Mixing
What is the earliest point in history that Big Brother could exist?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In the modern world, the technology to monitor your every movement and action is imminently feasible. No one doubts the ability of an omni-government to monitor people; hence GDPR.
But Orwell posited such a controlling government in 1984, published in 1949.
What is the earliest point in human history that a government (of any sized society) could achieve a 1984-like control of its population?
Here are some relevant attributes of the government in 1984; with spoiler tags because I'm sensitive to those who have put off reading the book for 69 years.
Constant surveillance of the population (though 'telescreens', possibly)
The ability to project a fictitious but omni-present leader, Big Brother, who 'always' rules no matter who rules behind the scenes
The apparent high-probability chance of detecting rebels before they even act
society government
asked 52 mins ago
kingledion
66k22214372
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In the modern world, the technology to monitor your every movement and action is imminently feasible. No one doubts the ability of an omni-government to monitor people; hence GDPR.
But Orwell posited such a controlling government in 1984, published in 1949.
What is the earliest point in human history that a government (of any sized society) could achieve a 1984-like control of its population?
Here are some relevant attributes of the government in 1984; with spoiler tags because I'm sensitive to those who have put off reading the book for 69 years.
Constant surveillance of the population (though 'telescreens', possibly)
The ability to project a fictitious but omni-present leader, Big Brother, who 'always' rules no matter who rules behind the scenes
The apparent high-probability chance of detecting rebels before they even act
society government
asked 52 mins ago
kingledion
66k22214372
Taking into account known human population sizes through history or with some arbitrary size of population?
– Joe Bloggs
51 mins ago
GDPR is about corporate surveillance, not government. Law enforcement is specifically exempted, so it has no effect on Big Brother.
– Mike Scott
28 mins ago
1
If we discard the technological angle, social pressure and religion have been effective forms of social control for a LONG time, specially in small communities.
– SJuan76
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In the modern world, the technology to monitor your every movement and action is imminently feasible. No one doubts the ability of an omni-government to monitor people; hence GDPR.
But Orwell posited such a controlling government in 1984, published in 1949.
What is the earliest point in human history that a government (of any sized society) could achieve a 1984-like control of its population?
Here are some relevant attributes of the government in 1984; with spoiler tags because I'm sensitive to those who have put off reading the book for 69 years.
Constant surveillance of the population (though 'telescreens', possibly)
The ability to project a fictitious but omni-present leader, Big Brother, who 'always' rules no matter who rules behind the scenes
The apparent high-probability chance of detecting rebels before they even act
society government
asked 52 mins ago
kingledion
66k22214372
In the modern world, the technology to monitor your every movement and action is imminently feasible. No one doubts the ability of an omni-government to monitor people; hence GDPR.
But Orwell posited such a controlling government in 1984, published in 1949.
What is the earliest point in human history that a government (of any sized society) could achieve a 1984-like control of its population?
Here are some relevant attributes of the government in 1984; with spoiler tags because I'm sensitive to those who have put off reading the book for 69 years.
Constant surveillance of the population (though 'telescreens', possibly)
The ability to project a fictitious but omni-present leader, Big Brother, who 'always' rules no matter who rules behind the scenes
The apparent high-probability chance of detecting rebels before they even act
society government
society government
asked 52 mins ago
kingledion
66k22214372
asked 52 mins ago
kingledion
66k22214372
edited 1 min ago
asked 52 mins ago
kingledion
66k22214372
asked 52 mins ago
kingledion
66k22214372
asked 52 mins ago
kingledion
66k22214372
66k22214372
Taking into account known human population sizes through history or with some arbitrary size of population?
– Joe Bloggs
51 mins ago
GDPR is about corporate surveillance, not government. Law enforcement is specifically exempted, so it has no effect on Big Brother.
– Mike Scott
28 mins ago
1
If we discard the technological angle, social pressure and religion have been effective forms of social control for a LONG time, specially in small communities.
– SJuan76
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Taking into account known human population sizes through history or with some arbitrary size of population?
