Considering the vast number of dystopian novels that have been introduced into the world of literature, especially during the relatively recent past, it is easy to question just how original a novel addressing this topic can really be. When writing about such similar topics, authors will almost inevitably begin to repeat or build upon the ideas of previous authors, making the innovation of their ideas questionable. It is also easy for a reader to compare the different futuristic theories that authors present in an almost competitive manner. As we come closer and closer to the future that authors have attempted to theorize on, it is tempting to try pinpointing which will be the most accurate prediction. Two of the most praised dystopian novels, Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984, have certainly received their fair share of scrutiny in both of these categories. The written analysis entitled “The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984” discusses both of these issues. The more important discussion, however, within “Two Futures” and especially within our society, is not the creativity of an author or the differences that exist between two theories but rather the similarities that they share. It is the common thread that lies between opposing theories, the shared idea that is proposed by multiple sources, that will prove to be the greatest threat to our society.
In regards to 1984 and Brave New World, the common element between the two perverse civilizations is manipulation. In both novels, the minority of the population utilizes manipulation in almost every aspect of life to maintain control over the majority. The first element of life that both governments use to manipulate the people is the very reality that the people experience. They take advantage of the fact that reality, rather than being a concrete occurrence, is simply a perception unique to each individual. They have learned to warp this perception so greatly that they have succeeded in essentially altering each person’s reality and therefore their ability to protest wrongdoings. As is written in “Two Futures,” one of the greatest means of manipulation “…is to substitute for reality a fiction that then becomes absolute. Fiction-as-reality can be controlled and manipulated in a way that reality- always fluid and unpredictable- cannot.” Orwell’s government does so by altering the past while Huxley’s simply erases it, but both systems achieve the same goal. The ability to question evil is eliminated when the people are given nothing to compare it to.
The second aspect of life that is used as a means of manipulation is human desire. Both governments recognize the fact that basic desires can be one of the greatest tools in controlling a populace. Big Brother appeals to the desire for power. Fear, used as a generator of power, is used to both intimidate and entice the people. Huxley’s government uses comfort and luxury to lure the people. Not only does everyone live securely and stably, they even have the opportunity to seek extravagance in the form of unrestricted sex. In Orwell’s novel, “the intoxication of power is the equivalent, in Huxley’s future world, of the intoxications of sex and soma…In both cases, man must be intoxicated,” (“Two Futures”). The two novels describe very different methods of tempting the citizens, but the fundamental approach of appealing to want is present in both.
The final and most frightening liberty that is violated for the purpose of manipulation is the very beliefs that the people maintain. Even the thoughts and opinions of the people are not free from modification by the government. It is then impossible for individuals to contest any misdeeds because they are incapable of even maintaining a contradicting thought. In 1984 it is the development of Newspeak, and when necessary, a barrage of torture, that is ripping this freedom away. In Brave New World, it is the intricate and thorough conditioning process. Either way, “both states rely heavily on conditioning to guarantee the orthodoxy of the administrative caste…,” (“Two Futures”).
The study of dystopian novels can easily be muddled with arguments over issues such as originality or future accuracy. The challenge that readers face when assessing such works is that they must be evaluated in a manner different from other genres. These works are less a piece of literature than they are a warning. They are intended to caution current society to the dangerous potential that exists for the future. 1984 and Brave New World can be judged for their accuracy or picked apart for their repetitiveness. Neither of these issues, however, is relevant to the true value of the works. It is the recurring themes that appear in both that become the most significant. The fact that two intelligent authors have both warned of us such uninhibited manipulation should be what a reader grasps most strongly when analyzing such pieces. We should stop undermining the real value and purpose of these tales of caution by harping upon petty issues and begin to focus more upon the real issues that are at stake.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
In the Words of Aretha...
Differences between people have and hopefully always will exist in our world. Diversity is what defines us both as a human race and as individuals. If all people were to comply with a uniform standard, we would each lose our sense of individuality when given nothing to compare to. Variety is an integral piece of society. Unfortunately, it is these same differences that are the root of the most terrible tragedies we humans inflict upon ourselves.
Of all the values and ideals that I cherish, respect is central to them all. It is the key element of a society that is capable of allowing different cultures to flourish both within it and alongside of it. As I sat down to consider which cause I am most dedicated to, it was easy to think of many current political and societal conflicts which I have strong personal opinions about. The harder part was identifying which larger ideal connects all of these fleeting concerns because that is unmistakably the value which remains most important to me. A lack of respect and tolerance for opinions and lifestyles different from one’s own was apparent in many of the issues that I am committed to, and therefore respect seemed to be the most fundamental priority.
