Originally published in 1977, “They” by Kay Dick (1915 – 2001, often credited as “ the first woman director in English publishing”) is a haunting dystopian novel that explores the gradual destruction of individuality, creativity and freedom of expression. Written as a sequence of interconnected, dreamlike episodes, the novel creates a persistent atmosphere of unease and fear. Set along a beautiful but increasingly threatening English coastline, Dick presents a society in which conformity has become the highest social value and any form of difference is regarded as dangerous. Through the mysterious force known only as They, the novel examines themes of social control, state and self-censorship, Soviet-like denunciation (state-encouraged mechanism of mass surveillance where citizens informed on colleagues, neighbours, and family members creating an atmosphere of widespread fear and paranoia), loneliness, freedom of expression and the importance of preserving art and human individuality in oppressive times.
“They” functions both as a political warning and as a defence of individual freedom. While the novel contains striking parallels with twentieth-century authoritarian regimes, particularly Soviet practices of censorship, state and social surveillance, denunciation and re-education, Dick’s vision extends beyond any specific historical context. “They” symbolises the wider social pressures that encourage conformity, discourage independent thought, distrust difference and suppress individuality. Dick’s novel is distinguished by its portrayal of conformity as a social disease spreading through ordinary communities.
In many ways, “They” resembles “I Who Have Never Known Men” by Jacqueline Harpman and “The Wall” by Marlen Haushofer in its exploration of isolation, survival and the preservation of identity under oppressive and authoritarian conditions. All three novels focus on individuals struggling to maintain their humanity in environments designed to suppress it.
The society depicted in “They” invites comparison with Soviet communism. In Dick’s 1977 dystopia, much like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s first-hand account of the Soviet forced-labour camp system, secret police, and mass state terror in “The Gulag Archipelago” (published in France in 1973 and translated into English in 1974), individuals disappear after being taken away by Them, while those who return often appear emotionally vacant and psychologically altered. The “retreats,” where dissidents are sedated and eventually emerge “cured of identity,” resemble systems of political re-education and evoke accounts of psychiatric abuse used against dissidents in the Soviet Union. Similarly, the restrictions on travel, the closure of communication networks, and the confiscation of books and artworks recall methods used by authoritarian states to control information and suppress dissent. Beyond state-enforced conformity, the novel also contains a strong thread of social conformity, resembling “Nineteen Eighty-Four” by George Orwell and, even more closely, “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley.
The pressure for identical houses, manicured gardens, television ownership, and approved forms of sociability can also be interpreted as a critique of post-war British conformity.
Furthermore, the novel suggests that ordinary individuals may become agents of repression irrespective of ideological conviction, a pattern documented in first-hand accounts from Nazi Germany and from authoritarian regimes across the Middle East and Latin America, both historical and contemporary.
The central threat in the novel is the enigmatic collective known as They. Dick never explains exactly who They are or how They came to power. Unlike traditional dystopian states ruled by clearly identifiable governments, They appear as neighbours, officials, children, random strangers, or mobs who have embraced conformity and hostility towards difference. Their power lies partly in this ambiguity. Because They can be anyone, They create an atmosphere of paranoia in which nobody knows whom to trust. The narrator often senses their presence before seeing them, feeling watched and followed by unseen forces. Safe spaces gradually disappear as They extend their influence into every aspect of life.
Their power derives from widespread social conformity. Their speech has been reduced to a minimum, to the extent that They can barely articulate their thoughts. They rarely communicate even with one another, creating a culture of self-censorship in which individuals fear that one remark may violate one of the constantly changing laws. They punish anyone who resists their understanding of the world, interpreting disagreement as hostility. To avoid attracting suspicion, individuals must not appear inquisitive, curious, or inclined to ask questions. They are calculating in their cruelty and take pleasure in psychologically tormenting their victims.
Throughout the novel, children imitate the cruelty of adults and participate in acts of persecution, including the torture of animals. Such scenes suggest that conformity has become a cultural norm transmitted throughout society from one generation to the next, rather than merely imposed by a distant state. Dick implies that authoritarian thinking survives not simply through laws and institutions but through everyday habits, prejudices, and fears. The real horror of the novel is that repression has become ordinary. In this respect, the novel serves as a warning about the ease with which intolerance and social conformity can become normalised within contemporary societies.
Through its celebration of artists, solitary individuals, friendship, memory and emotional expression, the novel argues that creativity and individuality remain essential forms of resistance. The enduring power of “They” lies in its suggestion that the greatest threat to freedom may come not only from governments but from society’s willingness to sacrifice difference for the comfort of uniformity and ill-perceived group identity.
One of the novel’s most striking themes is the destruction of art and culture. Throughout the narrative, books disappear from libraries and homes, paintings are confiscated, and creative expression is systematically eradicated. The narrator notes that:
“There were no books in the library…. All the paintings had been removed.”
Elsewhere, treasured works by writers such as Shelley and Katherine Mansfield vanish overnight, while The National Gallery in London is stripped of their collections. These acts of censorship reveal that They fear the power of imagination and independent thought. Literature, art and music encourage individuals to question authority and develop unique perspectives, making them threats to a society based on conformity.