– Joe Bloggs
51 mins ago
GDPR is about corporate surveillance, not government. Law enforcement is specifically exempted, so it has no effect on Big Brother.
– Mike Scott
28 mins ago
1
If we discard the technological angle, social pressure and religion have been effective forms of social control for a LONG time, specially in small communities.
– SJuan76
24 mins ago
Taking into account known human population sizes through history or with some arbitrary size of population?
– Joe Bloggs
51 mins ago
Taking into account known human population sizes through history or with some arbitrary size of population?
– Joe Bloggs
51 mins ago
GDPR is about corporate surveillance, not government. Law enforcement is specifically exempted, so it has no effect on Big Brother.
– Mike Scott
28 mins ago
GDPR is about corporate surveillance, not government. Law enforcement is specifically exempted, so it has no effect on Big Brother.
– Mike Scott
28 mins ago
1
1
If we discard the technological angle, social pressure and religion have been effective forms of social control for a LONG time, specially in small communities.
– SJuan76
24 mins ago
If we discard the technological angle, social pressure and religion have been effective forms of social control for a LONG time, specially in small communities.
– SJuan76
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
In GDR a system really similar to Big Brother was in place, though not relying on technology, but only using human informants.
It was set up by Stasi:
Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants (the extensiveness of any surveillance largely depended on how valuable a product was to the economy) and one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo). Spies reported every relative or friend who stayed the night at another's apartment. Tiny holes were drilled in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed citizens with special video cameras. Schools, universities, and hospitals were extensively infiltrated.
The Stasi had formal categorizations of each type of informant, and had official guidelines on how to extract information from, and control, those with whom they came into contact. The Stasi infiltrated almost every aspect of GDR life. In the mid-1980s, a network of IMs began growing in both German states; by the time that East Germany collapsed in 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 employees and 173,081 informants. About one out of every 63 East Germans collaborated with the Stasi. By at least one estimate, the Stasi maintained greater surveillance over its own people than any secret police force in history.
They also had something closely similar to the psycho-police:
The Stasi perfected the technique of psychological harassment of perceived enemies known as Zersetzung (pronounced [ʦɛÉÂ̯ˈzɛtsʊŋ]) – a term borrowed from chemistry which literally means "decomposition". Tactics employed under Zersetzung generally involved the disruption of the victim's private or family life. This often included psychological attacks, such as breaking into homes and subtly manipulating the contents, in a form of gaslighting – moving furniture, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls or replacing one variety of tea with another. Other practices included property damage, sabotage of cars, purposely incorrect medical treatment, smear campaigns including sending falsified compromising photos or documents to the victim's family, denunciation, provocation, psychological warfare, psychological subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target's wife. Usually, victims had no idea that the Stasi were responsible. Many thought that they were losing their minds, and mental breakdowns and suicide could result.
Considering that Stasi could rely on the experience developed in USSR, I would say that at anticipating its creation at the beginning of the XX century would be entirely plausible.
answered 36 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
63.4k18149298
It was not nearly as efficient as a technologically enhanced surveillance, but it was quite efficient for its time. But ex-Stasi officers are probably jealous of the NSA that has significantly more data with less effort and way fewer employees. Also something to keep in mind. The NSA has probably more (and better) data on anyone reading this than the Stasi had on the average misfit they specifically hired people to surveillance for.
– ArtificialSoul
6 mins ago
@ArtificialSoul Data collection volume is its own problem. At least right now, the NSA and similar agencies has to power to record and store many orders of magnitude more information than they know how to process. The NSA (and Google!) definitely have more information on you than the Stasi had; but NSA probably has less actionable intelligence...
– kingledion
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
If you forego the 'telescreens' and keep in mind when the book was published, it was feasible back in the 80s.
Take the former GDR (German Democratic Republic) as example and adjust some historical facts to an extreme.
- There was an personality cult in the GDR idolizing the political leaders beyond any reason. Replace a human leader with an avatar of some kind and The Great Leader will never die.
