We by Yevgeny Zamyatin

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


We have witnessed Totalitarianism prevail in different countries of the World. We have studied its origins, pondered upon its dominion and contemplated the consequences with respect to its bearing on the human civilization and its future. That it still exists, casting a portentous shadow over the lot of people pruned off their rights as humans, divested not only of their freedom to live but also to think, is a travesty that discredits the human advancement. That the beast is still tamed to unleash horror upon mankind is a grave reminder that humans have learnt nothing from the history. But it is also a reminder of the necessity to restore the dwindling faith in humanity earnestly. And who better equipped to prompt our attention than revered writers.

Writers, including George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Yevzeny Zamyatin, Margaret Atwood, Anthony Burgess, and many others, through their works, have written accounts of such dysfunctional societies where either some form of oppression is imposed upon its people or they are manipulated to adopt and adhere to a lifestyle which is inevitable in the systematically controlled societal structure.

Zamyatin’s “We” is such a work where the structure of society seems to be a result of some collective will in the face of a supposed disadvantageous order in twenty sixth century. The structure imposed by that will is not oppressive but orderly and restrictive. Everybody lives in glass houses, start their day at the same time, eat and work at fixed times. They are known by numbers instead of names. The system of marriage is abolished though they are allowed fixed hours for pleasure when they have to get pink tickets for a permission to lower their curtains during the period. Children, if born, are raised by the state. Deviation is a sin, as a punishment for which the sinner is incinerated by the Benefactor. Imagination is a sin too. The people are not free because they are not allowed to think. They are just mechanized to follow the system which in turns provides them with all possible material comforts, so that there is nothing to worry about, nothing to think of.

In the introduction to this work, Peter Rudy writes:

“With respect to the most extreme practices outlined in We, the question was not whether but when they would be realized. It became plain that even if man is born a rebel at heart, his psychological make-up is so plastic that he can usually be effectively intimidated to the point where he will accept a rigidly controlled pattern of life for a long period of time.”

He further says:

“Totalitarianism has shown that Zamiatin's state was right about the practicability of intensive regimentation over long periods of time; however, there has been no broad proving ground for the theory on which Zamiatin's state is built, the theory that most men believe their freedom to be more than a fair exchange for a high level of materialistic happiness. It appears, though, that this theory will be put to a final test in the future. If the present rapid rate of technological development continues, both totalitarian and democratic societies will be involved in this test. When the material wants of the Soviet people are satisfied, will many of them continue to resent regimentation? As we ourselves pursue even higher goals of materialistic happiness, the complexity of our technological society will increase and exert even more intense pressures for efficiency through the regulation of our lives. What decision will we make under those circumstances? Mankind is rushing toward a final proof or refutation of Zamiatin's prophecy.”

After almost 60 years of Peter’s expression of his concerns, his words reverberate with the apprehensions of our times. In a world of high technological complexity, which only promises to become more complex in future, we find ourselves in a kind of obligation to pursue high materialistic happiness. Perhaps, as Peter writes, Mankind may rush forward to prove Zamyatin’s prophecy while apparently trading freedom for happiness thus proving that freedom and happiness cannot co-exist.

In his review of the work, George Orwell observed that Zamyatin’s work depicted more of his concerns regarding the advancing industrialist society than a totalitarian regime. To quote his exact words:

“It is in effect a study of the Machine, the genie that man has thoughtlessly let out of its bottle and cannot put back again.”

Zamyatin’s concern for a technologically mechanized work where even the smallest chores of everyday life will be ordered, leaving no place for freedom of thinking and creativity, where there will be masses of brainwashed people following the pattern imposed upon them and where a deviation from that pattern would result in death penalty, doesn’t look like a far possibility. But what is even more terrifying is the thought that in that future, people may actually willingly accept the controlled pattern and purge their minds of any thought that may ask them to inquire and ponder.




View all my reviews