Orwell's 1984 is our inevitable future


George Orwell's “1984” and the question of power

For a decade and a half * it has become strangely quiet around George Orwell's famous novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” (1). It is as if the passing of 1984, without the global seizure of power by totalitarian parties and the final division of the world among three superstates, had deprived Orwell's supposed prophecies of all appeal and relevance. Half a decade later, the fall of Eastern European real socialism did the rest to make any warning about the threat to freedom and human dignity from “oligarchic collectivism” appear obsolete.
However, Orwell's text certainly gets it when it is no longer read as the terrifying vision of an inevitable future, which it was never intended to be, but as a time-related examination of certain developments on the one hand and as a fundamental analysis of what it means to be a person under to be under the conditions of a totalization of the political, on the other hand. If "1984" (2), as its author (3) put it, is "a utopia in the form of a novel" (4), then certainly not in the sense of a precise prognosis or a futurological horror tale. Rather, George Orwell, whose aim was always to “write politically in an artistic form” (5), when writing “Nineneteen Eighty-Four”, as he himself stated, was concerned with “the spiritual implications of totalitarianism through the means of parody to show ”(after Crick, p. 738).
Before I now deal in more detail with what Orwell calls the “spiritual implications”, it seems advisable to me to go into more detail on the stimulus word “totalitarianism” in order to prevent some readers of this Marxist magazine * at this point at the latest stop reading my text.

Excursus: Orwell's anti-communism
In certain left-wing circles, “1984” never had a good reputation. As soon as it was published in 1949, the official curse of the world communist movement hit it. One recognized Comrade Stalin all too clearly in Big Brother's mustached face and in the Ministry of Love the state security authorities of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Granted, George Orwell was an anti-communist. But it wasn't some kind of quirk or personality defect (like his emphatic patriotism, his touches of racism and even anti-Semitism, his massive anti-homophobia). Rather, Orwell's opposition to communism was thoroughly politically motivated and based on personal experience. As a staunch socialist, Orwell criticized the authoritarian practices of other socialists. "His anger at the communists was directed not only against their despotism, their lavish treatment of human life and their contempt for freedom, but also against their discrediting of democratic socialism." (Crick, p.16) Orwell was an independent leftist on the republican side participated in the Spanish Civil War; the direct view he received of the struggle of defamation, repression and annihilation of the Spanish and Soviet communists against supporters of other leftist groups convinced him “that the destruction of the Soviet myth is essential if we are to revive the socialist movement “(Orwell, quoted from Crick, p. 603).
It was only because of his disillusioning, almost first-hand experiences, that Orwell, like many other leftists, came to the realization "that, however terrible and paradoxical this might be, Stalinism and fascism had similarities in both style and method" (Crick, p. 456). Orwell (like numerous other authors of his time; Crick refers to Borkenau, Koestler, Malraux and Silone) used the admittedly questionable expression “totalitarianism” to emphasize these similarities against the differences that existed naturally.
“Orwell first formulated his concept of totalitarianism after his escape from Spain. He put forward the thesis that both Stalinism and National Socialism were developing developments that served the maintenance and expansion of power by the inner party elite. This leads to the fact that the state mobilizes the whole of society as if it were an endless total war, and this commonality of development is more significant than the stunted and only in name antagonistic ideologies. " (Crick, p. 27)
“Totalitarianism” may later have become the catchphrase in the so-called Cold War - the expression probably goes back to the self -ization of Mussolini's Italy as “stato totalitario” - but initially it was supposed to serve to reflect on concrete experiences and in the name of socialism to warn against its distortion and perversion by the real existing Stalinism.
George Orwell's best-known, in this sense anti-communist books were "Animal Farm" and "Nineteen Eighty-Four" - both written in the 1940s, thus at a time when Great Britain and the USA were still involved were allied with the Soviet Union, so there was no question of the Cold War. The anti-socialist use that was made of his texts very soon, especially in the USA, surprised and outraged Orwell. One can accuse him of naivety and a certain degree of recklessness in this regard. For himself, on the other hand, it was definitely like this: "My last novel [" 1984 "] is NOT meant as an attack on socialism (...) (...)" (after Crick, p. 764).

