Double-plus Goodread

I just finished reading 1984 today. Doubleplusgood book. Orwell is (was) a very smart man. I like how he managed to predict the cold war stalemate, and specifically nuclear arms proliferation--all before the book was published in 1949.

One of the major sources of conflict in the book is the dichotomy between two differing views of human nature. On one hand, you have "The Blank Slate." Put simply, this is the philosophy that contends that all humans are infinitely malleable; that who they are is entirely a product of their environment. This view is the one held by religious groups (stemming from a belief in the soul) and by the far left--generally borderline socialist and beyond, including many college students (stemming from the belief that culture is its own self contained entity). Due to the extremist movements of the 60s and 70s, this view is the one that is engrained in our culture and has had a profound effect on our public policy.

On the other hand, you have the sociobiologists. They purport that much of what makes up human nature is defined, at least in part, by genes. The characteristics that are at least partially heritable include: intelligence, propensity for violence, liberalism/conservatism, and several others. This view is held by many in the psychological and cognitive science fields, at least by those who don't fall under the liberal extremist category. It is also, interestingly, a view held somewhat instinctively by much of the population, even though they pay lip-service to the Blank Slate. Idiomatic expressions such as "He's a bad egg" and "Winners are born, not made" attest to this belief. (To get a detailed description of these two views and a defense of cognitive science, check out The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker.)

Now, in 1984, these two are set against each other. The Party believes that "human nature is infinitely malleable" and use this to control not only the actions but the thoughts of its citizens. The Party believes that "whoever controls the present controls the past; and whoever controls the past controls the future." Truth exists only in the mind, so if they control the mind, they control everything and will then be endowed with absolute power. The lead character, Winston, believes there is such a thing as absolute truth and that, some day, the proles--the unwashed masses--will rise up against their oppressors and once again be free. The Party is not completely naive, and realizes that maintaining absolute power over an entire nation of hundreds of millions of people will not occur through a simple "socialization." Torture, fear, and intimidation are necessary tools to keep the lower castes from revolting.

Now here is the question I pose to you:

First, ask yourself where you stand on the issue of the Blank Slate vs. sociobiology. Now, envision a 1984-like society and try to imagine the outcome. If the Blank Slate is correct, the population, in theory, should be able to be socialized into accepting complete domination by an all-encompassing power--they would never revolt. However, if sociobiology is correct, and all human beings inherently want to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," then given enough time, all oppressed peoples will eventually overthrow their oppressors. Based on your own experiences and perception of human nature, where do you fall on these issues? What conflicts (if any) arise from these beliefs? How do you justify them?