I’m not simply advocating the definition of respect that we have been taught in school. Respect in the form of raising your hand in class or being able to politely discuss the upcoming election is the customary parameter which is easy to follow and even easier to praise. This is respect in its simplest and easiest form; respect involving opinions alone. Respect becomes challenging, and even more imperative, however, when our emotions, morals, and lifelong standards are questioned and even threatened. This means respecting the beliefs of the extremist in the Middle East who kills in the name of his god, or the racist who shaves his head and tattoos a swastika to his arm.
This is when respect becomes more difficult to maintain and even to justify. How can it be the morally “right” thing to respect a person who commits heinous crimes and upholds evil beliefs? It is natural and admirable to want to spread ones own standards of right and wrong. Many peaceful religions advocate this and many commendable people attempt it. There is nothing more praiseworthy than attempting to change the world for the best as we see it, a deed that borders on the verge of being a human obligation.
However, it is when our ideas are presented as being a better solution to a wrong answer rather than an alternative to a previously existing “solution” that we have broken this integral respect. The human race cannot possibly define one moral code and so we must accept different, offensive, and even heartbreaking opinions as the values that others chooses to live by. This doesn’t advocate ignorance and acceptance of social ills and wrongdoings upon others. We can, and should, expose our own beliefs and opinions but not at the risk of impeding upon others. The only exception to this rule is when one person’s beliefs begin to prevent someone else from upholding their beliefs. When we see another’s freedom of expression being obstructed, we may be forced to break this code of respect in order to prevent the offensive party from robbing someone else of their liberties.
The world we live in today remains as diverse as it ever was, but we are finding ourselves increasingly connected through new technologies. It has become impossible to live within a sheltered bubble that houses only one style of living. One of the most dangerous threats to our global society is the assumption that one moral standard must be implemented. Those in power have the huge responsibility of observing respect and tolerance for the minority who disagree with them. To overcome the ever-growing conflicts arising between cultures, it is necessary that we accept all sets of beliefs as valid opinions.
Of all the values and ideals that I cherish, respect is central to them all. It is the key element of a society that is capable of allowing different cultures to flourish both within it and alongside of it. As I sat down to consider which cause I am most dedicated to, it was easy to think of many current political and societal conflicts which I have strong personal opinions about. The harder part was identifying which larger ideal connects all of these fleeting concerns because that is unmistakably the value which remains most important to me. A lack of respect and tolerance for opinions and lifestyles different from one’s own was apparent in many of the issues that I am committed to, and therefore respect seemed to be the most fundamental priority.
I’m not simply advocating the definition of respect that we have been taught in school. Respect in the form of raising your hand in class or being able to politely discuss the upcoming election is the customary parameter which is easy to follow and even easier to praise. This is respect in its simplest and easiest form; respect involving opinions alone. Respect becomes challenging, and even more imperative, however, when our emotions, morals, and lifelong standards are questioned and even threatened. This means respecting the beliefs of the extremist in the Middle East who kills in the name of his god, or the racist who shaves his head and tattoos a swastika to his arm.
This is when respect becomes more difficult to maintain and even to justify. How can it be the morally “right” thing to respect a person who commits heinous crimes and upholds evil beliefs? It is natural and admirable to want to spread ones own standards of right and wrong. Many peaceful religions advocate this and many commendable people attempt it. There is nothing more praiseworthy than attempting to change the world for the best as we see it, a deed that borders on the verge of being a human obligation.
However, it is when our ideas are presented as being a better solution to a wrong answer rather than an alternative to a previously existing “solution” that we have broken this integral respect. The human race cannot possibly define one moral code and so we must accept different, offensive, and even heartbreaking opinions as the values that others chooses to live by. This doesn’t advocate ignorance and acceptance of social ills and wrongdoings upon others. We can, and should, expose our own beliefs and opinions but not at the risk of impeding upon others. The only exception to this rule is when one person’s beliefs begin to prevent someone else from upholding their beliefs. When we see another’s freedom of expression being obstructed, we may be forced to break this code of respect in order to prevent the offensive party from robbing someone else of their liberties.