Read "1984"
Anyone who still refuses to read "1984" today with the argument that it is merely a matter of the anti-communist polemic of a Cold Warrior must either denounce Orwell's socialist self-image as being insincere - or continue to denounce Soviet communism of the 1930s and 1940s Defend Years. After 1989, however, the way should finally have been cleared for unbiased reading, which tries to discover in "1984" that which is still illuminating and useful today.
I would like to work out some of these in the following. However, my considerations do not represent a literary study. It is also impossible in the context of a journal article to discuss the plethora of political and philosophical problems addressed or unspoken in "1984". In the following, I will therefore restrict myself to reading the text under a single question taken from itself: What is power? How is it practiced - and above all why? This question will lead to the problem of possible and impossible resistance, touching on the issues of common sense and sexuality, and ultimately proving to be an open question about love for Big Brother.
First, however, it makes sense to give a sketch of what happens in the novel as a reminder (or first encounter). In 1984, thirty-nine year old Winston Smith lives in rather shabby London. Three totalitarian superstates (Oceania, Eurasia, East Asia) have divided the world among themselves. Everyday life is shaped by a state of war and privation. The omnipotent party rules everything, and through propaganda and terror it has the life of every individual firmly under control. Their leader, or more precisely their embodiment, is Big Brother. Society is strictly hierarchically divided into three classes: there are members of the Inner and Outer Parties and the Proles. Winston Smith, member of the Outer Party, works in one of the only four agencies in Oceania, the so-called Ministry of Truth, which, among other things, is concerned with the constant falsification of all testimonies of the past in order to ensure the infallibility of the party. Winston begins to doubt the official beliefs more and more; he believes in objective truth, contrary to party propaganda, and longs for the pre-revolutionary past, of which he has only a faint memory. Finally he begins a love affair with Julia, who is thirteen years his junior. The two decide to resist and are actually accepted into the mysterious "brotherhood" of opponents by the high party official O’Brien at their request. Before they can do more than read “the book”, that is, the fundamental anti-party treatise “Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism”, they are arrested by the Thought Police. Winston experiences humiliation and torture. O’Brien turns out to be a fanatical supporter of the party and of power. Through torture and talks he wants to "heal" Winston, whom he has been monitoring for seven years, because the party demands the complete conversion of the thought criminals before it inevitably destroys them. In the end, Winston betrayed everything he loved and believed in before, including Julia and common sense. He survives as a broken man who actually believes two and two is five, if the party so chooses. Logically, the final sentence of the novel reads: "He loved Big Brother." (273) (6)

Total rule of the party
One of the most impressive and terrifying passages of "1984" is the portrayal of the terror that is constantly wrought against all the inhabitants of Oceania, but especially against the members of the Outer Party. There is no possibility of a self-determined lifestyle. The party captures every moment of the day. Their propaganda, which is as primitive as it is suggestive, is omnipresent. "The terrible thing (...) was not that you were forced to take part, but on the contrary, that it was impossible to evade the effect." (16) Continuous surveillance of everyone is not only achieved by anonymous and largely clandestine institutions as carried out by the Thought Police, but also monitors everyone else - including themselves. Party members are trained to believe and to approve whatever the party claims, even if it is contrary to appearance or logic. Even the slightest doubt about the party's guidelines is branded as a thought crime.
This total, monolithic, uninterrupted rule of the party over all areas of life is a thought experiment (or, in Orwell's words, a “means of parody”), a continuation of what was at best realized in Orwell's time in, albeit horrific, approaches. None of the political systems of the time that were described as totalitarian, neither Hitler's Germany nor the USSR under Stalin, were actually able to achieve such a comprehensive control and unopposed order. On the contrary, it was precisely the lack of unity in the exercise of power that guaranteed its dynamic stability, because in the confusing variety of responsibilities, in the unrestrained competition of institutions, in the unpredictable arbitrariness of decisions, the individual hardly had a chance to defend himself or to escape or to act differently than in the interests of the regime.
“In the most decisive contrast to the popular view, which praises authoritarian systems for determination and assertiveness, it is also the greater proximity to chaos that distinguishes them from other forms of state organization, and all the orderly pageantry, not least of all, an attempt to remove the confusion motivated by domination to hide grandiose facades. (...) [Hitler:] “You have to let people rub against you, because heat is generated through friction, and heat is energy.” But Hitler did not mention that it was energy he was talking about, power that was neutralized by rule and posed no threat . (...) It is not without good reason that this leadership style has been labeled 'institutional Darwinism' and the widespread view of its greater efficiency has been called the 'lie of life' of all authoritarian systems. "(7) The" organizational jungle of the Nazi regime "(8) also had it little like the terror system of Stalin and his willing executors the in their own way shattering transparency of Big Brother's rule.

