Texts and Human Experiences: Orwell, Stalin, and the History Paradox

I forgot how much fun teaching Nineteen Eighty-Four was. Perhaps that's a paradoxical statement, considering the miserable nature of the text and the misery-inducing state it can inspire in the reader (Orwell's masterpiece is more likely appreciated than 'enjoyed'). That said, paradox works here due to the text's inclusion as part of the Year 12 HSC Common Module Texts and Human Experiences, in which readers gain insight into 'anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies in human behaviour'. I can see that Nineteen Eighty-Four isn't a joyful book and yet... I enjoy teaching it so much!

There's a certain comorbidity between the Advanced English and Extension History courses in that both involve interrogating the text to identify degrees of subjectivity. If you're lucky enough to have students who do both courses you'll notice their growing aptitude in relation to this. In regards to Nineteen Eighty-Four there's also a lot to be gained from students who do the Modern History course with all its political -isms. One key concept from Orwell's text that benefits from this increased historical understanding is the idea of a palimpsest.

The palimpsest is an ancient or medieval manuscript page that has been 'cleaned' of its original text and re-used. There's nothing sinister about this; in pre-Gutenberg times parchment was invaluable and hard to come by so repurposing was par for the course. In Winston Smith's world, however, Orwell uses the term to refer to the Party's habit of literally re-writing historical and journalistic documents. Smith's occupation is to locate any documents that contain information the Party has decided no longer fits with their official history and then rewrite them to fit with the new 'facts'.

Orwell was inspired by real practices in the Soviet Union during the 1930s. Every time Stalin 'purged' an offending member from his Party and made them 'disappear' an order would go out to schools to have the students paste new text into their textbooks over the old information, essentially rendering the figure a non-person; someone who never existed. Stalin's comfort with rewriting history can also be observed in the doctored photographs from this era, whereby purged members were painted out of the pictures as if they were never there. 

Activity

My friend Kira told me that she likes to start her students off in studying Nineteen Eighty-Four by imposing an Orwellian atmosphere on the classroom with a series of strict rules designed to get them thinking about totalitarianism. It can be hard for us, having grown up with relatively high levels of privilege, to understand what it might have been like to live in the kind of nightmarish government-controlled state that Orwell describes. I wanted to do something like this and help students get their heads around the palimpsests that Winston is tasked to make throughout the course of the novel.

I don't know how else to relay this other than just describe what I did. So here it is:

• I wordlessly stopped the students at the door. This was automatically different for them because I've never been one for making kids line up outside the classroom. I usually say hello to them too but this time I just held my hand up and went back into the room for a bit as I wanted to heighten their anxiety a little.
• I drew up a table on the board, like this:

• Then I beckoned the students in and told them to place all their bags at the front of the room, and that there was to be no talking or communication. I also had a cardboard box with 'Phone Haven' written on the front and told them to place their phones into it for their 'safekeeping'. The students were very confused by this point and my straight face and lack of eye contact seemed to prevent any discussion around what was going on.
• I then dictated the following:

Year 12 HSC Advanced English is a very intense subject and requires concentration and consistent engagement. In order to foster a better working arrangement it has been decreed that you can now call your teacher by his first name within the confines of this class room. There will also be a rotating roster in which one of you must walk the room every four minutes and check that everyone is OnTask. Infractions or OffTask behaviour will be reported to the teacher immediately.

• Students then copied the table into their books, with four student names placed into the roster.
• I then gave them this context sheet to work on and had Student A start their rounds, checking that each person was doing their work. I asked Student A quietly (the room was so silent that everyone could hear me still) to report back on who was working well and who wasn't. 
• Student B had to report to me on who they thought was enjoying the activity the most and who wasn't. 
• At this point I was admittedly getting a little bored, so I gave Student C a ruler and asked them to make sure that everyone's things were at least 5cm from the edge of the table.
• Student D was told to make each individual student raise their index finger on their non-dominant hand and count slowly to five. There wasn't any relevance to this, I just wanted to emphasise how arbitrary the rules were.  
• This is where the palimpsest comes in. I looked at the roster on the board and decided which student had complied least willingly. To be truthful, all of the students had gone along with the activity with surprisingly little complaining, so I just randomly picked Student A. I told him that he hadn't done a very good job and that he was to stand outside the classroom. I then removed his name from the roster on the board, replaced it with another student's name, told this new student in front of everyone that they had done a good job as the first monitor, and then provided the whole class with paper, glue and scissors.
• I told them that they needed to change the roster in their books to reflect what was on the board. That this had always been the roster. Furthermore, I was to only be referred to as 'Sir' and not my first name and that the text in their book should reflect this. Students wrote out this new information and pasted it over the 'offending' parts of the dictated text. 

