he is powerful and meaningful. Outside of it, he is nothing. He has no other humans to rely on and no real identity outside the party.

Umm, to justify the title, this is why "1984" places such a primacy on the romance between Winston Smith and Julia. Oh, and Hannah was a babe.

There.

SOMEBODY POST SOMETHING OR I WILL CRY!

*Refresher of the show trials (http://www.geocities.com/broadway/orchestra/4023/kgb.html)

Interesting ..erm.. deconstruction. But I think you're missing two vital things: fear and desire to live.

First of all, fear. Fear of torture and privation. Fear of being reduced to a gibbering animal. Or in fact being reduced to such through torture both physical and psychological, at which point the desire to live is the overwhelming drive. If only for another day, if only for a few more hours.

The source of torture eventually becomes a source of mercy. If you cooperate, then you shall know peace and forgiveness. It's a harsh form of love, but they do love you. That is why they want you to get better, to realise how wrong you are and how you betrayed their love. But most of all, you fear their wrath. For it eclipses the universe in its overwhelming and terrifying enormity.

You fear for your family, for all those you care about. Because if you don't take the fall they'll drag your wive in. Or perhaps your sibling, or your child. Or your friends. They will be squeezed of all the information about you that is desired, and more. And then they will share your fate, being the associates and protectors of a vicious criminal, traitors to the country, the people, and the cause. Do you really want them to suffer like you have, even worse than you have? They are quite candid about it with you; there's no need for innuendo.

There can be a number of avenues along which coersion unfolds. But ultimately you succumb because you cannot take the pain any longer, whether the pain is physical or emotional. Perhaps you hope for mercy. Perhaps you hope for a quick death.

overdoze:

I won't argue with you on torture, but the odd thing is that it does not seem that torture was needed to extract confessions. The Soviets did use torture, and used much more psychologically refined methods than were common at the time......but again, it does not seem that most of the accused were tortured.

As for family, once arrested your family was basically fucked no matter what you did. You raise a good point, however, I do not think this is a complete explanation.

Originally posted by Xev
I won't argue with you on torture, but the odd thing is that it does not seem that torture was needed to extract confessions.


That's questionable. Just because we aren't aware that it occurred doesn't mean it hadn't. You can torture the shit out of somebody, then give him/her a couple of months to restore some health before you trot them out in public. Besides, it is conceivable that many folded without any need for actual torture, following in the footsteps of Galileo.

In addition, if we're talking about high-profile apparatchiks, they already know all the dirty tricks at the Party's disposal. They don't need to be threatened or educated. Once ensnared, they know exactly what awaits them. Perhaps for some, going with dignity would indeed be a statement of power and a kind of private triumph. It is akin to a chess master giving up a hopeless situation with "honor", rather than continuing to doggedly pursue his certain defeat to the bitter end, pathetically hoping for a miracle to save him. Even though the ignorant masses will swallow your guilt in all you "confess" to, between you and your persecutors there is insider knowledge of what is really going on. In such a situation, you might give this true reality a much higher priority than the sham manufactured by your enemies' propaganda machine.



As for family, once arrested your family was basically fucked no matter what you did.


That may or may not have always been true. Besides, when they merely tell you that if you 'fess up they'll live your family alone and even give it some cash for sustenance... do you really have a choice? Can you afford to call their bluff? And how would that go, exactly?

I should also mention that Arendt's analysis as you paraphrased it does not sound convincing. You do not have to be detached from someone in order to live in fear of them. You can love and fear the same person/object simultaneously. I mean, who says humans are naturally rational beings?