Want and power
In "1984" we do not learn anything more about the organization of the political system. At most, the fact that even high party functionaries are not immune from falling into disgrace, being declared “non-persons” and “vaporized”, allows the assumption that internal power struggles help determine the dynamics of the regime. In other respects, too, George Orwell's model of total domination is by no means as closed, uniform and efficient as it might seem in view of the intermeshing of propaganda, terror and self-control that has been impressively described: “A large part of life was played out, even for a party member, on a neutral and apolitical level and consisted of struggling with boring work, finding a place in the subway, darning a torn sock, begging for a saccharine tablet, storing a cigarette butt. The ideal striven for by the party was something big, terrible, glistening (...) But the reality was crumbling, run-down cities, through whose streets malnourished people in perforated shoes crept and lived in their poorly repaired houses from the nineteenth century, wherever they go Cabbage and damaged toilets smelled. "(70)
The party's power is evident in the general presence of shortages, frustration and forced renunciation. In this sense, miserable everyday life is by no means “neutral” and “apolitical”. As a result of the party's politics, on the one hand, he lets everyone feel their own finitude. On the other hand, it makes the greatest possible contradiction to the claims of the party, which officially continuously increases production, continuously improves living conditions and generally progresses from victory to victory - claims that must be believed by those who know better because they are wrong.
And they are actually believed. The party members' approval of the party's rule is not hypocritical, not lip service, but deepest conviction. That is perhaps the most horrific element in Orwell's model: that the ruled agree to their own exploitation, humiliation and ridicule - against their better judgment and yet wholeheartedly.
To perceive and deny the contradiction of propaganda and reality, of official representation and one's own view at the same time, this art is called Orwell Zwiedenken: "Zwiedenken means the gift of simultaneously cherishing two contradicting views and accepting both." (197) The in Applications described in “1984” may be extreme, but in terms of the matter, double-thinking was and is a popular practice, not only in totalitarian systems of the past, but also in today's political organizations ...

Productivity and Resistance
In no case is the party "satisfied with negative obedience" (234). It doesn't just demand submission, but consent to submission. The party's power is not only repressive but also productive (9). Or, as O'Brien, Winston's torturer and teacher puts it: "The command of the old despotism was: 'You shall not.' The command of the totalitarian systems was: 'You shall.' Our command is: 'Be.'" ( 235) The party members are not only passive victims of a cruel terror regiment that affects them from outside, they are at the same time more or less zealous agents of the system they support and thus also actors of the same who construct themselves as willing subjects.
George Orwell's "1984" reverses the central thesis of Thomas Hobbes "Leviathan": The powerful state is not the guarantee that people can live with one another as non-violently as possible. Rather, the total rule of the party has elevated the war of all against all to a permanent state by institutionalizing it in the form of spying and denunciation, mutual and self-control. Man is a wolf to man: everyone, including himself. Since hatred and fear are the foundations of coexistence, the rule of those who have the means to channel and instrumentalize hatred and fear and to constantly generate both is secured.
The function of oligarchic collectivism, however, is to enable a small clique, the members of the Inner Party, to indulge in a never-ending “intoxication of power” (ibid.). “Power is not a means. It's an end. A dictatorship is not used to secure a revolution: a revolution is made to establish a dictatorship. The purpose of the persecution is the persecution. The purpose of torture is torture. The purpose of power is power. " (242) And power reassures itself most emphatically by making others suffer: "If you want to picture the future," says O'Brien to Winston, "imagine a boot that is in a." Human face occurs - over and over again. "(246)
This apocalyptic utopia is the answer that O’Brien Winston gives to his question about the why of power. It is as banal as it is grandiose: there is nothing behind power. The power is the power. Basically, it is groundless. "God is power." (243) The enthusiasm with which O'Brien speaks to Winston of the power whose “priest” (ibid.) He claims to be is based in a certain way on self-deception. Strictly speaking, power neither knows a sovereign, not even a collective one, nor is it based on the subjects exercising it. The members of the Inner Party are no less prisoners of the system than any other; as individuals they are interchangeable and perishable. Only as functionaries do they have a part in the game of power, but without having control over it as a whole.
In an amazing way, George Orwell's novel anticipates thoughts that were developed in contemporary power theory (see note 9): Power is decentralized, subjectless, relational, productive, it permeates the body and generates knowledge. And it creates resistance.