All in all, this took about 30-40 minutes. I couldn't help but laugh by the end of it, having kept a straight face for so long, and the students were relieved for the spell to be broken. This Advanced English class had only had me for a teacher for 1 lesson before this (I didn't have them for their Preliminary HSC) so a few were seriously worried that this would be how the class was like from now on!

We discussed the purpose of the activity, what a palimpsest was, and some of the students who'd already read to the end of the book told me that they'd cottoned on partway through. I have some of Stalin's doctored photographs on the back wall so we looked at those and spoke about Stalin's sinister censorship practices in the Soviet Union and how this would have influenced Orwell.

This links back really well to the rubric's mention of 'paradoxes in human behaviour', after all, what greater paradox could there be than history itself being rewritten? If history is meant to be true then how can it be changed? And yet, it happens all the time.

Significant Figures: China 1966-1989

Mao's cult in full force

To Western eyes, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (and China itself) is not as clearly defined as the heads of state in our own countries. When teaching Change in the Modern World, Option B: Cultural Revolution to Tiananmen Square 1966-1989 to Modern History students we need to be mindful that they may make certain assumptions based on their own inherent sociocultural biases. Yes, Mao Zedong was Chairman of China from 1945 to 1976, but his most famous successor, Deng Xiaoping, did not occupy this position at all. It would be easy, as a citizen of a country with a Western-styled government, to assume that Deng Xiaoping and Mao Zedong occupied the same positions as overall leaders of China. This is not, however, the case.

The informal term for political leader of the Chinese government is 'Paramount Leader'. It is accurate to say that Communist China had 4 clear paramount leaders between 1966 and 1989, the time period of the study.

They are:

Mao Zedong: Chairman of various posts until 1976.

Hua Guofeng: Chairman of the Central Military Committee until 1981, but only considered leader of the nation until 1978 (when he lost his position as Chairman of the Central Committee).

Deng Xiaoping: Although Deng did not take over directly from any of Hua Guofeng's positions, he did start leading the Consultative Conference National Committee from 1978, signalling his movement into a higher point of influence at that time. He took over from Hua as Chairman of the Central Military Committee in 1981.

Jiang Zemin: Jiang ascended to the role of General Secretary of the Central Committee in 1989, which placed him as the new paramount leader after the Tiananmen Square incident on June 4th.

You'll notice what seem like a few discrepancies in the above information. We all know Mao Zedong as the 'Chairman' of China, however, this is actually a simplification of his full role within the Communist Party of China. At various points, Mao occupied up to 6 positions as Chairman of different branches within the Party and the government. Most of these he rescinded by the end of the 1950s, keeping only the positions of Chairman of the Central Committee and Chairman of the Central Military Committee, which were almost honorary titles by the time of his death (he kept these titles whilst day-to-day power transferred to other roles within the party, which goes some way towards explaining how the most powerful person in the Party could occupy completely different political positions to their predecessors).

"Follow Hua!"

Hua Guofeng was Premier of the State Council, but it was his succession of Mao as the Chairman of the Military Committee (meaning he had control of the People's Liberation Army) that saw him elevated to paramount leader above his peers. This is where things get tricky though, as Deng Xiaoping was undoubtedly the leader of China from 1978 to 1989, despite not occupying any of the key positions of power in the Party of government during that time. Deng was not General Secretary, Premier, or even President of the Party/government. Nor did he become Chairman of the Central Military Committee or Chairman of the Central Committee at any point. Instead, Deng consolidated power through his command of the Central Military Commission, the Consultative Conference Committee, Central Advisor Committee, and as Vice Premier of the State Council.

Deng's successor, Jiang Zemin, held a more traditional bastion of power as General Secretary and Chairman of the Central Military Committee, and this is how the following paramount leaders have established their power since this time.

Pretty dry stuff.

The point for our students to take away from this is that, in the context of a single party political system, the lineage of power does not transfer through a voting system or structured hierarchy. Power is accumulated through the prior paramount leader unofficially 'handing the reigns over' to the new leader through increased association and endorsement, and also by brokering the support of large factions within the Party who hope that the new leader will support their agendas.

