George Orwell predicted in his 1948 masterpiece "1984" that a totalitarian government focused on stripping away the rights of the individual would be the starting pawn in the most successful totalitarian government possible. With Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," this is the original dystopian novel, depicting a world where the individuality of identity and personality are taken away for the government to feed off of.
As haunting and chilling as "1984" presents itself to be, the scariest part of the novel is its significance in drawing its comparisons to the modern world. The most prominent part of this is the concept of 'government surveillance.' There's a fine line between what the government sees as protection of individual citizenship, and what constitutes being able to 'search and seize.' In "1984" the government, through telescreens, can see each individual's actions and base their criminal preference off of microexpressions.
Now, in the modern world, the government isn't looking at us at all angles throughout every one of our days, but there's a similarity between the tracking of movement through telescreens and the idea of government wiretapping. Wiretapping is the government's ability to track and listen to each and every conversation being held over both a cell-phone, phone-booth, and wired-in phone across the United States.
There's no visual perception being taken into account, but at the same time, there's little difference between reading lips and hearing what people actually talk about. In "1984" this system is used to pick out those who believe in anti-government propaganda, and let the government find them in an attempt to convert them into faithful citizens who can support Big Brother and understand his policies, wants, and desires.
The primary difference between the two institutions is the intention for which the concept of invasion of privacy is being used. For Big Brother, this is a method used to ensure that there's no break in citizen authority, that no citizen actually feels any sort of hatred for the singular government institution. At the same time, there's a sense of security and 'paternal' protection associated with the government of Big Brother and what it means to be 'watched.'
In America, this same system of invasion of privacy is used to protect and serve American citizens. In exchange for the government being allowed to insert itself into any personal conversation a person could have, they are able to track the dangerous conversations between potential criminals, terrorists, and track threats that put the safety of Americans at risk. Thus, there's an innate sense of safety and security in the American system, which doesn't exist in Big Brother.
However, this doesn't mean that it couldn't quickly become negative. How long until the government needs some sort of outlet to ensure a political candidate won't have competition? How long until the government can misinterpret a conversation and put an innocent couple in prison? How long until the government wants to prevent any sort of anarchic movement and puts anyone in prison who has 'government bad' on their search history?
The comparisons between security invasion of the modern world and George Orwell's fictional nightmare are strikingly similar. However, the government of 1984 has very negative intentions, whereas the modern government does not. While there is an ethical moral behind the origins of the modern American government, the risks associated with invasion of privacy make it the same sot of 'early bird' Big Brother whose control over the individual could extend far greater than it ever seems logical.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Monday, February 16, 2015
"The Truman Show" and "1984"
"The Truman Show" is and remains one of my favorite movies of all time. Psychologically, it's a beautifully twisted story that combines the parallels of the human psyche and the ideologies of entertainment. Truman Burbank, unaware that his entire life is a reality show televised 24/7, slowly begins to unravel the mystery surrounding his life and the horrible truth behind why he can never leave Seahaven Island.
Similarly to Winston Smith in George Orwell's "1984," Smith is a simple man living in a complex world where the government sets up everything in an attempt to mold ignorance and passive aggression into the citizens falling under government control. Smith, different from everybody else, begins to strip away his parallels and see the government for the controlling totalitarian dictatorship that it truly is. These two characters, though on the surface seem completely different, share many similarities to their surrounding environment and how they choose to interact with it.
The most surprising similarity that I saw was the use of 'sex' as a rebellious ideology. You have two different characters, Julia and Sylvia, who both engage in sexual activity with the main character as a way to go against the common normality and make a statement against what the society stands for. Sylvia and Truman in the face of the television show, and Julia and Winston in a determined rebellion standing against the principles of Big Brother.
However, the means of these two acts vary in their history and means of conduction. Between Julia and Winston, it's an obvious act of rebellion in the face of a greater government. Winston himself even reflects on these actions as a heated, violent form of rebellion within the second part of the novel. This same sort of rebellious attitude is not shared by Truman and Sylvia. Truman sees Sylvia instead as a desired partner over the Truman Show's forced partner, Meryl, and while Sylvia at first is opposed, she instead falls to Truman's love and desires him as a partner. The difference comes in the desired outcome of each situation, and while similar, they vary completely in nature.
Winston and Julia meant to be rebellious, whereas Sylvia and Truman simple were meant to be.
