ID
edipramono@uty.ac.id
How to Cite
- Abstract 53
- pdf 26
Abstract
People are destined to live with pressures, and some deal with them by conducting paradoxes to survive. However, consciously or unconsciously people construct and conduct paradoxes to live. Paradox is a contradiction of two things. Winston Smith, has to run paradoxical life for the sake of surviving the pressures in Orwell’s 1984. This study examines the causes and reasons of Winston Smith committing paradoxes and the ways he applies his paradoxes to disclose his survivals against lethal pressures and compelling inner conflicts. Applying Roy Sorensen's paradox theory, supported with discourse study, within a qualitative method of study, this research analyzes the paradoxical realm of Winston Smith in his surviving the pressures. The result shows that Winston Smith conducts three kinds of paradoxes, i.e., the paradox of thoughts, the paradox of action, and the combination of the two paradoxes that contains how Winston's thoughts and actions are contradictory. It is a must for him to take the three kinds of paradoxes to survive the pressures and achieve his desires, yet, consequently, he has to experience inner conflicts.
References
Aisyah, A. (2021). The Perception of Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism in Various Andalas University Students: A Reader-Response Criticism of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Berti, M., & Simpson, A. V. (2019). The Dark Side of Organizational Paradoxes: The Dynamics of Disempowerment. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 1–57.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publication Ltd.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publication Ltd.
Cummings, J. A., & Sanders, L. (2019). Introduction to Psychology. University of Saskatchewan Open Press.
Cunha, M. P. e. (2022). Rethinking Organizations and Society from Paradoxes. Organizações & Sociedade Journal, 29(100), 195–216.
Ellis, H. (1914). Impressions and Comments. Constable and Company. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8125/8125-h/8125-h.htm
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Frodsham, J. D. (1985). The New Barbarians: Totalitarianism, Terror and the Left Intelligentsia in Orwell’s 1984. World Affairs, 147(3), 139–160. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20672021
Lee, J. Y., Kim, S., Noh, S., Jang, S. H., & Lee, S. Y. (2024). Paradoxical Organizational Culture, Authoritarian Leadership, and International Firm Performance: Evidence from International Firms in China. Journal of International Management, 30(1), 1–20.
Ma’shumah, F. (2022). The Influence of Mass Media in Shaping the Public’s Opinion in George Orwell’s 1984 [Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim]. http://etheses.uin-malang.ac.id/34866/1/16320131.pdf
Maulidio, N. (2016). The Structure and World View of George Orwell’s 1984: A Generic Structuralism Application [Universitas Andalas]. http://scholar.unand.ac.id/20951/
Mease, J. J., & Neal, B. (2023). Paradox as resistance in male dominated fields and the value of (sur)facing enthymematic narratives. Gender, Work, & Organization, 30(4).
Naufal, M. (2021). The Impact of Totalitarian Government in George Orwell’s 1984 [Universitas Hasanuddin]. https://repository.unhas.ac.id/id/eprint/5366/2/F21116310_skripsi%201-2.pdf
Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Secker & Warburg.
Pramono, R. B. E. (2013). Self-reliance: The Essence of Making Difference in Robert Frost’s The Road Not Taken. Academic Journals: International Journal of English and Literature (IJEL), 4(2), 19–27. https://doi.org/DOI:10.5897/IJEL2013.0385
Pramono, RB. E. (2023). The Inner Conflict: Conscience or State Rule A Study on The Power Relations of Antigonê. Lire Journal (Journal of Linguistics and Literature), 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33019/lire.v6i2.172
Sainsbury, R. M. (2009). Paradoxes. Cambridge University Press.
Sorensen, R. (2003). A Brief History of the Paradox. Oxford University Press, Inc.
Williams, C. (2007). Research Methods. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 5(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v5i3.2532
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Vicky Firmansyah, RB. Edi Pramono