Resistance, proletariat and truth
“Where there is power, there is resistance. And yet, or rather because of it, the resistance is never outside of power. " (Michel Foucault (10)) Within Orwell's model this means that there must always be thought criminals, because the system of total rule of the party produces them, has to produce them in order to destroy them and thus realize their own power. "The heretic, the enemy of society, will always exist, so that he can be defeated and humiliated again and again." (246)
But before O'Brien formulates this disillusioning concept of total domination towards the end of "1984", which still makes the resistance against itself subservient to its own ends, George Orwell leaves his novel hero Winston Smith with some, albeit small, hopes have a completely different, system-breaking or at least selectively subverting resistance. These hopes are directed toward the proles, common sense, and sexuality.
That, of all things, a rebellion of the lowest of the three social classes could put an end to the rule of the party is more a wish of Winston than a realistic possibility. It is true that the so-called proles appear to him to be more human, more uncorrupted and free; and in fact they are less closely monitored by the party and kept quiet with cheap amusement rather than being urged to be overly enthusiastic: "They can safely be given intellectual freedom, for they have no spirit." (194); but precisely for this reason there is nothing to fear from "the proletarians (...)". To turn them into hopes for political change, even an overthrow, springs from Winston's sentimentality and nostalgia rather than an analysis of reality.
“The greatest of all heresies was common sense. (76 [68]) And this is what Winston wants to keep for himself: “The tangible, the simple and the true had to be defended. The truisms are true, he wanted to hold on to them! The material world is there, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, every object that you let go of falls to the center of the earth. "(76 f.) Winston therefore notes almost triumphantly in his - of course secret and forbidden - diary:" Freedom is the freedom to say that two and two equals four. As soon as this is guaranteed, everything else will follow by itself. ”(Ibid.) The party's claim to power is to be shamed because of the indubitable truth of the laws of nature. Even if Winston didn't expect much from it in practice. “He was a lonely guest [ghost!] On this earth who was telling a truth that no one would ever hear. But as long as he was announcing it, in some mysterious way the thread had not broken off. Not by making oneself heard, but by staying sane, one passed on the human heritage. (28 [26])
In the end, after torture and indoctrination, he will not only see that he has by no means remained “sane”, but, as O'Brien says, “mentally deranged” in the sense of the party, which only has the criteria of truth and reality at its disposal. (197 [226]) is. Then, after his so-called healing, he is not only ready to say that two and two is five (if the party orders it), but he is absolutely convinced that he sees it. “We make the laws of nature,” says the party (243).

Sexuality as a rebellion
What a real novel is also contains a love story. “1984” is no exception. Of the three parts of the book, the middle one is entirely devoted to the romance of Winston and Juliet.
At first Winston couldn’t get anything from the young woman. Too it corresponds to his image of the women in the party, who in his opinion have been driven out of all eroticism. Julia's apparently fanatical loyalty to the party disgusts him. He feels that she is being followed and that he is being spied on by her. One day, however, she secretly slips him a piece of paper that only contains the simple message: "I love you." (89) This causes Winston's complete change of heart: Now he loves her too. “Only five weeks ago he thought of beating her skull in with a cobblestone, but that didn't mean anything. He thought of her naked, youthful body (...) "(102)
But it's not just lust that drives Winston to Julia. He sees sex as a rebellion. "The act of sexual fusion, when happily performed, was an act of rebellion." (65) It almost seems as if George Orwell wanted to parody Wilhelm Reich: "When you make love [when you make love] one consumes energy (...)" (123 [109]), especially when "make love" is also a "make war "is:" Your hug was a fight, the climax a victory. It was a blow directed against the party. A political act. " (117)
The party has an intense, albeit negative, interest in sexuality: "Not so much love as eroticism was seen as the enemy, both in and outside of marriage." - "There were even organizations like the Youth League Against Sexuality, which advocated complete celibacy of both sexes." - "Their [the party] real, unspoken intention was to strip the sexual act of all joy." - "The party tried to kill off the sexual feeling, or at least to bend it and drag it into the dirt. ”-“ The only recognized purpose of a marriage was to give birth to children for service for the party. ”-“ The sexual act itself had to be an insignificant and easy one disreputable thing to count as an enema. " (All citations 62f.)
And why all the effort? The Party's doctrine on sexuality “was upheld not only because sexuality can create a world for itself that was beyond the control of the Party so that it had to be suppressed whenever possible, but above all because sexual abstinence turned into hysteria led and thus a worthwhile goal was achieved, because this hysteria could be transformed into enthusiasm for war and admiration for the leader. "(123)
It never occurs to Winston (or Orwell?) For a moment that sexuality is not something of nature, but is itself a thoroughly social phenomenon, which consequently, even if it is not suppressed, is by no means outside of power - and therefore not either against them. Now it is difficult to blame Orwell (or Winston) for ignoring Foucault's work on sexuality, which was not written until three decades later. However, Orwell could have discovered the close connection between power and sex himself: At one point he talks about the pornographic brochures that are produced by a subdivision of the literature department of the Ministry of Truth (which happens to be Julia's job!), “Which are secretly made by young people from the Were bought by the proletariat, poor unsuspecting people who believed they were buying something that was strictly forbidden by law and produced in secret ”(121). Orwell, on the other hand, does not seem to have suspected that Winston's belief in sex as resistance itself testifies to ignorance.