The principles differentiate between the two couples, with one being directly influenced and viewable in the eyes of the totalitarian leadership and the other not. Sylvia and Truman can ALWAYS been seen by Cristof, the man responsible for the creation of the Truman Show. Julia and Winston, on the other hand, are free from Big Brother in certain parts of the 1984 universe, such as the forest where they first engage in sexual conduct. Nevertheless, these two stories still follow the similar pact of moving against what a society believes to be true, and follows suit further within the interactions between the lovers.
This is not the only place the two stories are similar, however. Both Winston and Truman share the idea of retaining memory. Sylvia Garland's sweater and photograph are locked in Truman's basement, and the Thought Police, as of now, are unable to track Winston remembering the times and situations he spent with his wife. Both characters share a dislike of the partners they've been 'given,' and retain the memories of the things they desire, from real, actual sex to a partner who truly cares.
However, there's a difference between this scenario as well. A fan of the Truman Show quotes "they could erase her, they couldn't erase the memory." Sylvia Garland will always be a piece of that show's fabricated history, unable to be deleted. If this were to take place within the same societal framework as 1984, however, the history would be destroyed. Those who go against the government of Big Brother are taken out of history, permanently, forever. On one hand, the government of 'Truman' cannot erase the mistakes it makes, but the government of '1984' prides itself on rewriting and changing the past.
Even with these differences, the two stories remain quite similar in their morals and stories, with the imposition of government and what it means to be human taken into account. If you haven't seen this movie, I heavily recommend it, and you will question your moral character forever once the final curtain falls.
"You NEVER had a camera in my head!"
Similarly to Winston Smith in George Orwell's "1984," Smith is a simple man living in a complex world where the government sets up everything in an attempt to mold ignorance and passive aggression into the citizens falling under government control. Smith, different from everybody else, begins to strip away his parallels and see the government for the controlling totalitarian dictatorship that it truly is. These two characters, though on the surface seem completely different, share many similarities to their surrounding environment and how they choose to interact with it.
The most surprising similarity that I saw was the use of 'sex' as a rebellious ideology. You have two different characters, Julia and Sylvia, who both engage in sexual activity with the main character as a way to go against the common normality and make a statement against what the society stands for. Sylvia and Truman in the face of the television show, and Julia and Winston in a determined rebellion standing against the principles of Big Brother.
However, the means of these two acts vary in their history and means of conduction. Between Julia and Winston, it's an obvious act of rebellion in the face of a greater government. Winston himself even reflects on these actions as a heated, violent form of rebellion within the second part of the novel. This same sort of rebellious attitude is not shared by Truman and Sylvia. Truman sees Sylvia instead as a desired partner over the Truman Show's forced partner, Meryl, and while Sylvia at first is opposed, she instead falls to Truman's love and desires him as a partner. The difference comes in the desired outcome of each situation, and while similar, they vary completely in nature.
Winston and Julia meant to be rebellious, whereas Sylvia and Truman simple were meant to be.
The principles differentiate between the two couples, with one being directly influenced and viewable in the eyes of the totalitarian leadership and the other not. Sylvia and Truman can ALWAYS been seen by Cristof, the man responsible for the creation of the Truman Show. Julia and Winston, on the other hand, are free from Big Brother in certain parts of the 1984 universe, such as the forest where they first engage in sexual conduct. Nevertheless, these two stories still follow the similar pact of moving against what a society believes to be true, and follows suit further within the interactions between the lovers.
This is not the only place the two stories are similar, however. Both Winston and Truman share the idea of retaining memory. Sylvia Garland's sweater and photograph are locked in Truman's basement, and the Thought Police, as of now, are unable to track Winston remembering the times and situations he spent with his wife. Both characters share a dislike of the partners they've been 'given,' and retain the memories of the things they desire, from real, actual sex to a partner who truly cares.
However, there's a difference between this scenario as well. A fan of the Truman Show quotes "they could erase her, they couldn't erase the memory." Sylvia Garland will always be a piece of that show's fabricated history, unable to be deleted. If this were to take place within the same societal framework as 1984, however, the history would be destroyed. Those who go against the government of Big Brother are taken out of history, permanently, forever. On one hand, the government of 'Truman' cannot erase the mistakes it makes, but the government of '1984' prides itself on rewriting and changing the past.