The world we live in today remains as diverse as it ever was, but we are finding ourselves increasingly connected through new technologies. It has become impossible to live within a sheltered bubble that houses only one style of living. One of the most dangerous threats to our global society is the assumption that one moral standard must be implemented. Those in power have the huge responsibility of observing respect and tolerance for the minority who disagree with them. To overcome the ever-growing conflicts arising between cultures, it is necessary that we accept all sets of beliefs as valid opinions.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Build-A-Baby
Designer Babies: It’s a concept that holds so much more significance than its catchy name implies. With the technological Big Boom that our world is facing today, these two words have so much more meaning than many people would ever have thought possible. Rather than referring to Versace diaper bags or Chanel strollers as one might think, the words have come to mean handcrafted and genetically altered human beings. It may be that the meticulously designed and highly coveted items of the future will be humans rather than handbags. The possibilities that accompany such a technological capability are stunning and frighteningly vast in far too many risky ways. Such an unfamiliar type of alteration to the human race opens up an infinite number of doors for never before encountered dilemmas, both moral and scientific. Although genetic engineering can be beneficial in preventing and eliminating genetic diseases, it is a practice whose potential for unexpected and extreme results is too dangerous to make continued experimentation worthwhile.
There are several aspects of genetic engineering that make it almost irresistibly tempting. The most prominent of the benefits is the ability to eliminate a child being born with either a genetic disease or a greater disposition to one. To save a family from the heartbreak of having a child who will never be able to lead a successfully independent life would be wonderful. To prevent them from having to tell their child that they will almost certainly face early Alzheimer’s at 40, or that they will likely be forced to deal with cancer during the course of their lifetime, seems as though it would be the ultimate scientific achievement.
However, a careful inspection of the possibilities of such a power and a further look down the road taint this appeal severely and show the darker side of opening Pandora’s Box. One of the greatest reasons to pause and reconsider such a step is the fact that it poses innumerable moral dilemmas. People must consider the long term effects of creating humans “superior” to natural individuals. Increased and excessive discrimination will become commonplace as certain traits that emerge as the more desirable features now become accessible by choice. If we are a world that already judges based upon circumstances completely beyond our control, it is frightening to think what extreme divides will split the human race when ideal traits can be selected by the more privileged.
The practice of molding our future children also diminishes and undermines one of the most important aspects of parenthood: unconditional love. One of the most important roles that a parent plays in a child’s life is providing them with a steady and unwavering acceptance and love that can be found nowhere else. Selecting the traits of a child implies that if they were born any “worse” they would not be loved equally. This kind of conditional love will shake a child’s self-worth and potentially lead to a shift in society’s concept of self-esteem as a whole.
The greatest moral dilemma that follows genetic engineering, however, is the question of whether humans deserve the responsibility of eliminating that which they find to be undesirable. It is our nature to want to make life as pleasant as possible, but do we have the right to discard that which we find distasteful for what we perceive to be the better option? Perfection does not exist for good reason. It does not lend itself to happiness but rather shallow complacency. It is overcoming and embracing what we initially perceive to be misfortunes that allows us to appreciate true joy. The manufactured humans that Huxley creates in his novel Brave New World exemplify the tragedy of complacency. When the “savage,” John, witnesses the empty contentedness of the conditioned Buxley, he sees wastefulness in this state: “’You’re more like you were at Malpais,’ he said, when Bernard had told him his plaintive story… ‘Because I’m unhappy again; that’s why.’ ‘Well, I’d rather be unhappy than have the sort of false, lying happiness you were having here,” (179). Although we may be ridding ourselves of difficult pain and suffering, we don’t know what positive things can eventually be born from that pain.
Genetic selection of children is equally unpredictable and ominous in scientific terms. One of the greatest benefits to pursuing this science is the possibility of eliminating many diseases. Ironically, disease may become an even greater problem following the beginning of its elimination. Instead of being exterminated, diseases will only become more concentrated in the lower classes. Only the wealthy will be able to ensure their health, leaving the poor equally sick. As disease becomes less prominent in the upper class, it is unlikely that an interest in finding a cure will remain. We will end up with an extreme divide between the upper and lower class and little chance of finding a solution for those in need.
