Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T21:44:05.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gamesmanship and Androcentrism in Orwell's 1984

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Daphne Patai
Daphne Patai*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1984, Orwell rejects moral justifications for the exercise of power and confronts it as an end in itself. When viewed in this way, the pursuit of power takes on the contours of a game. The concept of play throws light on O'Brien's role in 1984, and a perspective borrowed from game theory clarifies Winston Smith s participation in the contest between tormentor and victim, showing that both share a frame of reference and fundamental values. Examining these values leads to a critique of Orwell's androcentrism and misogyny. Only in a culture that disparages the female while accepting the male as the model for the species could it have gone unremarked that 1984 concerns the interaction of two men. Orwell saw that the pursuit of power posed dangers to humanity but could not see this activity as merely an extreme form of conventional masculine behavior. Caught in this contradiction, Orwell despaired.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 97 , Issue 5 , October 1982 , pp. 856 - 870
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Brams, Steven J. Biblical Games: A Strategic Analysis of Stories in the Old Testament. Cambridge: MIT, 1980.Google Scholar
Brenner, Otto, C, and Vinacke, W. Edgar. “Accommodative and Exploitative Behavior of Males versus Females and Managers versus Nonmanagers as Measured by the Test of Strategy.” Social Psychology Quarterly 42(1979):289–93.Google Scholar
Caillois, Roger. Man, Play, and Games. Trans. Barash, Meyer. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.Google Scholar
Connors, James. “ ‘Do It to Julia’: Thoughts on Orwell's 1984.” Modern Fiction Studies 16(1970–71):463–73.Google Scholar
Davis, Morton D. Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction. New York: Basic Books, 1970.Google Scholar
Ehrmann, Jacques. “Homo Ludens Revisited.” In Game, Play, Literature. Ed. Ehrmann, Jacques. Boston: Beacon, 1968, 31–57.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, Walter. “Game Theory, Cultural Values, and the Brideprice in Africa.” In Game Theory in the Behavioral Sciences. Ed. Buchler, Ira R. and Nutini, Hugo G. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 1969, 60–74.Google Scholar
Hacker, Andrew. “Dostoyevsky's Disciples: Man and Sheep in Political Theory.” Journal of Politics 17(1955):590–613.Google Scholar
Howard, Nigel. Paradoxes of Rationality. Cambridge: MIT, 1971.Google Scholar
Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon, 1955.Google Scholar
Jameson, Fredric. “The Great American Hunter, or, Ideological Content in the Novel.” College English 34(1972):180–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Harold H. “Experimental Studies of Threats in Interpersonal Negotiations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 9(1965): 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koestler, Arthur. Darkness at Noon. Trans. Daphne Hardy. 1941; rpt. New York: Bantam, 1966.Google Scholar
Orwell, George. Burmese Days. London: Seeker and Warburg, 1949.Google Scholar
Orwell, George. The Clergyman's Daughter. New York: Harcourt, n.d.Google Scholar
Orwell, George. Coming Up for Air. New York: Harcourt, 1950.Google Scholar
Orwell, George. My Country Right or Left 1940–1943 and In Front of Your Nose 1945–1950. Vols. 2 and 4 of The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell. Ed. Orwell, Sonia and Angus, Ian. New York: Harcourt, 1968.Google Scholar
Orwell, George. 1984. New York: Signet-NAL, 1961.Google Scholar
Orwell, George. The Road to Wigan Pier. New York: Berkley Publishing, 1961.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. “‘The Disorder of Women’: Women, Love, and the Sense of Justice.” Ethics 91(1980): 20–34.Google Scholar
Rahv, Philip. “The Unfuture of Utopia.” Partisan Review, July 1949. Rpt. in Literature and the Sixth Sense. Boston: Houghton, 1969, 331–39.Google Scholar
Richards, D. “Four Utopias.” Slavonic and East European Review 40(1961): 220–28.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. “What Is Game Theory?” In Contemporary Political Analysis. Ed. Charlesworth, James C. New York: Free Press, 1967, 212–38.Google Scholar
Shubik, Martin. “The Uses of Game Theory.” In Contemporary Political Analysis. Ed. Charlesworth, James C. New York: Free Press, 1967, 239–71.Google Scholar
Southwold, Martin. “A Games Model of African Tribal Politics.” In Game Theory in the Behavioral Sciences. Ed. Buchler, Ira R. and Nutini, Hugo G. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 1969, 23–43.Google Scholar
Stoll, Stasz, Clarice, and McFarlane, Paul T. “Player Characteristics and Interaction in a Parent-Child Simulation Game.” Sociometry 32(1969): 259–72.Google Scholar
Suits, Bernard. The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinacke, W. Edgar. “Sex Roles in a Three-Person Game.” Sociometry 22(1959):343–60.Google Scholar
Walker, Stuart H. Winning: The Psychology of Competition. New York: Norton, 1980.Google Scholar