Winston's Julia
The fact that sexuality is out of the question as a nest of resistance has on the one hand to do with the strange position of the feminine (embodied by Julia) in Winston's (again: and Orwell's?) Worldview, on the other hand with a fundamentally deficient concept of sexuality. Because this is easily equated with heterosexuality (11), a procedure that, because of the implicit claim to normality, nullifies any hope of escape: the norm is always already inscribed in desire.
Winston's relationship with Julia, which George Orwell describes, is also a treasure trove of patriarchal clichés. The sudden change from deadly hatred to no less violent desire has already been mentioned. In addition, the desire is obviously less for the person and more for the woman, whereby femininity must of course first be staged: When Julia dressed up with lipstick, blush and powder that are otherwise not used by party women, Winston states: “Julias Appearance had beautified itself in a startling way. With just a few strokes of color in the right places, she was not only much prettier, but above all much more feminine. "(132)
Even the archetype of the woman as a corpse (12) is not missing: "She was dead!" (119) Winston is convinced when he bends over Julia's apparently lifeless body after a bomb attack. "Only when he pressed her against him did he discover that he was kissing a warm face (...)" (ibid.)
After his arrest, Winston is of course separated from his great love. “He hardly thought of Julia.” (211) No wonder in the midst of the constant humiliation and abuse. “He loved her and would not betray her; but that was just a fact that was as familiar to him as the rules of arithmetic. " (ibid.) And which would be just as unsustainable as this one. Because already in the next sentence it says: “He felt no love for her and hardly even wondered what was happening to her. (ibid.) In the end, he not only betrays Julia, but at the height of his torture, in the confrontation with his most personal horror - a cage strapped to his face full of hungry rats - he cries out the fervent wish not to him, but to her to be done to. (Since Winston leaves the Ministry of Love, i.e. the torture chambers of the Thought Police, alive, one can assume that this wish replaced the shot in the neck that had been announced several times as inevitable.)
After his release, Winston sees Julia again. Of course she also betrayed him. Nothing remains of their love for both of them. If ever there was a rebellion, the party defeated it.

A voice in a dream
Winston's relationship with O’Brien is far more lasting than the love affair with Julia. Seven years (!) Before the novel began, Winston had a dream in which a voice promised him: "We want to meet again where there is no darkness." (26) Later Winston identified the voice in the dream with the voice of O'Brien . In the third part of the novel, the place where “there is no darkness” will turn out to be the day and night artificially lit interior of the Ministry for Love.
O'Brien had watched Winston for seven years. He knew his thought crimes even before they were committed. And in the end it is he who cures Winston from his aberration, which is regarded as a mental illness. He is Winston's fateful companion.
“O’Brien was a tall, coarse man with a thick neck and a coarse, humorous and brutal face. Regardless of his massive exterior, there was a certain charm in his way of moving. (…) [Winston] was genuinely drawn to him, and not only because he was fascinated by the contrast between O’Brien's polite manners and his prize boxer type. Rather, it was based on a secretly cherished belief - or perhaps only the hope - that O’Brien's political orthodoxy was not perfect. ”(13) Winston would like to see someone who is socially far above him a like-minded person, a resister against the party.
When he puts his faith, his hope (or more precisely: his love) to the test, goes (with Julia) to O'Brien's apartment to ask him to join him (and Julia) in the anti-party conspiracy of the "Brotherhood" - the existence of which he is by no means certain - comes a dramatic moment: “In addition to the fear that had already gripped Winston, there was something like ordinary embarrassment. It seemed entirely possible that he had simply made a stupid mistake. After all, what evidence did he actually have that O'Brien was a political conspirator? Just a swapped look and a single, ambiguous comment: beyond that, only his own hopes based on a dream. "(155)
A few dozen pages later, those hopes turn out to be deceptive. O’Brien is by no means a conspirator, on the contrary, as a devout servant of the party, he is involved in tracking down and exterminating conspirators. But O'Brien tells Winston that he always knew that. "Yes, he now realized, he had always known." (220)