Something else to consider is the unofficial designation of 'Party Elders', retired members of the Communist Party who retain a significant degree of influence through largely tokenistic positions (an example is Deng Xiaoping, who still exerted a lot of power well into his 90s despite only occupying a position as Honorary Chairman of the China Bridge Association ['Bridge', as in the card game Bridge]). After Deng's exit, the occupation of leadership became more structured with all three subsequent leaders concurrently occupying the three positions of General Secretary, President, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission.

Other Factors in Understanding Significant Figures

The side story to these four leaders is the narrative of those who also attempted to broker power between 1966 and 1989. The ones that are relevant to the syllabus dot points are:

• Liu Shaoqi
• Lin Biao
• Jiang Qing (AKA 'Madame Mao') and her supporters (together known as the 'Gang of Four').

Liu Shaoqi was designated by Mao as his successor as early as 1960, however, ideological tensions arose between the two figures after the Great Leap Forward, leading Mao to denounce his political protege. A large part of the Cultural Revolution consisted of the resulting power struggle between Mao and Liu, with Liu removed from all political positions and placed under house arrest by 1967. He died in mysterious circumstances in 1969, from alleged pneumonia.

Lin Biao rose in the wake of Liu through his loyal support of Mao's ideology during the Cultural Revolution. In 1969 he was acknowledged as Mao's new successor as the next paramount leader but this favouring was short-lived. Lin's control of the People's Liberation Army grew during the Cultural Revolution to a point that threatened Mao's sense of security. Tensions arrived at a point that saw Lin actively avoid coming to Beijing for Party meetings, and Mao removed him from the Party altogether by 1971. Lin attempted to flee China with his family by plane and died when it crashed in Mongolia. The official line is that Lin attempted to orchestrate an assassination attempt on Mao, had failed, and was now fleeing to the Soviet Union for safety. Another perspective is that the alleged assassination attempt was invented by Mao and his cronies to support the disposal of Lin.

Jiang Qing became the scapegoat of the Cultural Revolution as the de facto head of the 'Gang of Four'. As the most radical faction within the Party, and vehement opponents of China's westernisation and/or modernisation, the Gang of Four were blamed by Hua, Deng, and other Party members for all the ills and crimes of Mao's reign after his death, conveniently allowing for Mao's legacy to remain largely untarnished while Jiang (his wife) became the scapegoat. 

Propaganda depicting children "smashing" the Gang of Four

Two other Chinese political figures of importance to the Option B syllabus are:

• Zhou Enlai (mentioned in the dot points)
• Zhao Ziyang (not mentioned in the dot points but instrumental to our understanding of the protests that led into the Tiananmen Square incident of 1989).

Zhou is best understood as the loyal Party member responsible for launching the 'Four Modernisations' that characterised Deng's reign, and for building peaceful ties between China and the rest of the world during a very turbulent time for the nation. He was very popular with the Chinese people, and his struggles against the Gang of Four helped turn public opinion against Jiang Qing, especially after his death at the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Zhao was also a later Party member who was also popular with the Chinese people. In the 1980s, he supported the increased privatisation and westernisation of the Chinese economy, which culminated in his public support of the Tiananmen Square protestors in 1989. Zhao opposed the Party's decision to declare martial law in order to quell the protests in Beijing, on the grounds that making such a decision without an internal vote was constitutionally illegal. Zhao found himself expelled from the Party by Deng and placed under house arrest for the next 15 years.

Students will need to also have tertiary / passing understanding of Soviet leadership as the historical narratives of the USSR and China intersect at several points in relation to the syllabus dot points for Option B. These leaders are:

• Joseph Stalin
• Nikita Krushchev
• Mikhail Gorbachev

Without getting too much into irrelevant information, these three figures relate to China's story in the following ways:

Joseph Stalin: Stalin's Cult of Personality has some clear and relevant parallels to Mao's own cultivation of a godlike status in China, and helps establish some context for the tensions that arose in the 1950s and '60s both between China and Russia, and within the Chinese Communist Party itself. The CCP's amendments to the Chinese constitution took out all references to Mao, mirroring Russia's own process of de-Stalinisation during the mid-1950s, which only served to antagonise This political decision (in both countries) was designed to deconstruct the phenomenon of the 'cult of personality' that had arisen in China and the USSR respectively.

The split in Sino-Soviet relations also has some origins in Stalin's lack of support for China following Mao's establishment of CCP leadership in 1950.

Nikita Krushchev: Krushchev's relaxation of Russia's more Stalinist elements of communism in the 1950s was interpreted by Mao as a threat to the Marxist concept of permanent revolution. This led, in some part, to the increased adherence of the CCP to Maoism as a clear alternative to what Mao interpreted as dangerous revisionism on the Soviet Union's part.