The process of germline engineering also is particularly hazardous in regards to science because of its possibilities for recureence. With this process, there is the potential for humans to indefinitely alter mankind. (http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm#GEHB) This sort of mindset is frighteningly similar to eugenics, not to mention biologically dangerous. In attempting to instill what we believe to be the most beneficial traits we could unknowingly destroy others that are detrimental to the race as a whole. Evolution requires randomness and necessitates a series of trials and errors to produce growth. When we begin to alter this random process we may very well be halting our progress as a species. Furthermore, removing “mistakes” from the human race will remove a great deal of its genius. History has shown us many remarkable pioneers whose accomplishments likely stemmed from their flaws. Beethoven, Einstein, and VanGogh would never have had a chance to contribute to our collective culture if perfection were necessary for life. Eliminating flaws from our race will only stunt growth and cause us to plateau as a society.
It is a driving desire to prevent pain in our lives and the lives of others that makes the exploration of genetic engineering appealing at a very strong level. Both morally and biologically, however, it is a power too risky for humans to control. The ability to eliminate disease will escalate into the specific formation of children. As author Gibbs writes, “Couples can screen out embryos for cystic fibrosis and cancer risk. Should they also be allowed to screen for blond, for smart, for straight or gay? We are on a road toward reproduction that doesn’t require eggs and sperm at all. This is a moral wilderness, full of hope and traps.” It is a complicated and emotionally charged conflict that we are beginning to enter. Despite our dearest wishes to create the best life for ourselves, however, we must realize that the responsibility of such a power is far too great and the possibilities far too unknown to consider genetic engineering to of benefit to mankind.
There are several aspects of genetic engineering that make it almost irresistibly tempting. The most prominent of the benefits is the ability to eliminate a child being born with either a genetic disease or a greater disposition to one. To save a family from the heartbreak of having a child who will never be able to lead a successfully independent life would be wonderful. To prevent them from having to tell their child that they will almost certainly face early Alzheimer’s at 40, or that they will likely be forced to deal with cancer during the course of their lifetime, seems as though it would be the ultimate scientific achievement.
However, a careful inspection of the possibilities of such a power and a further look down the road taint this appeal severely and show the darker side of opening Pandora’s Box. One of the greatest reasons to pause and reconsider such a step is the fact that it poses innumerable moral dilemmas. People must consider the long term effects of creating humans “superior” to natural individuals. Increased and excessive discrimination will become commonplace as certain traits that emerge as the more desirable features now become accessible by choice. If we are a world that already judges based upon circumstances completely beyond our control, it is frightening to think what extreme divides will split the human race when ideal traits can be selected by the more privileged.
The practice of molding our future children also diminishes and undermines one of the most important aspects of parenthood: unconditional love. One of the most important roles that a parent plays in a child’s life is providing them with a steady and unwavering acceptance and love that can be found nowhere else. Selecting the traits of a child implies that if they were born any “worse” they would not be loved equally. This kind of conditional love will shake a child’s self-worth and potentially lead to a shift in society’s concept of self-esteem as a whole.
The greatest moral dilemma that follows genetic engineering, however, is the question of whether humans deserve the responsibility of eliminating that which they find to be undesirable. It is our nature to want to make life as pleasant as possible, but do we have the right to discard that which we find distasteful for what we perceive to be the better option? Perfection does not exist for good reason. It does not lend itself to happiness but rather shallow complacency. It is overcoming and embracing what we initially perceive to be misfortunes that allows us to appreciate true joy. The manufactured humans that Huxley creates in his novel Brave New World exemplify the tragedy of complacency. When the “savage,” John, witnesses the empty contentedness of the conditioned Buxley, he sees wastefulness in this state: “’You’re more like you were at Malpais,’ he said, when Bernard had told him his plaintive story… ‘Because I’m unhappy again; that’s why.’ ‘Well, I’d rather be unhappy than have the sort of false, lying happiness you were having here,” (179). Although we may be ridding ourselves of difficult pain and suffering, we don’t know what positive things can eventually be born from that pain.
Genetic selection of children is equally unpredictable and ominous in scientific terms. One of the greatest benefits to pursuing this science is the possibility of eliminating many diseases. Ironically, disease may become an even greater problem following the beginning of its elimination. Instead of being exterminated, diseases will only become more concentrated in the lower classes. Only the wealthy will be able to ensure their health, leaving the poor equally sick. As disease becomes less prominent in the upper class, it is unlikely that an interest in finding a cure will remain. We will end up with an extreme divide between the upper and lower class and little chance of finding a solution for those in need.