Dick further emphasises this hostility through the brutal punishments inflicted on artists and intellectuals. Painters are blinded, musicians are made deaf, and writers have their hands damaged or amputated so that they cannot create. The physical destruction of artistic abilities symbolises the regime’s attempt to eliminate creativity itself. They do not merely wish to silence dissent but they also seek to remove the very possibility of individual expression. In this sense, the novel serves as a powerful defence of artistic freedom and the human need for creative self-expression.
“They will blind her and return her to me… She went beyond the accepted limit. She continued to paint…. They will make him deaf… they would amputate your hands … you’d better destroy the letter you’ve written. One must not leave any possible opening for confrontation… “.
The novel also explores the importance of solitude and personal independence. They particularly target people who live alone, viewing solitary individuals as threats because they cannot be easily absorbed into collective behaviour. As one survivor observes, “the single is a menace to them… they fear solitary living, therefore envy it.” Living alone allows people time to think independently and develop identities outside social expectations, unburden by need for conformity. The narrator, who works from home and spends much time in solitude, values this freedom deeply. Other survivors envy this lifestyle because it offers a degree of protection from constant social surveillance.
The need for privacy is reinforced by the regime’s efforts to eliminate individual spaces. They favour teamwork, open-plan living arrangements and discourage self-contained homes, symbolising their desire to erase individual boundaries. The pressure placed upon the narrator to make their house resemble neighbouring homes further demonstrates how conformity extends into private life. Even gardens become sites of resistance. While They prefer concrete, buildings and controlled environments, the untouched garden represents beauty, mystery and imagination. The fact that They hesitate to enter the garden suggests their discomfort with anything that cannot be completely regulated.
Another important theme is emotional repression. In Dick’s dystopia, feelings themselves become suspect. Those who openly grieve loved ones are sent to “grief towers” because grief demonstrates that love possesses meaning and value. As the novel suggests, love is regarded as “unsocial, inadmissible, contagious.” Emotional attachment reminds individuals of their humanity and creates loyalties beyond the state. Consequently, the expression of grief becomes an act of resistance. By punishing mourners, They attempt to create a population stripped not only of individuality but also of compassion and empathy.
The previously mentioned terrifying process of “curing” individuals further illustrates this dehumanisation. Those taken to “retreats” are heavily sedated and confined in windowless environments illuminated only by television screens. Constant noise and images eventually numb their senses until they emerge “cured of identity”, unable to think independently. People who return appear disoriented, emotionally vacant and detached from their former selves. Others never return at all. These retreats symbolise the complete erasure of personal identity through indoctrination and psychological control. It is worth mentioning that during the Soviet period, dissidents were sometimes confined to psychiatric institutions because opposition to the state was framed as evidence of mental disorder rather than legitimate political disagreement. In “They” non-conformity is also referred to as an illness. The authoritarian regimes often treat independent thinkers as dangerous whose ideas might spread and “infect” others.
Despite this oppression, the novel celebrates resistance through friendship, memory and creative activity. The narrator belongs to a loose network of writers, artists and unconventional individuals who continue to meet and support one another. They gather to read poetry, discuss literature, play chess, garden and share memories. They memorise works by poets such as John Keats and plays by Anton Chekhov because they recognise that preserving culture is essential. The narrator believes it is important to save literature and art for future generations, even when doing so seems futile. These acts may appear small, yet they represent a profound form of resistance against enforced conformity.
At the same time, the novel acknowledges the limits of opposition. Several characters argue that confronting Them directly would be suicidal. Many survivors believe the safest strategy is to ignore or to be indifferent to acts of cruelty and continue life as normally as possible.
This raises one of the novel’s central questions: can individuals preserve their humanity without actively resisting oppression? Dick offers no clear answer. The survivors remain caught between the desire to oppose injustice and the instinct to survive.
The fragmented structure of the novel contributes significantly to its unsettling effect. Each chapter presents a different encounter with repression, gradually revealing a world in which basic freedoms are steadily reduced. As readers, we experience the same uncertainty as the characters. The ending provides no definitive resolution, leaving a lingering sense of anxiety. This unresolved conclusion reinforces the idea that threats to individuality and freedom are ongoing rather than easily defeated.
Ultimately, “They” is both a dystopian warning and a celebration of independent thought and non-conformity. Through its portrayal of censorship, Soviet-style surveillance, emotional repression, and the destruction of artistic expression, the novel demonstrates how fragile individuality can be when confronted by collective, mob-like group pressure. At the same time, it affirms the enduring importance of friendship, memory, creativity, and artistic expression as sources of personal identity, vision and resistance.
Dick suggests that even in the darkest circumstances, the preservation of personal independent identity and rejection of group identity remains a form of resistance. The novel reminds us that freedom is not only political but also deeply personal, existing in the ability to think, feel and create.
“They” represents both a political force and a socio-psychological one: the collective fear of individuality, imagination and emotional freedom. The novel warns that oppressive systems are sustained not only by governments but also by ordinary people who willingly enforce accepted norms.
It is worth noting that although “They” was first published in 1977, the novel remained out of print for over forty years due to poor sales. It was rediscovered by chance in an Oxfam charity shop in 2020 by a literary agent and republished by Faber & Faber in 2022.
I highly recommend this his book.