Krushchev's actions during the Cold War were also interpreted as 'soft' and revisionist by the Chinese. 

Mikhail Gorbachev: Gorbachev's part in our story comes much later when he visited China in 1989, prompting, in some part, the Tiananmen Square incident. It will be necessary for students to understand what Gorbachev came to symbolise for those in the Chinese pro-democracy movement. As the Russian leader of the Communist world, Gorbachev was making moves towards the dismantling of socialism (and the Soviet Union) through his introduction of glasnost and perestroika, policies of 'openness' that would lead to the increasing westernisation of the USSR. His visit to China in 1989 was to involve a tour of Tiananmen Square, hence the choice of this location as ground zero for the Chinese protestors.

Resource - Key Figures Timeline

Sino-Soviet Split and Anti-Revisionism in the 1950s and 1960s

Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev, 1958

In order to gain a full understanding of how Mao Zedong developed his own distinct brand of communism, otherwise known as 'Maoism' or 'Mao Zedong Thought', it will be useful for students to see what led to the split between the world's two largest communist nations. This historical narrative of cause and effect can be traced back to the 1920s, when Lenin consolidated the Bolshevik governance of Russia and established the world's first socialist state. 

A good place to start with orientating students in regards to this is to have them look over the following text and create a mindmap of reasons for the Sino-Soviet split.

Sino-Soviet Split and Anti-Revisionism

From its formation in 1921, the Chinese Communist Party had relied on Soviet political and financial support. Both countries aimed for 'permanent revolution' - an ongoing class struggle that would eventually transform the world into a single, unified communist society without national borders.

The first cracks in the Sino-Soviet alliance began to show in the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949 when the CCP were battling the Nationalists (the Kuomintang) for control of China. Stalin advised the CCP to stop after taking the north of China as he did not have faith in the their ability to transform all of China into a communist state, and he held back any real support from the CCP during this time because he preferred China to be divided and weakened; a less-threatening neighbour for the USSR to deal with. He even condescendingly referred to the Chinese as 'cabbage communists', viewing them as incapable of true Marxism in comparison to the Soviet Union.

China and the Soviet Union also disputed access and ownership of the Xinjiang region that sat between them, with both wanting its rich mineral resources. Mongolia was similarly disputed, with China only able to claim 'Inner Mongolia'. The rest of Mongolia became a satellite republic under the influence of the Soviet Union. During WWII, when Japan invaded China, the Soviet Union only offered China assistance very late in the war, and even plundered northern Chinese factories for their own gain. 

Towards the end of the 1950s, the Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev gave a speech in which he outlined his wish for a peaceful coexistence between the East and the West. Mao was unimpressed as he saw this as contradicting the theory of permanent revolution, and China had been treated badly by the West in the recent past. Khrushchev's criticism of the previous Soviet leader, Stalin, also threatened Mao's own image (as he had styled himself as a similar kind of leader - worshipped by the masses). In 1957, Mao visited Moscow and encouraged the Soviet Union to assist other countries in their own revolutions, which the Russians ignored. He outlined his own plan to 'liberate' Taiwan, which frightened Khrushchev, who thought such warmongering would lead to worldwide nuclear warfare. The Chinese saw this fear as weakness and a betrayal of the permanent revolution.

In 1958, China began to attack Taiwanese forces. Khrushchev travelled to Beijing to try to intervene, and offered to place Soviet missiles on Chinese soil as a compromise (but would not share atomic technology). Mao refused, offended by the Soviet Union's attempts to dictate what China should do. When Khrushchev visited Russia's Cold War enemy (the United States of America) in 1959, Mao saw it as a further weakening of Soviet supremacy, and began to question Khrushchev's understanding of Marxism. Mao was angered further when Russia sided against Mao over China border disputes with India. 

In 1960, Russia withdrew all diplomats from China and cancelled 300 industrial and economic contracts. The Soviets offered economic aid to India, and China began to characterise the USSR and USA (enemies of each other in the Cold War) as one and the same: hypocrite revisionists and capitalist enemies. Things dropped to an all-time low in 1968, when China and Russia clashed over control of an island in the Ussari River near their border, with up to 200 soldiers killed. Around this time, Mao began to label enemies of the Chinese state as 'revisionists' and 'Chinese Khrushchevs'.

Chinese soldier photographed during the Ussuri River conflict, 1969. This incident lasted for 7 months and is most commonly known as the 'Sino-Soviet border conflict' or, in China, as the Zenbao Island Incident.