- The Stasi ("Staatssicherheit", former intelligence agency) employed thousands of so-called "inofficial collaborators". These were ordinary citizens who reported deviant behavior of every person they encountered in their daily lives to the Stasi. Most of them actually thought they did the right thing, protecting their country and their lives against intruders and attackers from outside. In extreme cases, the Stasi turned family members against each other or infiltrated a family by sending an undercover agent playing the lover.
- Propaganda! You need propaganda everywhere, every day. You must brainwash your people to let them believe in the political system and perceive outside influences (like the absurd idea of democracy) as dangerous and harmfull.
- You need to start brainwashing the smallest children to let them grow up into the role of the loyal citizen. Produce cartoon shows and text books teaching them from early age about their beloved Big Brother. Adapt curriculums to lead them into the direction you want. Give away Big Brother plushies to be embraced in the hearts of the smallest. One day, they grow up, but Big Brother will have an eternal place in their hearts.
answered 25 mins ago
Elmy
4,717626
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It depends I guess.
If the telescreens are a mandatory attribute, this would put the earliest possible time somewhere in the beginning of the 20th century, when television and a lot of other needed or supporting technology (like transistor tubes) were invented. A nice read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television
The projection of a fictitious but omnipresent leader would have been possible by any society that was able to inform their subjects that there was a leader in the first place. The lack of modern (mass) media would make such a feat easier, not harder. It is in fact easier for us to ascertain that Julius Caesar was real than it ever was for Roman commoners living in the outskirts of the empire. A cynic could even argue that any society that has religion has this very ability. Denying the existence of [enter religious leader/prophet/messiah here] will in some places in the world lead to the same result as doubting big brother in Orwell's 1984. This can be observed throughout history.
The last one is hard one as it touches on a system of mass surveillance and a huge network of informants. Surely in 1984 (the year) they had this down to an art in the DDR. This was an (on a whole) analogue, paper based system, that could have been contrived by any civilization that had literacy and a bureaucracy. To what extend this was achievable in practice is hard to tell (for me at least), it would be a nice question for history.se I would think.
answered 4 mins ago
Douwe
4195
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
In GDR a system really similar to Big Brother was in place, though not relying on technology, but only using human informants.
It was set up by Stasi:
Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants (the extensiveness of any surveillance largely depended on how valuable a product was to the economy) and one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo). Spies reported every relative or friend who stayed the night at another's apartment. Tiny holes were drilled in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed citizens with special video cameras. Schools, universities, and hospitals were extensively infiltrated.
The Stasi had formal categorizations of each type of informant, and had official guidelines on how to extract information from, and control, those with whom they came into contact. The Stasi infiltrated almost every aspect of GDR life. In the mid-1980s, a network of IMs began growing in both German states; by the time that East Germany collapsed in 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 employees and 173,081 informants. About one out of every 63 East Germans collaborated with the Stasi. By at least one estimate, the Stasi maintained greater surveillance over its own people than any secret police force in history.
They also had something closely similar to the psycho-police:
The Stasi perfected the technique of psychological harassment of perceived enemies known as Zersetzung (pronounced [ʦɛÉÂ̯ˈzɛtsʊŋ]) – a term borrowed from chemistry which literally means "decomposition". Tactics employed under Zersetzung generally involved the disruption of the victim's private or family life. This often included psychological attacks, such as breaking into homes and subtly manipulating the contents, in a form of gaslighting – moving furniture, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls or replacing one variety of tea with another. Other practices included property damage, sabotage of cars, purposely incorrect medical treatment, smear campaigns including sending falsified compromising photos or documents to the victim's family, denunciation, provocation, psychological warfare, psychological subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target's wife. Usually, victims had no idea that the Stasi were responsible. Many thought that they were losing their minds, and mental breakdowns and suicide could result.
Considering that Stasi could rely on the experience developed in USSR, I would say that at anticipating its creation at the beginning of the XX century would be entirely plausible.
answered 36 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
63.4k18149298
It was not nearly as efficient as a technologically enhanced surveillance, but it was quite efficient for its time. But ex-Stasi officers are probably jealous of the NSA that has significantly more data with less effort and way fewer employees. Also something to keep in mind. The NSA has probably more (and better) data on anyone reading this than the Stasi had on the average misfit they specifically hired people to surveillance for.