Even with these differences, the two stories remain quite similar in their morals and stories, with the imposition of government and what it means to be human taken into account. If you haven't seen this movie, I heavily recommend it, and you will question your moral character forever once the final curtain falls.
"You NEVER had a camera in my head!"
Monday, February 9, 2015
Harrison Bergeron and Personal Identity
Within the realm of 'Harrison Bergeron,' the idea of Utopian vision is grounded on limiting the opportunities, abilities, and talents of its citizens to maximize equality. Hence, the strong are made weak, the confident are made embarrassed, the smart are made unintelligent, and so on and so forth. There draws a line between what the government is able to control and what an individual is allowed to express through reason and personality, and the government of this dystopia seems to break that line as its means of 'population control.'
I find it interesting to view not only how the lead person in charge, the Handicapper General, would place its restrictions on me, per say, but also how he or she would in general choose to reflect that same sort of demanding, controlling spirit upon the rest of my surrounding community. Within this post, I'll be looking at 2 different parts of myself that would be handicapped, and then I'll compare it with the rest of the people whom I surround myself with.
First, I'm a swimmer. In the world of 'Bergeron,' my capability would put me ahead of those who are physically incapable of moving through the water. Thus, in the cases of flooding, storms, or need to cross a larger body of water, I would be at a huge advantage in comparison to the rest of the community. Thus, I would reflect the idea of physical advantage, putting me ahead of the rest o the community and making me 'unequal.' I would, like the rest of the physically advanced, be carrying around weights and plates around my body, making me weaker and on-par with the others.
Second, I'm a poet. Creativity in this universe seems to have a larger handicap required for termination than many other pieces of the communal puzzle. Hence, the main character, with a memory far superior to his ignorant wife, is tortured repeatedly with a small sound in his ears to destroy any sort of physicality that reflects his past. In my mind, this same sort of independent thought process would be mirrored in trying to reflect emotions within poetry. Whether or not I would be measured and tortured with the same sort of sound treatment, I don't know, but there would be some sort of mental handicap placed on my ability to form intricate sentence structure and imagery.
These countermeasures taken against those with some sort of positive output in comparison to the remainder of the community are steps by those in power to control any sense of rebellion possible within the population. Gruesome and vicious, maybe, but the reasoning makes sense when put within the context of dystopian thought and rationality. The development of a dystopian ideology relies heavily on control of the population, and thus, taking down those with some sort of mental or physical drive seems logical, and in a sense, moral.
But this falls short. In my last post, I talked about the American right to private security and unwarranted seizure. I think the context of seizure can be reflected in the mirroring image of personal identity, where the government's limitations on the rights of the individual cannot go beyond protected American rights, and then, cannot break any kind of natural law to what being a human entitles. Thus, when the government of 'Bergeron' incapacitates an individual because he can put words together to make a poem, it strips away the core essence of what drives him mentally, and takes away the one thing that makes him unique to the rest of the ignorant society giving in to government control.
Within my high school, the pressure for success and drive for athletic ability reflects that of a small college. Its a high-playing, intense academic and athletic environment that embodies the idea of making college students out of high school students. So, if 'Bergeron' was reflected in the mindset of my high school, the use of mental handicap would increase tenfold, as the GPAs and integrity of students would need to fall in order to be on-par with the other educational programs across the nation. As a result, what makes my high school unique would fall to required, unmotivated standards.
The government of 'Bergeron' makes an effort to destroy the strong and equalize the weak, preventing rebellion and setting a commonality between members of the nation. Those in power have control over the handicaps that such people receive. I have specified what my limitations would be, and those same kinds of limitations would be widespread across my community to limit any sort of anarchical ideology. In essence, within the use of the 'Bergeron' identity, the creativity behind what makes a human a human falls in favor of total, common, black-and-white identity, or lack of intricacy at all.
I find it interesting to view not only how the lead person in charge, the Handicapper General, would place its restrictions on me, per say, but also how he or she would in general choose to reflect that same sort of demanding, controlling spirit upon the rest of my surrounding community. Within this post, I'll be looking at 2 different parts of myself that would be handicapped, and then I'll compare it with the rest of the people whom I surround myself with.
First, I'm a swimmer. In the world of 'Bergeron,' my capability would put me ahead of those who are physically incapable of moving through the water. Thus, in the cases of flooding, storms, or need to cross a larger body of water, I would be at a huge advantage in comparison to the rest of the community. Thus, I would reflect the idea of physical advantage, putting me ahead of the rest o the community and making me 'unequal.' I would, like the rest of the physically advanced, be carrying around weights and plates around my body, making me weaker and on-par with the others.
