What would you do?

During class discussion, we pondered over the question of "would we put in all the effort Lauren does to survive if you resided in the world featured in 'The Parable of the Sower?'" My first reaction to this question was, "absolutely not, thats way too much effort!" But then, I thought about the environment Lauren has been raised in. She doesn't know anything other than the hard, survival lifestyle she lives.  Given that we are a product of the environment we are raised in, it is hard to imagine a scenario in with Lauren would just give up fighting for her life - just as it is hard for us to imagine ourselves in her position.

This thought stayed with me throughout the day, and I began to think about the implications of this in other texts. For example, in the handmaids tale, if we were raised in that society would we become complacent with the way that society works? Would we allow women to be marginalized and our freedoms to be taken away? I think that the fundamental different between the environment in "The Parable of the Sower" and "The Handmaid's Tale" is that the people in "The Handmaid's Tale" we not raised in that type of society. There was a radical change that occurred fairly recently - so recently that Offred often refers to her prior life. They can acknowledge a different type of lifestyle, thus spawning the resistance which has the sole purpose of gaining their past lives back. In "The Handmaid's Tale,"  the people are not completely complacent.

Reflecting on the "Brave New World," maybe the society never needed genetic modifications in order to create a caste system. What if the government suppressed the population until their society became "the norm." That way, people would still retain the ingenuity and innovation they should, whilst also being complacent in society. This would create a population that could innovate more and further technology and sciences, creating an overall better society. What do you guys think? Could you see yourself in Lauren's position / what would you do if you can? Do you think that "Brave New World" could have constructed a better society? Let me know!

How is Parable of the Sower different from the other books we've read?

We just started reading Parable of the Sower not too long ago, and I think that the differences between it and the other books can already be seen.  I think the fact that this book is set in the sort-of-near future, as opposed to (relatively) far off like in 1984 and Brave New World, contributes to making the setting creepy and unnerving.  Like the rest, there is a general apocalyptic theme that exists in this book, but it's more plain to see in this book's setting than in the others'.  The communities where people live are walled off for protection against drug addicts, squatters, and other potentially dangerous people from the outside.  Arsons are frequent and sporadic, as is robbing, pillaging, and other horrifying crimes.  This society is much more chaotic at the level of people’s everyday lives than in the other books, where there is more of a sense of tight control over the populace.  

Another aspect in which Parable of the Sower differs from other dystopias is the impact of drugs.  Drugs are a huge problem in Parable of the Sower.  For example, there are frequent incidents in which people burn down things due to taking drugs.  Even the main character is affected by drugs - her biological mother's drug use led to her "hyperempathy" condition.  In Brave New World, however, drugs are used to wild abandon - specifically soma, which does not seem to have any adverse side effects.  Most, if not all, citizens use it whenever the situation calls, and the story doesn’t ever describe any adverse effects occurring directly from usage of the drug.  

The last difference that I would like to point out when comparing Parable of the Sower to the other dystopias (particularly 1984 and Handmaid’s Tale) is that in Parable of the Sower, the government is not nearly as abusive or controlling to its citizens.  In 1984 and Handmaid’s Tale, the governments mistreat the citizens severely and cause them to be unhappy and live in fear.  In all three, the governments control every single aspect of the populace’s lives.  However, Parable of the Sower has a ruling body that is more similar to the one familiar to us, and that I think makes things scarier.

What do you think?  What are some other things that set our newest book apart?

The Ultimate Government Mind Control Method

In the three books that we have explored in this class, there seems to be a common theme of the authorities implementing some form of mind control to subdue the citizens and possibly distract them from some of the misgivings in their society. In BNW, the World State uses soma, a drug that nulls the senses and feelings of BNW citizens especially whenever someone might be feeling apprehensive about their situation. In the Handmaid’s Tale we have the power of religious authority which, out of the three novels, is likely the most extreme and scary for the citizens of the republic of Gilead. Finally, we have the telescreens of 1984 which don’t have the immediate effect of the other control methods, but continuously watch the citizens of Oceania and bombard them with government propaganda.