– ArtificialSoul
6 mins ago
@ArtificialSoul Data collection volume is its own problem. At least right now, the NSA and similar agencies has to power to record and store many orders of magnitude more information than they know how to process. The NSA (and Google!) definitely have more information on you than the Stasi had; but NSA probably has less actionable intelligence...
– kingledion
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
In GDR a system really similar to Big Brother was in place, though not relying on technology, but only using human informants.
It was set up by Stasi:
Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants (the extensiveness of any surveillance largely depended on how valuable a product was to the economy) and one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo). Spies reported every relative or friend who stayed the night at another's apartment. Tiny holes were drilled in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed citizens with special video cameras. Schools, universities, and hospitals were extensively infiltrated.
The Stasi had formal categorizations of each type of informant, and had official guidelines on how to extract information from, and control, those with whom they came into contact. The Stasi infiltrated almost every aspect of GDR life. In the mid-1980s, a network of IMs began growing in both German states; by the time that East Germany collapsed in 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 employees and 173,081 informants. About one out of every 63 East Germans collaborated with the Stasi. By at least one estimate, the Stasi maintained greater surveillance over its own people than any secret police force in history.
They also had something closely similar to the psycho-police:
The Stasi perfected the technique of psychological harassment of perceived enemies known as Zersetzung (pronounced [ʦɛÉÂ̯ˈzɛtsʊŋ]) – a term borrowed from chemistry which literally means "decomposition". Tactics employed under Zersetzung generally involved the disruption of the victim's private or family life. This often included psychological attacks, such as breaking into homes and subtly manipulating the contents, in a form of gaslighting – moving furniture, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls or replacing one variety of tea with another. Other practices included property damage, sabotage of cars, purposely incorrect medical treatment, smear campaigns including sending falsified compromising photos or documents to the victim's family, denunciation, provocation, psychological warfare, psychological subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target's wife. Usually, victims had no idea that the Stasi were responsible. Many thought that they were losing their minds, and mental breakdowns and suicide could result.
Considering that Stasi could rely on the experience developed in USSR, I would say that at anticipating its creation at the beginning of the XX century would be entirely plausible.
answered 36 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
63.4k18149298
It was not nearly as efficient as a technologically enhanced surveillance, but it was quite efficient for its time. But ex-Stasi officers are probably jealous of the NSA that has significantly more data with less effort and way fewer employees. Also something to keep in mind. The NSA has probably more (and better) data on anyone reading this than the Stasi had on the average misfit they specifically hired people to surveillance for.
– ArtificialSoul
6 mins ago
@ArtificialSoul Data collection volume is its own problem. At least right now, the NSA and similar agencies has to power to record and store many orders of magnitude more information than they know how to process. The NSA (and Google!) definitely have more information on you than the Stasi had; but NSA probably has less actionable intelligence...
– kingledion
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
In GDR a system really similar to Big Brother was in place, though not relying on technology, but only using human informants.
It was set up by Stasi:
Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants (the extensiveness of any surveillance largely depended on how valuable a product was to the economy) and one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo). Spies reported every relative or friend who stayed the night at another's apartment. Tiny holes were drilled in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed citizens with special video cameras. Schools, universities, and hospitals were extensively infiltrated.
The Stasi had formal categorizations of each type of informant, and had official guidelines on how to extract information from, and control, those with whom they came into contact. The Stasi infiltrated almost every aspect of GDR life. In the mid-1980s, a network of IMs began growing in both German states; by the time that East Germany collapsed in 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 employees and 173,081 informants. About one out of every 63 East Germans collaborated with the Stasi. By at least one estimate, the Stasi maintained greater surveillance over its own people than any secret police force in history.