Second, I'm a poet. Creativity in this universe seems to have a larger handicap required for termination than many other pieces of the communal puzzle. Hence, the main character, with a memory far superior to his ignorant wife, is tortured repeatedly with a small sound in his ears to destroy any sort of physicality that reflects his past. In my mind, this same sort of independent thought process would be mirrored in trying to reflect emotions within poetry. Whether or not I would be measured and tortured with the same sort of sound treatment, I don't know, but there would be some sort of mental handicap placed on my ability to form intricate sentence structure and imagery.
These countermeasures taken against those with some sort of positive output in comparison to the remainder of the community are steps by those in power to control any sense of rebellion possible within the population. Gruesome and vicious, maybe, but the reasoning makes sense when put within the context of dystopian thought and rationality. The development of a dystopian ideology relies heavily on control of the population, and thus, taking down those with some sort of mental or physical drive seems logical, and in a sense, moral.
But this falls short. In my last post, I talked about the American right to private security and unwarranted seizure. I think the context of seizure can be reflected in the mirroring image of personal identity, where the government's limitations on the rights of the individual cannot go beyond protected American rights, and then, cannot break any kind of natural law to what being a human entitles. Thus, when the government of 'Bergeron' incapacitates an individual because he can put words together to make a poem, it strips away the core essence of what drives him mentally, and takes away the one thing that makes him unique to the rest of the ignorant society giving in to government control.
Within my high school, the pressure for success and drive for athletic ability reflects that of a small college. Its a high-playing, intense academic and athletic environment that embodies the idea of making college students out of high school students. So, if 'Bergeron' was reflected in the mindset of my high school, the use of mental handicap would increase tenfold, as the GPAs and integrity of students would need to fall in order to be on-par with the other educational programs across the nation. As a result, what makes my high school unique would fall to required, unmotivated standards.
The government of 'Bergeron' makes an effort to destroy the strong and equalize the weak, preventing rebellion and setting a commonality between members of the nation. Those in power have control over the handicaps that such people receive. I have specified what my limitations would be, and those same kinds of limitations would be widespread across my community to limit any sort of anarchical ideology. In essence, within the use of the 'Bergeron' identity, the creativity behind what makes a human a human falls in favor of total, common, black-and-white identity, or lack of intricacy at all.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Propaganda and Human Rights
'Propaganda' is an attempt by a large corporation, body of people, or group to sway the minds of multiple individuals to believe a certain thing or ideology. Used both for good and not-good intent, propaganda, especially in the modern world, is everywhere. From politics to advertising to fast food to management, there is propaganda surrounding us day in and day out, with the media taking advantage of popular opinion and understanding by making one believe something they may not want to. In theory, this is terrible, an example of a mass corporation taking away the protected minds of the individuals of society. However, under certain circumstances, this same ideology could easily be twisted to become an important, good feature in society.
In context, propaganda sucks. There's no other way to say it. The idea of a mass corporation to understand a certain piece of information is not only a single detriment to the right to human privacy and constitutional protecting, but also breaks the fourth amendment of the right to search and seizure when the government is allowed to open up into our personal lives. There isn't a single situation when the government forcing the public to believe a NEGATIVE ideology could ever be sufficient. Take the example of the Nazi party in antebellum Germany. You have the government, hence the ruling corporation, of Germany promising a rise in public voice and freedom so long as the minority is blamed at the root of the problem. What was the resultant? 6 million innocent deaths. Probably more. Under most common context, propaganda is disgusting.
However, looking at it from the context of Utopia, it's genius. Propaganda might single-handedly be the most crucial concept in the formation of a Utopia. Within the hands of a single individual, the idea of convincing an entire public that there's a certain truth to modernist belief is the easiest way to maximize total control of public belief and understanding. Not only can this be done through fear and provocation, but in essence, this entire system may single-handedly be able to take 50,000 men and women and make them believe the exact same thing. Going back to my previous post, it takes common, united, socialistic belief that supports the understanding and formation of a unified society. With propaganda, it seems totally necessary that it would be used within the confines of a utopian breakthrough.