Reasons/Evidence
Students should be able to pull the following causes out of the above text:

1. Stalin discouraged Mao from taking all of China during the Chinese Civil War.
2. Stalin did not lend any real financial or military support to the Chinese communists during the Civil War.
3. Both the USSR and China were in dispute over control of the Xinjiang region for its minerals/resources.
4. The USSR kept hold of Mongolia as a 'buffer zone' between themselves and China.
5. The USSR lent very little assistance to China when Japan invaded in 1937.
6. The USSR used WWII as an excuse to plunder Chinese factories in the north.
7. Nikita Khrushchev criticised Stalin and his 'cult of personality', which did not sit well with Mao, who had his own cult of personality.
8. Khrushchev also began to build a relationship with the West, which Mao saw as a contradiction of Marxist ideals.
9. The Soviet Union was disinterested in assisting other smaller nations with their own Marxist revolutions.
10. The USSR discouraged China from pursuing war with Taiwan, and would not lend atomic technology to Mao.
11. Khrushchev feared that Mao would provoke nuclear war and tried to directly intervene by visiting Beijing.
12. Mao saw Khrushchev's visit to the USA as a sign of weakness.
13. The Soviet Union sent assistance to India when China and India entered into a border dispute.
14. The USSR withdrew all diplomats and contractors from China in 1960.
15. The USSR and China battled each other for control of an island in the Ussari River.

Extension/Consolidation:

Tie the above understanding to the ideology dot points in the syllabus by asking students to consider the following essay-style question. Students are encouraged to use the above to establish some apparent key differences in Soviet Marxism and Maoist Marxism.

To what extent is the Sino-Soviet split a result of competing versions of Marxism?

1984 and Context: Mix and Match

Once Stalin 'removed' a political enemy from Soviet society he then had all photographs of that person either destroyed or altered. The above image demonstrates the removal of a Soviet naval officer who disappeared during the 'Purges'. Orwell writes of similar phenomena in 1984.

A little while ago I posted a Preliminary HSC Advanced English resource for matching up the events of Animal Farm with examples from Soviet history; illustrating certain comparisons that show just how closely George Orwell modelled his animal characters and their farm on Russia circa 1917-1940. 

The HSC Advanced English Intertextual Perspectives module develops the analytical skills of Year 12 students further through a comparative study of Orwell's 1984 and Fritz Lang's Metropolis. In the case of 1984, totalitarian histories and culture (predominantly the Soviets and the Nazis) are reflected in the text almost as much, if not more, than they are in Animal Farm. 

The resource below collects together a series of events and elements from both 1984 and Nazi/Soviet history that could be said to correspond with one another. Students read through both columns and match up the aspects of history that fit with Orwell's dystopian classic, building up their contextual knowledge to support a more holistic understanding of the concepts that Orwell was writing about.

1984 and 20th Century Totalitarian states - Mix and Match Activity 

Here are the answers for teacher-reference:

A.  The Nazis used the euphemisms 'special treatment' or 'special lodging' to refer to those they had identified in camps for executions matches with The 'Ministry of Love' is where political enemies go to be tortured and executed. It's name, along with other government departments, is euphemistic and ironic.

B. Leon Trotsky was a Jewish-Ukrainian intellectual with a pointed goatee. He fled the Soviet Union after becoming Stalin's enemy. Stalin 'purged' millions of Russians for allegedly being Trotskyists (followers of Trotsky) matches with The number 1 enemy of the state is Emmanuel Goldstein, a 'goat-like' intellectual with a Jewish name who had fled overseas. His followers are said to be secretly working to bring the State down from within.

C. The working class is known as the 'proletariat' in Marxist theory. Due to Russia's vast area, many peasants in more remote areas are able to live with a larger degree of freedom matches with The working class are referred to as the 'proles', and are given a larger degree of freedom than Party members due to their perceived lack of civilisation.

D. The Cold War saw the nations of the world divided into three major blocks - the West Bloc (USA and its allies), the East Bloc (the Communists), and the Third World (undeveloped countries). The 'war' between the two bigger sides was never straightforward and involved complicated alliances that led to smaller wars (EG. The Korean War) matches with The nations of the world are arranged into three major groups and locked in a perpetual state of stalemate against one another, with their alliances constantly changing.

E. Nazi children in WWII were encouraged to join the 'Hitler Youth'. In the Soviet Union, children were encouraged to be loyal to the State rather than their families matches with Children are encouraged to join the Spies (a youth group) and the Anti-Sex League, where they are brainwashed and indoctrinated into obeying the State.

