Final Answer:
The life of Proles significantly differs from that of Party members due to freedom, limited surveillance, and fewer restrictions. This contrast is evident in their living conditions, activities, and the level of control exerted by the Party, as depicted in George Orwell's "1984."
Step-by-step explanation:
The stark disparity between the lives of Proles and Party members in Orwell's "1984" lies in the fundamental liberties, surveillance, and restrictions imposed by the Party. Proles, comprising the proletarian class, lead relatively freer lives compared to Party members. They have more apparent personal freedom, with fewer constraints on their actions. For instance, the Proles engage in mundane activities like socializing, singing, and going about their lives without the constant scrutiny endured by Party members.
Living conditions exemplify this divide. Proles inhabit run-down neighborhoods, yet their spaces remain untouched by the Party's invasive monitoring devices like telescreens. They're not subjected to the same level of strict control or indoctrination present in Party quarters. The Proles, albeit living in poverty, seem to possess a certain level of autonomy that eludes Party members.
Conversely, Party members endure pervasive surveillance and stringent regulations in their daily lives. They're under constant observation through telescreens, subjected to strict behavioral guidelines, and are required to adhere strictly to the Party's ideology. Their every move, word, and even thoughts are potentially monitored and controlled by the oppressive Party apparatus.
Thus, the evident distinction in lifestyle between Proles and Party members stems from the Party's deliberate design to maintain power. While the Proles remain largely unimportant to the Party's oppressive regime, they represent a glimmer of hope for individual autonomy and freedom compared to the stifling existence of Party members.