They also had something closely similar to the psycho-police:
The Stasi perfected the technique of psychological harassment of perceived enemies known as Zersetzung (pronounced [ʦɛÉÂ̯ˈzɛtsʊŋ]) – a term borrowed from chemistry which literally means "decomposition". Tactics employed under Zersetzung generally involved the disruption of the victim's private or family life. This often included psychological attacks, such as breaking into homes and subtly manipulating the contents, in a form of gaslighting – moving furniture, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls or replacing one variety of tea with another. Other practices included property damage, sabotage of cars, purposely incorrect medical treatment, smear campaigns including sending falsified compromising photos or documents to the victim's family, denunciation, provocation, psychological warfare, psychological subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target's wife. Usually, victims had no idea that the Stasi were responsible. Many thought that they were losing their minds, and mental breakdowns and suicide could result.
Considering that Stasi could rely on the experience developed in USSR, I would say that at anticipating its creation at the beginning of the XX century would be entirely plausible.
answered 36 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
63.4k18149298
In GDR a system really similar to Big Brother was in place, though not relying on technology, but only using human informants.
It was set up by Stasi:
Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants (the extensiveness of any surveillance largely depended on how valuable a product was to the economy) and one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo). Spies reported every relative or friend who stayed the night at another's apartment. Tiny holes were drilled in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed citizens with special video cameras. Schools, universities, and hospitals were extensively infiltrated.
The Stasi had formal categorizations of each type of informant, and had official guidelines on how to extract information from, and control, those with whom they came into contact. The Stasi infiltrated almost every aspect of GDR life. In the mid-1980s, a network of IMs began growing in both German states; by the time that East Germany collapsed in 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 employees and 173,081 informants. About one out of every 63 East Germans collaborated with the Stasi. By at least one estimate, the Stasi maintained greater surveillance over its own people than any secret police force in history.
They also had something closely similar to the psycho-police:
The Stasi perfected the technique of psychological harassment of perceived enemies known as Zersetzung (pronounced [ʦɛÉÂ̯ˈzɛtsʊŋ]) – a term borrowed from chemistry which literally means "decomposition". Tactics employed under Zersetzung generally involved the disruption of the victim's private or family life. This often included psychological attacks, such as breaking into homes and subtly manipulating the contents, in a form of gaslighting – moving furniture, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls or replacing one variety of tea with another. Other practices included property damage, sabotage of cars, purposely incorrect medical treatment, smear campaigns including sending falsified compromising photos or documents to the victim's family, denunciation, provocation, psychological warfare, psychological subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target's wife. Usually, victims had no idea that the Stasi were responsible. Many thought that they were losing their minds, and mental breakdowns and suicide could result.
Considering that Stasi could rely on the experience developed in USSR, I would say that at anticipating its creation at the beginning of the XX century would be entirely plausible.
answered 36 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
63.4k18149298
edited 31 mins ago
answered 36 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
63.4k18149298
answered 36 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
63.4k18149298
answered 36 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
63.4k18149298
63.4k18149298
It was not nearly as efficient as a technologically enhanced surveillance, but it was quite efficient for its time. But ex-Stasi officers are probably jealous of the NSA that has significantly more data with less effort and way fewer employees. Also something to keep in mind. The NSA has probably more (and better) data on anyone reading this than the Stasi had on the average misfit they specifically hired people to surveillance for.
– ArtificialSoul
6 mins ago
@ArtificialSoul Data collection volume is its own problem. At least right now, the NSA and similar agencies has to power to record and store many orders of magnitude more information than they know how to process. The NSA (and Google!) definitely have more information on you than the Stasi had; but NSA probably has less actionable intelligence...
– kingledion
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
It was not nearly as efficient as a technologically enhanced surveillance, but it was quite efficient for its time. But ex-Stasi officers are probably jealous of the NSA that has significantly more data with less effort and way fewer employees. Also something to keep in mind. The NSA has probably more (and better) data on anyone reading this than the Stasi had on the average misfit they specifically hired people to surveillance for.
– ArtificialSoul
6 mins ago
@ArtificialSoul Data collection volume is its own problem. At least right now, the NSA and similar agencies has to power to record and store many orders of magnitude more information than they know how to process. The NSA (and Google!) definitely have more information on you than the Stasi had; but NSA probably has less actionable intelligence...