Now, this argument breaks apart like a crack when you apply the philosophical construct of 'Utilitarianism.' This philosophy, primarily ethics-driven, states that the most ethical activity is the one that ensures the most happiness. This is the same prospect that defended the community in 'Those Who Walk Away from Omelas.' Going under this context, the argument could be shifted both ways, and I'll analyze them both in the following paragraphs:
Yes: If the context of the situation is to ensure positively-driven citizens who are willing, and able, to follow the guidelines of the society, then utilitarianism will support the concept. Unlike the Nazi party, if the community were to utilize mass propaganda as a support system to give good reasons for supporting the government, and if there were no violent cost, such as the suffering child in 'Omelas,' then the Utilitarian argument says that propaganda could be a necessary piece of this society.
No: If maximum happiness is being given in exchange for a violent action that suppresses human quality and condition, such as the child suffering in 'Omelas' or the restriction of free-thought and expressions within Kurt Vonnegut's 'Harrison Bergeron,' the human condition is being broken in exchange for corporate value and proficiency. In this case, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the entire society does not feel universal protection; the utilitarian would not support it.
I will attack this concept from my own ethical standpoint. I don't feel like propaganda could ever be a necessary, nor effective, tool within the community of any sort of nation, whether utopian, socialist, or capitalist. I see dominant control of a massive corporation FORCING the singular belief of an ideology to be inherently wrong, because the thoughts of an individual are protected under the first amendment of the constitution, as well as the human right to privacy and individual thought. Thus, when a corporation tries to infringe both of those rights, I see it as antimoral, and cannot support it under any conclusion thereof.
In context, propaganda sucks. There's no other way to say it. The idea of a mass corporation to understand a certain piece of information is not only a single detriment to the right to human privacy and constitutional protecting, but also breaks the fourth amendment of the right to search and seizure when the government is allowed to open up into our personal lives. There isn't a single situation when the government forcing the public to believe a NEGATIVE ideology could ever be sufficient. Take the example of the Nazi party in antebellum Germany. You have the government, hence the ruling corporation, of Germany promising a rise in public voice and freedom so long as the minority is blamed at the root of the problem. What was the resultant? 6 million innocent deaths. Probably more. Under most common context, propaganda is disgusting.
However, looking at it from the context of Utopia, it's genius. Propaganda might single-handedly be the most crucial concept in the formation of a Utopia. Within the hands of a single individual, the idea of convincing an entire public that there's a certain truth to modernist belief is the easiest way to maximize total control of public belief and understanding. Not only can this be done through fear and provocation, but in essence, this entire system may single-handedly be able to take 50,000 men and women and make them believe the exact same thing. Going back to my previous post, it takes common, united, socialistic belief that supports the understanding and formation of a unified society. With propaganda, it seems totally necessary that it would be used within the confines of a utopian breakthrough.
Now, this argument breaks apart like a crack when you apply the philosophical construct of 'Utilitarianism.' This philosophy, primarily ethics-driven, states that the most ethical activity is the one that ensures the most happiness. This is the same prospect that defended the community in 'Those Who Walk Away from Omelas.' Going under this context, the argument could be shifted both ways, and I'll analyze them both in the following paragraphs:
Yes: If the context of the situation is to ensure positively-driven citizens who are willing, and able, to follow the guidelines of the society, then utilitarianism will support the concept. Unlike the Nazi party, if the community were to utilize mass propaganda as a support system to give good reasons for supporting the government, and if there were no violent cost, such as the suffering child in 'Omelas,' then the Utilitarian argument says that propaganda could be a necessary piece of this society.
No: If maximum happiness is being given in exchange for a violent action that suppresses human quality and condition, such as the child suffering in 'Omelas' or the restriction of free-thought and expressions within Kurt Vonnegut's 'Harrison Bergeron,' the human condition is being broken in exchange for corporate value and proficiency. In this case, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the entire society does not feel universal protection; the utilitarian would not support it.
I will attack this concept from my own ethical standpoint. I don't feel like propaganda could ever be a necessary, nor effective, tool within the community of any sort of nation, whether utopian, socialist, or capitalist. I see dominant control of a massive corporation FORCING the singular belief of an ideology to be inherently wrong, because the thoughts of an individual are protected under the first amendment of the constitution, as well as the human right to privacy and individual thought. Thus, when a corporation tries to infringe both of those rights, I see it as antimoral, and cannot support it under any conclusion thereof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)