F. The Soviet Union and other communist East European countries frequently experienced shortages and electricity failures matches with The nation is in a constant state of disarray and inconvenience - Winston notes at the novel's beginning that the electricity rarely works.

G. Propaganda for the Soviet Five Year Plans featured the slogan "2+2=5" to represent Stalin's wish to complete the five year plan in just four years matches with As a symbol of his brainwashing, Winston is made to believe than 2 + 2 = 5.

H. The Bolshevik Party, who came to rule the Soviet Union and outlawed all political parties, were usually referred to only as the Party matches with Winston's country is ruled by a government known only as the Party.

I. Many Russian political prisoners were sent to the Gulags; harsh labour camps in remote areas matches with Reference is made to 'forced labour' camps where political prisoners are sent to work as slaves for many years.

J. The Soviet Union regularly invented statistics to demonstrate the rate of progress to Russians matches with Announcements are made regularly to remind citizens of the progress the Party has made, EG. Standard of living has improved by 20% in the last year.

K. Stalin tried to speed up industrialisation of Russia with several 'Five Year Plans' matches with The Party drives the economy with a 'Three Year Plan'.

M. The Soviet union started with the success of the 1917 Revolution and its anniversary was celebrated every ten years after matches with The 'Revolution' is alluded to as the most important event in the Party's history.

N. Britain had a history of ruling/subjugating India as a colony matches with Reference is made to a war front in Malabar, India.

O. Stalin's 'Purges' involved the arrest of many everyday people, most of whom were never seen again, and had their names wiped from all records matches with Winston describes the night-time abduction of people who would 'simply disappear' and never be referred to again.

P. Soviet workers were encouraged through propaganda to follow the example of Stakhanov, the 'perfect' Soviet worker matches with The Party invents a fake Party member, Comrade Ogilvy, to be used as a hero in propaganda.

Q. Those abducted in the Purges were made to publicly confess to their alleged crimes, even if they did not commit said crimes matches with After his capture and interrogation, Winston is broken and made to believe in the Party once again. He is allowed to re-enter society but will be executed at some point in the future.

R. The Communist Party in Russia was ruled by a Central Committee who enjoyed many luxuries. The other Party members numbered in the millions and helped to runt he Soviet Union matches with There is an Inner Party (where the ruling members enjoy many luxuries) and an Outer Party (the bureaucracy).

S. Stalin's likeness could be found everywhere in the Soviet Union during his reign - in every house and in every city - as pictures, posters, and statues matches with Posters of Big Brother are everywhere, accompanied with the phrase 'Big Brother is Watching You'.

Laying a Foundation: Context and 1984

Image from the film version of 1984

I'm about to teach the Intertextual Perspectives 1984 and Metropolis comparative study for HSC Advanced English, and boy am I excited. Studying 1984 could not have come at a more relevant time... okay, maybe that's a bit hyperbolic, the time in which 1984 was written was probably the most relevant time for it to be read, but my point is that Trump's gobsmacking rise to Presidency in the United States of America has suddenly rendered George Orwell's 1984 a lot more pertinent.  

In just the last week alone, the words 'Orwellian' and '1984' have permeated a near-unprecedented number of news articles and think-pieces, and all in connection to President Donald Trump. 

Here's a quick selection courtesy of a Google search:

2017 isn't '1984' - its a lot stranger than Orwell imagined - The Conversation

Sales of '1984' spike after Kellyanne Conway's 'alternative facts' - Sydney Morning Herald

Orwell's '1984' and Trump's America - The New Yorker

Amazon's Bestseller list takes a dystopian turn in Trump era - CNN

13 Quotes From '1984' That Are Horrifyingly Relevant in 2017 - Bustle

George Orwell's '1984' is a best-seller again. Here's why it resonates now... - PBS

I said to some of my students a few days ago that we're really lucky to have this happening right now because it links really well with what we're learning this term (dystopia, totalitarianism, power and control, etc.) Of course, America and the world in general is a lot less lucky than my classroom because Trump is now one of the most politically powerful figures on Earth. But, you know - small wins. 

My mentor and close friend Kira Bryant once told me that Advanced English hinged on context (I think her exact words were "Context, context context!") Thinking critically about where a text is coming from, the reasons why it was made, how the author intended for it to resonate with audiences, and how it actually resonates with audiences are all things that rely on a strong understanding of context. This is one of the reasons why Modern History and Advanced English are probably so beneficial to one another when students undertake both subjects. Modern History provides a lot of ideological background for texts studied in Advanced.