– kingledion
1 min ago
It was not nearly as efficient as a technologically enhanced surveillance, but it was quite efficient for its time. But ex-Stasi officers are probably jealous of the NSA that has significantly more data with less effort and way fewer employees. Also something to keep in mind. The NSA has probably more (and better) data on anyone reading this than the Stasi had on the average misfit they specifically hired people to surveillance for.
– ArtificialSoul
6 mins ago
It was not nearly as efficient as a technologically enhanced surveillance, but it was quite efficient for its time. But ex-Stasi officers are probably jealous of the NSA that has significantly more data with less effort and way fewer employees. Also something to keep in mind. The NSA has probably more (and better) data on anyone reading this than the Stasi had on the average misfit they specifically hired people to surveillance for.
– ArtificialSoul
6 mins ago
@ArtificialSoul Data collection volume is its own problem. At least right now, the NSA and similar agencies has to power to record and store many orders of magnitude more information than they know how to process. The NSA (and Google!) definitely have more information on you than the Stasi had; but NSA probably has less actionable intelligence...
– kingledion
1 min ago
@ArtificialSoul Data collection volume is its own problem. At least right now, the NSA and similar agencies has to power to record and store many orders of magnitude more information than they know how to process. The NSA (and Google!) definitely have more information on you than the Stasi had; but NSA probably has less actionable intelligence...
– kingledion
1 min ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
If you forego the 'telescreens' and keep in mind when the book was published, it was feasible back in the 80s.
Take the former GDR (German Democratic Republic) as example and adjust some historical facts to an extreme.
- There was an personality cult in the GDR idolizing the political leaders beyond any reason. Replace a human leader with an avatar of some kind and The Great Leader will never die.
- The Stasi ("Staatssicherheit", former intelligence agency) employed thousands of so-called "inofficial collaborators". These were ordinary citizens who reported deviant behavior of every person they encountered in their daily lives to the Stasi. Most of them actually thought they did the right thing, protecting their country and their lives against intruders and attackers from outside. In extreme cases, the Stasi turned family members against each other or infiltrated a family by sending an undercover agent playing the lover.
- Propaganda! You need propaganda everywhere, every day. You must brainwash your people to let them believe in the political system and perceive outside influences (like the absurd idea of democracy) as dangerous and harmfull.
- You need to start brainwashing the smallest children to let them grow up into the role of the loyal citizen. Produce cartoon shows and text books teaching them from early age about their beloved Big Brother. Adapt curriculums to lead them into the direction you want. Give away Big Brother plushies to be embraced in the hearts of the smallest. One day, they grow up, but Big Brother will have an eternal place in their hearts.
answered 25 mins ago
Elmy
4,717626
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
If you forego the 'telescreens' and keep in mind when the book was published, it was feasible back in the 80s.
Take the former GDR (German Democratic Republic) as example and adjust some historical facts to an extreme.
- There was an personality cult in the GDR idolizing the political leaders beyond any reason. Replace a human leader with an avatar of some kind and The Great Leader will never die.
- The Stasi ("Staatssicherheit", former intelligence agency) employed thousands of so-called "inofficial collaborators". These were ordinary citizens who reported deviant behavior of every person they encountered in their daily lives to the Stasi. Most of them actually thought they did the right thing, protecting their country and their lives against intruders and attackers from outside. In extreme cases, the Stasi turned family members against each other or infiltrated a family by sending an undercover agent playing the lover.
- Propaganda! You need propaganda everywhere, every day. You must brainwash your people to let them believe in the political system and perceive outside influences (like the absurd idea of democracy) as dangerous and harmfull.
- You need to start brainwashing the smallest children to let them grow up into the role of the loyal citizen. Produce cartoon shows and text books teaching them from early age about their beloved Big Brother. Adapt curriculums to lead them into the direction you want. Give away Big Brother plushies to be embraced in the hearts of the smallest. One day, they grow up, but Big Brother will have an eternal place in their hearts.
answered 25 mins ago
Elmy
4,717626
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
If you forego the 'telescreens' and keep in mind when the book was published, it was feasible back in the 80s.