The process of germline engineering also is particularly hazardous in regards to science because of its possibilities for recureence. With this process, there is the potential for humans to indefinitely alter mankind. (http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm#GEHB) This sort of mindset is frighteningly similar to eugenics, not to mention biologically dangerous. In attempting to instill what we believe to be the most beneficial traits we could unknowingly destroy others that are detrimental to the race as a whole. Evolution requires randomness and necessitates a series of trials and errors to produce growth. When we begin to alter this random process we may very well be halting our progress as a species. Furthermore, removing “mistakes” from the human race will remove a great deal of its genius. History has shown us many remarkable pioneers whose accomplishments likely stemmed from their flaws. Beethoven, Einstein, and VanGogh would never have had a chance to contribute to our collective culture if perfection were necessary for life. Eliminating flaws from our race will only stunt growth and cause us to plateau as a society.
It is a driving desire to prevent pain in our lives and the lives of others that makes the exploration of genetic engineering appealing at a very strong level. Both morally and biologically, however, it is a power too risky for humans to control. The ability to eliminate disease will escalate into the specific formation of children. As author Gibbs writes, “Couples can screen out embryos for cystic fibrosis and cancer risk. Should they also be allowed to screen for blond, for smart, for straight or gay? We are on a road toward reproduction that doesn’t require eggs and sperm at all. This is a moral wilderness, full of hope and traps.” It is a complicated and emotionally charged conflict that we are beginning to enter. Despite our dearest wishes to create the best life for ourselves, however, we must realize that the responsibility of such a power is far too great and the possibilities far too unknown to consider genetic engineering to of benefit to mankind.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Thank you
I have always thought that Thanksgiving is to holidays as Communism is to government: great in theory, not so successful in reality. A time to celebrate everything that we as a country and as individuals have to be thankful for. But Thanksgiving has been full of contradiction from day one: a feast for the life-saving Indians that we would later massacre and ship to the worst scraps of land that we can salvage. Nowadays it's not quite so dramatic, but still pretty corrupt. A day to be thankful that is dedicated to oversized air balloons, overpaid football players, and overeager early-bird madness. America in its glory. When I was assigned the task of writing about all that I have to be thankful for, I'll admit that I couldn't avoid an inward groan. But as I sat down to do this, I checked my email and notcied an old chain letter I received:
"One day a woman's husband died, and on that clear, cold morning, in the warmth of their bedroom, the wife was struck with the pain of learning that sometimes there isn't 'anymore'. No more hugs, no more special moments to celebrate together, no more phone calls just to chat, no more 'just one minute.' Sometimes, what we care about the most gets all used up and goes away, never to return before we can say good-bye, say "I love you." So while we have it, it is best we love it, care for it, fix it when it is broken and heal it when it is sick...Suppose one morning you never wake up, do all your friends and family know you love them?"
My life is certainly something to be grateful for, and I would like to thank everyone who has shaped it to be what it is.
My family. My mom for always coming down hard on me, for being demanding and pushy and telling me that nothing less than my best is acceptable. For encouraging me, letting me take it out on you sometimes, and telling me I'm a selfish brat when I need to hear it. My dad for telling me when it's ok to break the rules and giving me the independence that drives everyone crazy. For appreciating my humor and being the only one able to stand up to my stubbornness. My brother for taking my side, making me laugh, and sharing the backseat on family vacations.
My friends. The friend who knows me well enough to see the worst side of me and still not hate me-I'll never cease to be amazed by this. Thank you for making me laugh, letting me cry, and knowing whether I need white lies or brutal honesty. And also for letting me return these favors. The friend who never runs out of acceptance and tolerance, for teaching me generosity by splurging on ProductRed items that you hate. The friend who shows me how to lighten up, laugh, and appreciate a moment for what it is. The friend who lets me know it's ok to be girly and frivolous, and the another who will discuss books and politics over coffee. My friend who has shown me more strength than I can even fathom being able to muster. Friends who have betrayed me and taught me what I never want to be. Old friends who hug me like no time has past and new ones who are willing to overlook the fact that I'm practically a stranger.
Teachers who go well beyond the what's covered in textbooks and curriculums. For demanding insight before I could even comprehend the full meaning of the word. The teacher whose class spun my life around within a month of school. For encouraging me, driving me crazy, being repeatedly impressed, and not being afraid to tell me when if it really sucks.
"One day a woman's husband died, and on that clear, cold morning, in the warmth of their bedroom, the wife was struck with the pain of learning that sometimes there isn't 'anymore'. No more hugs, no more special moments to celebrate together, no more phone calls just to chat, no more 'just one minute.' Sometimes, what we care about the most gets all used up and goes away, never to return before we can say good-bye, say "I love you." So while we have it, it is best we love it, care for it, fix it when it is broken and heal it when it is sick...Suppose one morning you never wake up, do all your friends and family know you love them?"
