Comparison Between '1984 And Mere Human Behavior'

Don’t Look Away
The Tank Man- the immensely courageous man who put himself in the way of numerous tanks in Tiananmen Square in opposition of the Chinese government in the fight for democracy- is one of the most well known people who have demonstrated resistance and strength in fighting against injustice. This same idea of resistance is explored in both George Orwell’s novel 1984 and Roger Cohen’s New York Times Op-ed article “Mere Human Behavior”. Both Orwell and Cohen suggest that resistance gives us hope that change is possible, and therefore any act of resistance is never futile.
Orwell’s dystopian society is a society in which the mere act of having a rebellious thought is considered a crime-“thought-crime” they call it. The relentless
constriction of all actions upon the members of this society result in two distinct responses: effortless conformity, and uncontrollable resistance.
This resistance presents itself in many forms- the most extreme form resides in Winston. He questions every ideology the Party holds to be true, desperately in search of anything that will put a chink in its armor. Winston refuses to believe that the Party “would always exist; … would always be the same” (167). To accept this would be to extinguish all hope, asserting exactly what the Party wants him to believe. Why is Winston so intent on resisting, on proving his ability to escape its hold? He cannot allow himself to stand helpless, puppet-like, strings pulled by some invisible force, cannot stand among a crowd of “three hundred million people all with the same face” (82). Accepting defeat would ultimately mean relinquishing control over his mind, admitting that his memory held no evidence of the
past. Winston knows that “…if you [cling] to the truth even against the whole world you [are] not mad” (238). His resolve grows as he begins to understand that it does not take an army to create change, for “even a minority of one” possesses the same power (82). Even when the Party puts him in extremely compromising positions, Winston finds himself incapable of abandoning his thoughts; though his resistance may not reap rewards for him, it could benefit future generations, because if “[he] kept alive the mind as they kept alive the body” then there still existed the possibility of change.
Roger Cohen presents a similar idea in his op-ed article “Mere Human Behavior.” Cohen describes a man, Anton Schmid, a member of Hitler’s Nazi party, who aided in the escape of 250 Jews.
Schmid wrote in a letter to his wife that he simply “could not think and had to help them” (Cohen). Why did Schmid ultimately risk his life, deliberately disobeying orders to save people he had never met? As Schmid put it “I merely behaved as a human being” (Cohen). Schmid responded to these disgusting acts of inhumanity in the only way he knew how. This act of resistance cannot be described as anything but brave; “the fact, [however], is few resist” (Cohen). We resign ourselves to indefinite idleness, constantly losing in the battle of “conscience or convenience” (Cohen). We opt for ease over difficulty, accepting defeat before we even attempt to act. Standing up for “what is right” is easier said than done; to resist against any sort of norm results in loneliness and alienation; and in some cases, “it can cost your human life” (Cohen). Afraid to take on the role of the ostracized pariah, we suppress our visceral human responses, and instead choose to look away. The depressing truth that lies in these responses is what Schmid recognized-to respond to acts of inhumanity the way he did was “human behavior.” Suppressing our instinctual reactions aids in our desensitization, allowing us to adopt a somewhat mechanical response- we turn our heads, as “it is easier to avert one’s gaze” (Cohen).
When the choice is presented- “to save [ourselves] or save another” self-preservation and altruism battle; one wins far more than the other (Cohen). On rare occasions, however, resistance proves itself triumphant. The Schmids of the world are few and far between; but they still exist. The ability to think beyond the crowd, to break out of the mechanical mindset: this is what allows us to hold out hope, to refuse to accept the indecencies and injustices that plague our world. Both Orwell and Cohen address acts of resistance, imploring us to see that to defy the rules in any way gives rise to hope, to the idea that change is possible. This idea is justified, because without hope for a better world, progression would never occur. When we think of acts of resistance, we immediately conjure up images of protests or riots, infamous battles in history that serve to demonstrate power and strength. But acts of opposition occur every day- defending the kid getting picked on, or speaking out for those whose voices simply aren’t loud enough. “Resistance is never pointless, even if short-lived” (Cohen). Speaking out is terrifying, but the result is worth the cost. We all possess the ability to stand up-even if it is with shaking knees. The image of the Tank Man, “never identified, is still riveting” (Cohen). The ones who conform are quickly forgotten, but the few who choose to stand up are forever remembered.