With 1984 there is a lot to wade through in terms of covering the values, attitudes and events that have influenced Orwell's magnum opus. I've seen various resources that cover everything from Italian fascism to emerging Cold War surveillance technology. All relevant, but all also reflective of each resource-designer's personal context. As teachers we suffer from selection-bias, just like everyone else, and what we choose is reflective of ourselves and not the population as a whole. This isn't a bad thing; our professional qualifications and ongoing professional learning put us in relatively good stead to be imparting knowledge of this kind. Selection-bias does however bear keeping in mind as an explanation for why no two teachers approach the teaching of context in the same way, especially in a subject like English. In short, there's no definitive way to approach this.

The way I prefer to look at Orwell's context for 1984 is as thus:

• Totalitarianism: Looking at this as a form of government with a particular focus on conformity, lack of freedom, and the concept of a one-party state. Students should first engage with this ideology from a relatively objective standpoint - evaluating the benefits and disadvantages of this form of governance before developing their own opinion. 
• Fascism: The terms 'fascism' and 'totalitarianism' aren't mutually exclusive despite being closely linked. It's worth mentioning that the two most famous totalitarians, Stalin and Hitler, occupied horizontal extremes on the political spectrum (with Stalin representing the extreme left, while Hitler was the ultimate in right wing politics). Defining fascism can be a bit challenging as it's a lot more nebulous than socialism, and this is partially due to the fact that it lacks a unifying manifesto like Karl Marx's theory of communism. Most simply put, fascism is both authoritarian and extremely nationalistic (whereas socialism in its purest form rejects the concept of nationhood). 
• Methods of Enforcing Totalitarianism: This is where a little case study of Stalin and Hitler (and maybe, depending on the enthusiasm level of your class, Franco and Mussolini) can come in handy. The 'personality cult' surrounding the leaders of totalitarian regimes is particularly relevant here as it links closely to the way Orwell constructs the figure of 'Big Brother'. Something else to consider is the way that Stalin used propaganda to manipulate the public's perception of Soviet history.
• The Cold War: The way that Eastasia, Oceania and Eurasia relate to each other throughout 1984 is deliberately reminiscent (and remarkably prescient) of the power blocs that emerged during the Cold War. It's no coincidence that the CIA formed just after WWII; this came about in response to the thinly-veiled antagonism that was bubbling away between the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. In terms of 1984, the Cold War's relevance is made clear with references to atomic war and the technological advances brought about by the rise of espionage - things like CCTV, the drug LSD, voice recognition systems, lie detectors, etc.
• George Orwell: Finally, it's worth looking at the context of Orwell himself. A lot of 1984 was fueled by his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, as a military policeman in the British colony of Burma, his time living as a homeless person, and even his personal health. Many allege that writing 1984 was so taxing for the chronically ill Orwell that it actually killed him, and it's not difficult to see Orwell's poor health (driven by smoking and tuberculosis) in the sickly nature of 1984's protagonist, Winston. 

Resource

Context - here is a reading/summary sheet on the wider context of the novel. I'll upload a more specific one that links Soviet history to plot points in 1984 in the next week or so. 

Stalin's Purges: Making Connections

French Cartoon from the 1930s, caption reads: "Visit the Pyramid of Russia"

Teaching the National Study in HSC Modern History, no matter which option it is, can be a daunting task. In my mind this is predominantly due to the sheer endlessness of historical thinking. In other words, the more I look into something the more there is to see. You could read about Soviet Russia forever, delving into records of the past to construct a simulacrum of increasing depth. The past itself, however, can never be brought back to life. All we can do is try to replicate an impression of it using the available details. 

I don't know about you but I find that hard.

When I'm programming for History I'm always grateful for the information provided in the syllabus but, even with this seemingly finite guide, I'll start mining sources and won't know when to stop. And that's because there is no 'when' to stop - this is history we're talking about. It's not possible to collect all the information because we can't go there and see it for ourselves. We can't ever get to a point and say, "Well, that's it. I've finished finding all the facts". The facts are legion, and I haven't even mentioned the impact of postmodernism.

So what's the lesson here?

Do I try to teach my students everything? How can I when it's not possible due to the nature of history itself?

Do I just give students a list of facts and get them to research everything? Well, that doesn't work for every student.