My life is certainly something to be grateful for, and I would like to thank everyone who has shaped it to be what it is.
My family. My mom for always coming down hard on me, for being demanding and pushy and telling me that nothing less than my best is acceptable. For encouraging me, letting me take it out on you sometimes, and telling me I'm a selfish brat when I need to hear it. My dad for telling me when it's ok to break the rules and giving me the independence that drives everyone crazy. For appreciating my humor and being the only one able to stand up to my stubbornness. My brother for taking my side, making me laugh, and sharing the backseat on family vacations.
My friends. The friend who knows me well enough to see the worst side of me and still not hate me-I'll never cease to be amazed by this. Thank you for making me laugh, letting me cry, and knowing whether I need white lies or brutal honesty. And also for letting me return these favors. The friend who never runs out of acceptance and tolerance, for teaching me generosity by splurging on ProductRed items that you hate. The friend who shows me how to lighten up, laugh, and appreciate a moment for what it is. The friend who lets me know it's ok to be girly and frivolous, and the another who will discuss books and politics over coffee. My friend who has shown me more strength than I can even fathom being able to muster. Friends who have betrayed me and taught me what I never want to be. Old friends who hug me like no time has past and new ones who are willing to overlook the fact that I'm practically a stranger.
Teachers who go well beyond the what's covered in textbooks and curriculums. For demanding insight before I could even comprehend the full meaning of the word. The teacher whose class spun my life around within a month of school. For encouraging me, driving me crazy, being repeatedly impressed, and not being afraid to tell me when if it really sucks.
Coworkers, employers, and customers for giving me lessons in the "real world." For teaching me to work hard and remember to smile and say please and thank you no matter what you receive in return. Strangers who run to return the change that I leave on the counter. The lunch lady who greets me with a smile everyday. The overseas family I never met who called long distance months later to say thanks for a simple favor, because it means that much. The old man next to me in church who has holes in his coat but puts more money than me in the collection tray.
All of these people have helped me in more ways then even I am aware of. I'm still weighed down with turkey and potatoes and I can hear my cousins' loud laughter ringing in my ears as the holiday winds down. It's a routine I have been through many times, and I hope that taking a moment to write down the appreciation that goes unvoiced each year will carry on in my personal tradition. So while I have the chance...Thank you.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Self-Inflicted Poverty
While reading Jeanette Walls' memoir The Glass Castle, I found that her description of the poverty her family lived in changed some of my former opinions about people living below the poverty level, or at least made me consider a new perspective. As a strictly liberal person (in case those of you who know me haven't been able to guess!), I surprised even myself when I realized I had little or no sympathy for Rex and Rose Mary Walls. As the memoir developed, I grew increasingly more frustrated and impatient with them, at times nearing the point of downright anger. The attitude and mindset that the couple held pertaining to their poverty was aggravating enough, but when they decided to have children and raise a family in such conditions, I was infuriated. As two able-bodied adults, capable of improving their quality of living at least to the level of being able to put food on the table, I feel they lacked the maturity and the drive to change their situation, if only for the sake of their children. They stuck their noses up at countless opportunities to stabilize their lifestyle and in doing so, inflicted the suffering of their own lazy poverty upon their children.
As I began to do more research on the matter of "chosen" poverty versus inevitable poverty, I obviously found many, many situations in which poverty in not a chosen of self-inflicted lifestyle but an inescapable plague passed down from many different causes, including war, disability, social class, etc. However, I also found an alarming number of circumstances that, to me, implied a negligence on the behalf of the poverty-stricken individual rather than an inability to escape the situation. For example, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a new welfare plan for NYC in which families will receive monetary rewards for specified tasks that they perform. Attending a parent-teacher conference, for example, will result in a $25 reward, holding a full time job will result in $150 a month, and the list goes on. Why are we giving people an incentive to perform tasks that they can and SHOULD be doing without an additional prize at the end? Shouldn't the motivation stem from the benefits that are gained by doing these things, not by bribery? To me, this welfare plan not only proves the existence of a poverty onset by laziness, but it encourages it. When an outside party is working harder to improve someone's life than the individual themself is, the balance has been offset and something is wrong.