The love for O’Brien
"He was the tormentor, the protector, the inquisitor the friend." (225) O’Brien’s relationship to his torture victim, to the subject of his teachings and to the result of his purification is, in its contradicting ambiguity, most likely to be paternal or - since Oceania is a society without a father - the relation of an older brother to a younger one. Winston admires O'Brien, he looks up at him. But more than that. He trusts him, he loves him, regardless of the pain and humiliation the other deliberately and with pleasure inflicts on him. "For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a small child, strangely comforted by the heavy arm around his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector (...) At the sight of this serious, deeply lined face, which was so ugly and so clever, his heart seemed to turn. (...) He had never loved him as deeply as he did at that moment (...) The old feeling that it basically didn't matter whether O’Brien was a friend or an enemy had returned. O’Brien was a person to talk to. Maybe you don't want to be loved so much as understood. O'Brien had tortured him to the point of madness, and after a little while he would definitely deliver him up to death. "(231 f.)
Big Brother, this superhuman leader, to whom the frenetic devotion of all righteous party members and proles applies, is the "embodiment of the party" (238), the epitome of its power and glory, but - one may assume - not a person of flesh and blood . Therefore, when Winston says in the last sentence of the text that he loves Big Brother - which probably describes his final surrender and self-surrender and his re-creation as an obedient subject in the sense of the party - then this credibly alleged love remains strangely abstract.
O’Brien is no longer mentioned on the last pages of the novel.But from the beginning, Winston's relationship with him (faith, hope, love) was the determining and mysterious moment of the entire story at the same time. “1984” is not only the clearly described, conclusively argued model of total domination, in which power triumphs over resistance because it grasps it in itself. In the enigmatic relationship between Winston and O'Brien, and between O'Brien and Winston, the puzzling relationship between O'Brien and Winston also contains, so to speak, a Sphingian element: if anything, the answer to the question of the subvertability of power would probably only be there to find.

(1) George Orwell, Nineeteen Eighty-four. A Novel, London 1949 (quoted from the Penguin Books edition, London 1954).
(2) George Orwell, 1984. Novel. Translated from the English by Kurt Wagenseil, Zurich 1950 (quoted from the Ullstein paperback edition, Frankfurt 1980).
(3) The novelist and essayist George Orwell, real name Eric Blair, lived from 1903 to 1949.
(4) Quoted from Bernhard Crick: George Orwell. One life, Frankfurt a. M. 1984 (London 1980), p. 739.
(5) George Orwell: “Why I Write”, in: ders., Inside the Whale. Stories and essays. Translated by Felix Gasbarra, Zurich 1975, p. 14. (“Why I Write” was written in 1946 and is available in English in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell 1920-1950, London 1968.)
(6) Mere figures in brackets refer to the German (note 2) or English (note 1) edition of "1984".
(7) Joachim C. Fest: Hitler. A biography, Frankfurt a. M. 1973; Paperback edition 1997, p. 573 f.
(8) Martin Broszat: The State of Hitler. Foundation and development of its internal constitution, Munich 1969, p. 439.

(9) Unfortunately, the contemporary power theories following the work of Michel Foucault (see next note) cannot be discussed here. Nevertheless, reference should be made to Wolfgang Detel: power, morality, knowledge. Foucault and the classical antiquity, Frankfurt 1998. The first chapter in particular offers an interesting analysis of the concept of power using the more recent literature.
(10) Michel Foucault: The will to know, Frankfurt a. M. 1977 (French Paris 1976), p. 116.
(11) Homosexuality is mentioned only once in “1984”, as part of the horrors of the forced labor camps: “There was bribery, favoritism and organized crime of all kinds, there was homosexuality and prostitution, there was even brandy secretly made from potatoes. ” (209).
(12) Cf. Elisabeth Bronfen: Only about her corpse. Death, Femininity and Aesthetics, Munich 1994 (1992).

* This text was published in 1999 in the Viennese magazine "Weg und Ziel", No. 1/1999 (there p. 2-7).