I don't have the answer. At least, not definitively. What I do know is that my teaching and learning cycle allows me to continue refining what I've taught. In the case of teaching the Russia and the Soviet Union study multiple times I've been able to observe how different sets of students react with different sorts of material and task requirements. Despite what some might say, this teaching lark is not a science. Getting a unit together and teaching it to one class will not be the same as teaching that very same unit to a second class. The conditions can not be replicated because every individual is unique, and every combination of individuals produces a unique class room. We can refine our materials in these conditions over and over again, getting closer and closer to something that really works quite well, but perfection just won't ever be achieved. It's impossible. 

There are other problems to consider too; Modern History isn't Advanced English, it's a subject that attracts students with a range of abilities. A while back there was a course called Modern History (People and Events) which offered more scope for differentiated learning across the Senior History curriculum; from what I can gather it was to Modern History as English Studies is to Standard English. This course was phased out, meaning that any Modern History class can now have students with particular literacy needs not necessarily primed for essay writing and higher order source analysis.

My point is that in tackling something as challenging to study as Stalin's Soviet Russia we need to find 'ways in' for a diverse range of students. Ways that don't come across as too prescriptive or finite whilst also allowing students to come up with their own clear answers. It's deceptively difficult to straddle the balance between these things.

The resource I've included here deals with the Purges enacted by Stalin between 1934 and the outbreak of WWII. I wanted something that provides a seemingly simple overview but also forced all of my students to move beyond rote learning.

• The PPT gives an overview of the Purges, with each slide containing an image. The teacher takes the students through the slides while the students work through a separate resource, a document broken into a box per slide. 
• Each slide contains the image from the slide but rather than simply getting the students to copy or summarise information from the PowerPoint, the goal is that the students make connections between each image and the information from the slide. 
• By synthesising a more personal response in this fashion, students are drawing a cause and effect relationship between visual materials and the history that produced them.

Resources:
The Purges - PowerPoint Presentation
The Purges - Student sheet

Society in 1930s Stalinist Russia

The HSC Modern History National Study for Russia and the Soviet Union can pose a challenge for Modern History teachers due to the sheer breadth of content that begs to be covered. Aside from the best essay responses on the subject revealing a broad and in-depth contextual knowledge of Bolshevik Russia, it's also a fact that any half-interested History teacher will find it difficult to resist the magnetic pull of Stalinist Russia's more fascinating asides. 

For example, Stalin's second wife Nadezhda was 17 years old when she married the 43 year old Joseph Stalin. And as if that wasn't creepy enough, she was the daughter of one of Stalin's friends and Stalin had known her since she was 4! 

Of course, this is largely irrelevant if your student is faced with an essay question about collectivisation and Stalin's attempts to close the industrial gap between the USSR and the rest of the developed world. But how can we ignore the juicier bits of Russian history when it helps engage our students with the wider narrative surrounding the madness of Stalin's Soviet Union? 

My weakness with this topic is, undoubtedly, the 1930s. I tend to spend the larger slice of time teaching students about the Bolshevik consolidation of power in the 1920s and the move towards the Five Year Plans. The part that I have more trouble disseminating is the various aspects of living in Stalin's totalitarian regime - there just seems to be so much to cover, and I get so fascinated by each and every facet of this intense society that it becomes a bit of a Hobson's choice trying to work out the ones that should make up the narrative that's taught to the students. 

In addition to this challenge, I have to be careful not to ignore the skills-based part of the course. It's very appealing sometimes to just stick to the content and travel through the narrative but Year 12 students need to be able to sit down at the end of the year and write a series of essays in the pressure-cooker that is the HSC. It's sometimes assumed that Modern History students are au fait with structuring essays because the subject is so academic, however, as I've probably mentioned elsewhere on this blog, my Modern History classes tend to range from students who do Advanced English to those who do English Studies. With that in mind, I need to ensure that I'm teaching enough of the skills to support all of my students in being able to communicate what they've learned. 

This means teaching one of the key Super Six Comprehension strategies; summarising. It's easy to associate the Super Six with just primary school and Stages 4 and 5, but it can be dangerous to assume that Stage 6 students are experts at comprehension. Because, well, they often aren't. 

It's never too late to teach literacy.

Here's a resource on society in 1930s USSR: Stalin's Russia. 

And a graphic organiser to go with it: Graphic Organiser for Russian Society.

Get your students to read through the resource and use the graphic organiser to summarise the various aspects of Soviet society under Stalin. The graphic organiser is fairly straight-forward and isn't particularly different to a series of comprehension questions, however, by arranging the information in this fashion students can get an idea on how to separate their ideas. It also acts as a scaffold towards hopefully engaging the kids in creating their own summaries of documents.