On the flip side of "chosen" poverty, there are those who do nothing to escape their poverty because they are content in the lifestyle they live. They do not ask for "handouts" and even refuse help when it is offered. This is the mindset of many people in India who live below what we in America would consider the poverty level. To us, their lifestyle is completely undesirable and we long to be able to "help" them. The slum of Dharavi inside the capital of Mumbai is a prime example of such a clash in mentalities. One wealthy, westernized Indian man wishes to revamp the entire, huge slum and supposedly improve the lives of the many people who live there. Nearly all citizens of the slum, however, protest such a change and resent the man for attempting to do so. They are proud of their homes and their lives, and do not wish to see the lifestyle they grew up with be completely turned upside down. It is not laziness that provokes them not to change but contentment.
After my exposure to this new side of poverty in both Walls' memoir and in recent articles that correlate to it, I was very surprised to see such a mentality in some individuals. I personally feel that if poverty is to be a choice, it needs to be a personal one that will affect no one else. The moment another friend or family member becomes involved, especially a child, it is time to make sacrifices to ensure that every opportunity is available to them, regardless of your personal choices.
As I began to do more research on the matter of "chosen" poverty versus inevitable poverty, I obviously found many, many situations in which poverty in not a chosen of self-inflicted lifestyle but an inescapable plague passed down from many different causes, including war, disability, social class, etc. However, I also found an alarming number of circumstances that, to me, implied a negligence on the behalf of the poverty-stricken individual rather than an inability to escape the situation. For example, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a new welfare plan for NYC in which families will receive monetary rewards for specified tasks that they perform. Attending a parent-teacher conference, for example, will result in a $25 reward, holding a full time job will result in $150 a month, and the list goes on. Why are we giving people an incentive to perform tasks that they can and SHOULD be doing without an additional prize at the end? Shouldn't the motivation stem from the benefits that are gained by doing these things, not by bribery? To me, this welfare plan not only proves the existence of a poverty onset by laziness, but it encourages it. When an outside party is working harder to improve someone's life than the individual themself is, the balance has been offset and something is wrong.
On the flip side of "chosen" poverty, there are those who do nothing to escape their poverty because they are content in the lifestyle they live. They do not ask for "handouts" and even refuse help when it is offered. This is the mindset of many people in India who live below what we in America would consider the poverty level. To us, their lifestyle is completely undesirable and we long to be able to "help" them. The slum of Dharavi inside the capital of Mumbai is a prime example of such a clash in mentalities. One wealthy, westernized Indian man wishes to revamp the entire, huge slum and supposedly improve the lives of the many people who live there. Nearly all citizens of the slum, however, protest such a change and resent the man for attempting to do so. They are proud of their homes and their lives, and do not wish to see the lifestyle they grew up with be completely turned upside down. It is not laziness that provokes them not to change but contentment.
After my exposure to this new side of poverty in both Walls' memoir and in recent articles that correlate to it, I was very surprised to see such a mentality in some individuals. I personally feel that if poverty is to be a choice, it needs to be a personal one that will affect no one else. The moment another friend or family member becomes involved, especially a child, it is time to make sacrifices to ensure that every opportunity is available to them, regardless of your personal choices.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Some very heavy women!
The title The Things They Carried could not more appropriately epitomize the theme of both the tangible and intangible weights and burdens that are placed upon soldiers. I think that one of the most cruelly ironic burdens that permeates throughout the novel and the lives of the soldiers is the burden of hope. It is hope that manages to keep the men struggling through the pains and challenges of their fully transformed daily lives, but it is also the crush and loss of this hope that is ultimate downfall of many men. And quite frequently, this hope is manifested in the women of the story.
Ted Lavender's death, or more specifically the guilt it evokes in Jim Cross, shows us our first glimpse of the glorification of women and the consequential defeat that follows. Cross' obsession and continual daydreams of Martha lead to the careless loss of Lavender. Lavender, whose name alone indicates the "mellow" stupor through which he coasted, stands out amongst the characters as least capable of self-sufficiency, making the death seem only more blame worthy to the reader. Cross accepts full blame, and acknowledges to himself the fact that his fantasies of a woman back home are responsible for such an error. This woman, however, this hope and strand of attachment to reality, is not even the one steady perfection that Cross wishes and needs her to be. Martha is placed upon a pedastal, glorified and worshipped by him, but she is not his girl and possesses no desire to be. It is a desperate and delusional attempt to remain connected to society and humanity, but in the end, it brings not satisfaction but demise.
