Tuesday, April 22, 2008
BNW vs. Today
Although BNW seems starkly different from society today, there are many scary ideas and topics that are still similar between these two societies. One of these disgusting similarities is the use of helicopters (can you say repulsive?). The advancement of technology in today's society mimics the technology in BNW as well. Today, we are at the verge of genetically selecting our offspring by filtering sperm. Also, the advancement of medically-available drugs can somewhat mimic the idea of soma. Anti-depressants are being developed so addiction is not possible (just like soma) as well as limiting any side effects. Sex in society has grown towards BNW standards and drastically away from society in the 1930s. Due to the free market both in today and in BNW, consumer goods have nearly defined society via political influence, day-to-day life, and the mentality of success through material. Also, the social mentality is for security rather than freedom, just as many shortcuts were made around 9/11 to ensure the public safety rather than public liberty. All in all, there are a handful of similarities, but for the most part, the two societies are distinct and will probably never merge.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
BNW II
BLOG topic: Compare and contrast the social conditioning of Lenina (through hypnopaedia especially) and John (through Shakespeare's works especially). How are both characters unable to understand each other because of their social conditioning?
One major difference between the two is volunteerism. Lenina involuntarily was conditioned to act according to the hypnopaedia that the Human Conditioning deparment controls. John, on the other hand, voluntarily read Shakespeare and seems to be almost crazy with his interpretations of the works. Both can rattle off quotes from their conditionings, but at the same time, both repeat with little comprehension or justification. The two are unable to fully understand one another because their conditioning is mutually exclusive of one another. The patterns and truths implanted in each other's brains are completely different, if not opposite in many instances. Their values clash (the love of Shakespeare is romanticized, the love of hypnopaedia is open), and their lifestyles are extreme (the religious whipping, the alcohol, the soma, the technology, etc.). The philosophy behind each civilization allow for little compromise between the two, ultimately showing the clash, and later exclusion of John in BNW.
One major difference between the two is volunteerism. Lenina involuntarily was conditioned to act according to the hypnopaedia that the Human Conditioning deparment controls. John, on the other hand, voluntarily read Shakespeare and seems to be almost crazy with his interpretations of the works. Both can rattle off quotes from their conditionings, but at the same time, both repeat with little comprehension or justification. The two are unable to fully understand one another because their conditioning is mutually exclusive of one another. The patterns and truths implanted in each other's brains are completely different, if not opposite in many instances. Their values clash (the love of Shakespeare is romanticized, the love of hypnopaedia is open), and their lifestyles are extreme (the religious whipping, the alcohol, the soma, the technology, etc.). The philosophy behind each civilization allow for little compromise between the two, ultimately showing the clash, and later exclusion of John in BNW.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Brave New World
What connections have you seen between Utopia and BNW? What seems good about BNW? What one thing troubles you most about it?
1. One odd connection that I saw was the use of a 'passport.' When Bernard went to New Mexico, it echoed the ideas of Utopia that trips can be approved by the government, but it seemed to be regulated in the same way.
2. Soma. How awesome is that? A drug approved by the government to make you have a good time seems pretty sweet. The only downside I see is that it is regulated by the government completely. However, if used appropriately, soma seems like some social perk the government can use as an incentive of production.
3. Conditioning. From an early age, humanity seems to have norms and behavior that is determined by the state. Although social norms are present today, there is much more of a choice. Bernard's character readily shows how freedom of expressions is severely looked down upon even if it is logical.
1. One odd connection that I saw was the use of a 'passport.' When Bernard went to New Mexico, it echoed the ideas of Utopia that trips can be approved by the government, but it seemed to be regulated in the same way.
2. Soma. How awesome is that? A drug approved by the government to make you have a good time seems pretty sweet. The only downside I see is that it is regulated by the government completely. However, if used appropriately, soma seems like some social perk the government can use as an incentive of production.