Take the former GDR (German Democratic Republic) as example and adjust some historical facts to an extreme.
- There was an personality cult in the GDR idolizing the political leaders beyond any reason. Replace a human leader with an avatar of some kind and The Great Leader will never die.
- The Stasi ("Staatssicherheit", former intelligence agency) employed thousands of so-called "inofficial collaborators". These were ordinary citizens who reported deviant behavior of every person they encountered in their daily lives to the Stasi. Most of them actually thought they did the right thing, protecting their country and their lives against intruders and attackers from outside. In extreme cases, the Stasi turned family members against each other or infiltrated a family by sending an undercover agent playing the lover.
- Propaganda! You need propaganda everywhere, every day. You must brainwash your people to let them believe in the political system and perceive outside influences (like the absurd idea of democracy) as dangerous and harmfull.
- You need to start brainwashing the smallest children to let them grow up into the role of the loyal citizen. Produce cartoon shows and text books teaching them from early age about their beloved Big Brother. Adapt curriculums to lead them into the direction you want. Give away Big Brother plushies to be embraced in the hearts of the smallest. One day, they grow up, but Big Brother will have an eternal place in their hearts.
answered 25 mins ago
Elmy
4,717626
If you forego the 'telescreens' and keep in mind when the book was published, it was feasible back in the 80s.
Take the former GDR (German Democratic Republic) as example and adjust some historical facts to an extreme.
- There was an personality cult in the GDR idolizing the political leaders beyond any reason. Replace a human leader with an avatar of some kind and The Great Leader will never die.
- The Stasi ("Staatssicherheit", former intelligence agency) employed thousands of so-called "inofficial collaborators". These were ordinary citizens who reported deviant behavior of every person they encountered in their daily lives to the Stasi. Most of them actually thought they did the right thing, protecting their country and their lives against intruders and attackers from outside. In extreme cases, the Stasi turned family members against each other or infiltrated a family by sending an undercover agent playing the lover.
- Propaganda! You need propaganda everywhere, every day. You must brainwash your people to let them believe in the political system and perceive outside influences (like the absurd idea of democracy) as dangerous and harmfull.
- You need to start brainwashing the smallest children to let them grow up into the role of the loyal citizen. Produce cartoon shows and text books teaching them from early age about their beloved Big Brother. Adapt curriculums to lead them into the direction you want. Give away Big Brother plushies to be embraced in the hearts of the smallest. One day, they grow up, but Big Brother will have an eternal place in their hearts.
answered 25 mins ago
Elmy
4,717626
edited 15 mins ago
answered 25 mins ago
Elmy
4,717626
answered 25 mins ago
Elmy
4,717626
answered 25 mins ago
Elmy
4,717626
4,717626
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It depends I guess.
If the telescreens are a mandatory attribute, this would put the earliest possible time somewhere in the beginning of the 20th century, when television and a lot of other needed or supporting technology (like transistor tubes) were invented. A nice read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television
The projection of a fictitious but omnipresent leader would have been possible by any society that was able to inform their subjects that there was a leader in the first place. The lack of modern (mass) media would make such a feat easier, not harder. It is in fact easier for us to ascertain that Julius Caesar was real than it ever was for Roman commoners living in the outskirts of the empire. A cynic could even argue that any society that has religion has this very ability. Denying the existence of [enter religious leader/prophet/messiah here] will in some places in the world lead to the same result as doubting big brother in Orwell's 1984. This can be observed throughout history.
The last one is hard one as it touches on a system of mass surveillance and a huge network of informants. Surely in 1984 (the year) they had this down to an art in the DDR. This was an (on a whole) analogue, paper based system, that could have been contrived by any civilization that had literacy and a bureaucracy. To what extend this was achievable in practice is hard to tell (for me at least), it would be a nice question for history.se I would think.
answered 4 mins ago
Douwe
4195
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It depends I guess.