Kiowa's death also shows the destruction that breeds from a preoccupation with girls, or at least how it is perceived to be so by the soldiers. The young, nameless boy feels responsibility for the death, but still cannot stop from relentlessly digging through the shit field in search of the photo that supposedly provoked the raid. He is searching for a girl who is no longer his, but represents all that he formerly had. It is a withered, feeble hope based not in reality but in wishful fantasy, as the boy digs in hope that "...something might finally be salvaged from all the waste," (173). It is the waste of his life and his future, and a last ditch effort to scrape together some meaning and beauty from pieces of his past that no longer belong to him. Compassion and love are not a soldier's duty, but the terrified boy and his comrades cling to them in fear of losing themselves entirely.
The metamorphosis of Mary Anne articulates this point most clearly. Even Fossie's girl, a binding link to humanity who is at least willing to return his love, turns out to be a false illusion once truly tested. War destroys the one clean and pure element of Fossie's life, and erases any treasured facade that allowed for happy simplicity. The very core of his future, the piece of stability in his life, is a weak mirage that disintegrates in the face of fear and death. He struggles "...to appreciate the full change" and comprehend her "utterly flat and indifferent" eyes and human tongue jewelry (110). His hopes have been dashed and his illusions shattered, leaving him to face the harsh realities of war without the filter of stability and simplicity awaiting him at home.
O'Brien is telling us that emotions, civility, and essentially any qualities that make a person more than a thoughtless soldier are a recipe for destruction when in war. Hope is a bittersweet necessity that keeps the men striving from day to day but spawns distractions that lead to death, or even worse, to crushing dissapointments that produce numbness and a forfeit to the horrors that they are gradually becoming a part of. Women embody all that was previously good for the men, and in their willingness to grasp at thin strands of normalcy, the men are more susceptible to very evil they so desperately wish to avoid.
Ted Lavender's death, or more specifically the guilt it evokes in Jim Cross, shows us our first glimpse of the glorification of women and the consequential defeat that follows. Cross' obsession and continual daydreams of Martha lead to the careless loss of Lavender. Lavender, whose name alone indicates the "mellow" stupor through which he coasted, stands out amongst the characters as least capable of self-sufficiency, making the death seem only more blame worthy to the reader. Cross accepts full blame, and acknowledges to himself the fact that his fantasies of a woman back home are responsible for such an error. This woman, however, this hope and strand of attachment to reality, is not even the one steady perfection that Cross wishes and needs her to be. Martha is placed upon a pedastal, glorified and worshipped by him, but she is not his girl and possesses no desire to be. It is a desperate and delusional attempt to remain connected to society and humanity, but in the end, it brings not satisfaction but demise.
Kiowa's death also shows the destruction that breeds from a preoccupation with girls, or at least how it is perceived to be so by the soldiers. The young, nameless boy feels responsibility for the death, but still cannot stop from relentlessly digging through the shit field in search of the photo that supposedly provoked the raid. He is searching for a girl who is no longer his, but represents all that he formerly had. It is a withered, feeble hope based not in reality but in wishful fantasy, as the boy digs in hope that "...something might finally be salvaged from all the waste," (173). It is the waste of his life and his future, and a last ditch effort to scrape together some meaning and beauty from pieces of his past that no longer belong to him. Compassion and love are not a soldier's duty, but the terrified boy and his comrades cling to them in fear of losing themselves entirely.
The metamorphosis of Mary Anne articulates this point most clearly. Even Fossie's girl, a binding link to humanity who is at least willing to return his love, turns out to be a false illusion once truly tested. War destroys the one clean and pure element of Fossie's life, and erases any treasured facade that allowed for happy simplicity. The very core of his future, the piece of stability in his life, is a weak mirage that disintegrates in the face of fear and death. He struggles "...to appreciate the full change" and comprehend her "utterly flat and indifferent" eyes and human tongue jewelry (110). His hopes have been dashed and his illusions shattered, leaving him to face the harsh realities of war without the filter of stability and simplicity awaiting him at home.
O'Brien is telling us that emotions, civility, and essentially any qualities that make a person more than a thoughtless soldier are a recipe for destruction when in war. Hope is a bittersweet necessity that keeps the men striving from day to day but spawns distractions that lead to death, or even worse, to crushing dissapointments that produce numbness and a forfeit to the horrors that they are gradually becoming a part of. Women embody all that was previously good for the men, and in their willingness to grasp at thin strands of normalcy, the men are more susceptible to very evil they so desperately wish to avoid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)