3. Conditioning. From an early age, humanity seems to have norms and behavior that is determined by the state. Although social norms are present today, there is much more of a choice. Bernard's character readily shows how freedom of expressions is severely looked down upon even if it is logical.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Book III
Ok, I will jot down what I have on my notes:
Prisoners of war are taken in as slaves. Women are prohibited to marry before 18; likewise, men before 22. Polygamy and divorce are almost always prohibited, yet some divorce is allowed via the state. Fools are used for enjoyment as well as lessons of utility. Utopia does not have any strong, foreign alliances. They detest war, but help friends in times of need. War is not used for killing - the Utopians try to limit death and unrest. They hope to take more prisoners, then casualties. Utopians know that others have different and varying religions, yet respects others' beliefs. Utopians are free to choose what religion to practice - the state does not choose for them. They greatly respect the dead via funeral and commemoration - talking only of the glory and honor of the deceased. Priests are raised to study from an early age, help others, and are very respected from citizens. The worst crime of a priest is to not help everyone. They hold music and art as a great beauty, often coming from a superior god.
My opinion varied greatly from one portion to the next in this last book. I usually found that if the state was unilaterally interfering with people's behavior, then I disapproved of the state's actions. But if sovereignty and choice was given to the Utopians, I usually agreed with what the state was suggesting. Some examples. I do not believe that the state should have the right to bar people from marriage based strictly on age, alone. Yes, we do not want 9 year-olds marrying, but 18 year-olds and 17 year-olds are complete idiots. Divorce should not be prohibited by the state, either, due to the free will people should have. Marriage is too close to people's lives that the state should not dictate for them what is 'right' and what is 'wrong.' I do like the idea that Utopia believed in not being in strong, foreign alliances. Just as George Washington told America not to get into entangling foreign alliances, most nation states should not get into strong alliances (see WWI or WWII for reasons why not). I liked the idea that Utopians could choose their own religion. Sovereignty in this area co-aligns with America's separation of church and state. If church and state were not separated, tensions between religions would probably be so tense that outbreaks would probably be deadly (see Saudi Arabia and 16th century England for examples).
At the end of all this, I could sum up my belief about Utopia as this: there are areas where the state could suggest improvement of utility in people's lifestyle, but most of these should not be entirely and unilaterally enforced by the state. Yes, I know that is vague.
Prisoners of war are taken in as slaves. Women are prohibited to marry before 18; likewise, men before 22. Polygamy and divorce are almost always prohibited, yet some divorce is allowed via the state. Fools are used for enjoyment as well as lessons of utility. Utopia does not have any strong, foreign alliances. They detest war, but help friends in times of need. War is not used for killing - the Utopians try to limit death and unrest. They hope to take more prisoners, then casualties. Utopians know that others have different and varying religions, yet respects others' beliefs. Utopians are free to choose what religion to practice - the state does not choose for them. They greatly respect the dead via funeral and commemoration - talking only of the glory and honor of the deceased. Priests are raised to study from an early age, help others, and are very respected from citizens. The worst crime of a priest is to not help everyone. They hold music and art as a great beauty, often coming from a superior god.
My opinion varied greatly from one portion to the next in this last book. I usually found that if the state was unilaterally interfering with people's behavior, then I disapproved of the state's actions. But if sovereignty and choice was given to the Utopians, I usually agreed with what the state was suggesting. Some examples. I do not believe that the state should have the right to bar people from marriage based strictly on age, alone. Yes, we do not want 9 year-olds marrying, but 18 year-olds and 17 year-olds are complete idiots. Divorce should not be prohibited by the state, either, due to the free will people should have. Marriage is too close to people's lives that the state should not dictate for them what is 'right' and what is 'wrong.' I do like the idea that Utopia believed in not being in strong, foreign alliances. Just as George Washington told America not to get into entangling foreign alliances, most nation states should not get into strong alliances (see WWI or WWII for reasons why not). I liked the idea that Utopians could choose their own religion. Sovereignty in this area co-aligns with America's separation of church and state. If church and state were not separated, tensions between religions would probably be so tense that outbreaks would probably be deadly (see Saudi Arabia and 16th century England for examples).
At the end of all this, I could sum up my belief about Utopia as this: there are areas where the state could suggest improvement of utility in people's lifestyle, but most of these should not be entirely and unilaterally enforced by the state. Yes, I know that is vague.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)