The Chromium Fence -- Individuality in a Dystopian Society

Reading The Chromium Fence, I noticed many similarities to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four. Orwell could possibly have influenced Dick's writing (whether Orwell's work is considered science fiction is a different argument). Anyways, Don Walsh has a similar plight to 1984's protagonist, Winston Smith -- clinging to individuality in a world of conformity and political extremism. Society develops an "us or them" attitude where anyone who isn't part of the dominating party is an enemy of that party.

Both the Purists and the Naturalists accuse Walsh of implicitly aiding the other side by not joining their own group. This shows that, although the two parties are on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, because they go to such extremes their actions are actually similar, nearly identical. Regardless of whichever side had taken power by the end, Walsh would not be able to fit into their single-minded society and would have suffered the same fate.

The climax of the story is also similar to that of 1984; the protagonist must finally decide on the choice that has been underlying all their actions throughout the story -- as Charley the robot puts it, "you either live in [society], or you don't live" (297). Walsh is confronted with a dichotomous ultimatum: either conform completely, or die. There is no middle ground (note how throughout the story, Walsh's middle-ground compromises were the only peaceful options, all the parties wanted was war and destruction and oppression). In the end, Walsh chooses what what he calls the belief that parties and slogans are pointless; this really means he chooses the freedom of choosing his own beliefs over the beliefs forced upon him. Tearing up Charley's paper, Walsh chooses death over even trying to live in the oppressive society where resistance is completely useless. But what does his death actually accomplish? He is a martyr to his own cause, but because it is his own private beliefs, his death does not affect anyone else. The impression I got at the ending was that fighting for individual freedom means disbanding yourself from any organization, and thus resistance will always fail because a single person can't stand up against an entire organization. I don't know if Philip K. Dick intended to be so bleak, but that's the way it seemed to me.