If the telescreens are a mandatory attribute, this would put the earliest possible time somewhere in the beginning of the 20th century, when television and a lot of other needed or supporting technology (like transistor tubes) were invented. A nice read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television
The projection of a fictitious but omnipresent leader would have been possible by any society that was able to inform their subjects that there was a leader in the first place. The lack of modern (mass) media would make such a feat easier, not harder. It is in fact easier for us to ascertain that Julius Caesar was real than it ever was for Roman commoners living in the outskirts of the empire. A cynic could even argue that any society that has religion has this very ability. Denying the existence of [enter religious leader/prophet/messiah here] will in some places in the world lead to the same result as doubting big brother in Orwell's 1984. This can be observed throughout history.
The last one is hard one as it touches on a system of mass surveillance and a huge network of informants. Surely in 1984 (the year) they had this down to an art in the DDR. This was an (on a whole) analogue, paper based system, that could have been contrived by any civilization that had literacy and a bureaucracy. To what extend this was achievable in practice is hard to tell (for me at least), it would be a nice question for history.se I would think.
answered 4 mins ago
Douwe
4195
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
It depends I guess.
If the telescreens are a mandatory attribute, this would put the earliest possible time somewhere in the beginning of the 20th century, when television and a lot of other needed or supporting technology (like transistor tubes) were invented. A nice read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television
The projection of a fictitious but omnipresent leader would have been possible by any society that was able to inform their subjects that there was a leader in the first place. The lack of modern (mass) media would make such a feat easier, not harder. It is in fact easier for us to ascertain that Julius Caesar was real than it ever was for Roman commoners living in the outskirts of the empire. A cynic could even argue that any society that has religion has this very ability. Denying the existence of [enter religious leader/prophet/messiah here] will in some places in the world lead to the same result as doubting big brother in Orwell's 1984. This can be observed throughout history.
The last one is hard one as it touches on a system of mass surveillance and a huge network of informants. Surely in 1984 (the year) they had this down to an art in the DDR. This was an (on a whole) analogue, paper based system, that could have been contrived by any civilization that had literacy and a bureaucracy. To what extend this was achievable in practice is hard to tell (for me at least), it would be a nice question for history.se I would think.
answered 4 mins ago
Douwe
4195
It depends I guess.
If the telescreens are a mandatory attribute, this would put the earliest possible time somewhere in the beginning of the 20th century, when television and a lot of other needed or supporting technology (like transistor tubes) were invented. A nice read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television
The projection of a fictitious but omnipresent leader would have been possible by any society that was able to inform their subjects that there was a leader in the first place. The lack of modern (mass) media would make such a feat easier, not harder. It is in fact easier for us to ascertain that Julius Caesar was real than it ever was for Roman commoners living in the outskirts of the empire. A cynic could even argue that any society that has religion has this very ability. Denying the existence of [enter religious leader/prophet/messiah here] will in some places in the world lead to the same result as doubting big brother in Orwell's 1984. This can be observed throughout history.
The last one is hard one as it touches on a system of mass surveillance and a huge network of informants. Surely in 1984 (the year) they had this down to an art in the DDR. This was an (on a whole) analogue, paper based system, that could have been contrived by any civilization that had literacy and a bureaucracy. To what extend this was achievable in practice is hard to tell (for me at least), it would be a nice question for history.se I would think.
answered 4 mins ago
Douwe
4195
answered 4 mins ago
Douwe
4195
answered 4 mins ago
Douwe
4195
answered 4 mins ago
Douwe
4195
4195
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125510%2fwhat-is-the-earliest-point-in-history-that-big-brother-could-exist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Taking into account known human population sizes through history or with some arbitrary size of population?
– Joe Bloggs
51 mins ago
GDPR is about corporate surveillance, not government. Law enforcement is specifically exempted, so it has no effect on Big Brother.
– Mike Scott
28 mins ago
1
If we discard the technological angle, social pressure and religion have been effective forms of social control for a LONG time, specially in small communities.
– SJuan76
24 mins ago