Personally, I think that the World State’s use of soma is best suited to control the people in BNW. The religious authority in the Republic of Gilead, while somewhat effective, is quite brutal and the texts on which they are based are very open to interpretation allowing for greater dissent between the government and its citizens. While it may be possible to subjugate a small crowd to religious authority, it’s quite difficult to subject an entire nation to that form of rule. In the Handmaid’s Tale, there is a very real resistance to the present government, and we can see that it eventually managed to topple the Republic of Gilead.

The telescreens in 1984, while seemingly harmless, allow for Big Brother to spy on all the civilians in Oceania and remove anyone who acts out or breaks the law. In addition, we can see that the lives of people are practically controlled by the telescreens. They are told when to go to work and when to sleep by the telescreens. There also appears to be a constant stream of government propaganda coming from the telescreens which likely helps embed government ideals into the subconscious. Finally, the children in 1984 are Big Brother’s children and are almost property of the government which certifies that future generations will be subservient to Big Brother. However, unlike soma, the telescreens can’t quell rebellious thoughts and they can’t totally monitor an individual. They only become effective when someone acts out, but they aren’t so effective when individuals are having rebellious thoughts and feelings. Like religious authority, they don’t attack the root of rebellion or insubordination.

Unlike the religious authority and telescreens, the citizens of BNW have a generally positive relationship with the mind control drug that is soma. Soma attacks the root of insubordination and rebellion by nulling those who take it to the senses that may give them these feelings. As seen in BNW, throughout the book, the World State remains in power and most seem to be in support of the World State. Those who don’t comply with the way of living are simply removed from society. Soma is the ultimate mind control method because it attacks the feelings of uneasiness at their root, and the citizens of BNW have a positive relationship with soma, unlike the people in the other two novels.   

What do you think?

Choose Your Class...

Freedom, the word, is thrown around in everyday language. You have the freedom to do this, to say that, to be your own individual person. The past few books we have read these freedoms that define us as people have been stripped away. Some worse than others but gone nonetheless. In 1984 there are two major life styles on can live as. You could be in the outer party also known as the "Proles" or you could be in the "Inner Party". Of  course, there are disadvantages and advantages for joining each class.

While you might be naturally drawn to the inner party, the upper-class, especially if it's wealth that you seek. Yes, if you're in the Inner Party, you will have more power and control of the direction that your life goes. Money isn't an issue for you, you have plenty of it and can spend it anyway you like...to an extent. Better yet, the jobs you work are physically easy and one's that aren't life threatening, unless you make a mistake. There are some small downsides of being in the Inner Party though. For example you don't have the right to think you're own thoughts, everything you do must be for "Big Brother" or the Party. You can't show emotion in your face, it must remain like this: (-_-). You will obey any orders given to you, you can't be too smart, too dumb, foolish. You're watched 24/7 and any move you make will be noted. You can marry one person, once and you can't ever divorce them. Yes, this all seems a little bad but at least the consequences for breaking these rules aren't too bad. Wait, yeah they are. If you are to break any of these rules a majority of the time you will be vaporized, so that's something.

Now if we take a step back and examine the life of the Outer Party. The Proles live a tough life. They're poor and have a hard time affording anything, they struggle to find food or even places to live. They live in crowded arrangements. 85 percent of the population in the Party are the Proles, so you can imagine the situation.The Proles do work very hard and barely get paid, they do the heavy labor work for the party. As a Prole however, you aren't constantly being watched. You are free to have relationships with whomever you want. You can voice your opinions, break the rules (carefully), and you are free to be your own person.

With this brief summary of the two classes it's time to make your choice. Which would you rather be and why?

Is Anyone Happy in Gilead?

As I neared the end of the Handmaid’s Tale, I began to wonder about who it was that was benefiting from Gilead's society. What if everyone was unhappy with Gilead’s social order?

Most obviously, women are severely oppressed and largely discontent with their positions in society. Handmaids and Marthas are forced into slave-ish roles in society in terms of sex and manual labor. Wives deal with humiliating ceremonies and a constant reminder of their infertility. Aunts aren’t too oppressed relatively speaking, but I think it would be hard to argue that they are large beneficiaries of the society. Although women, by large, are unhappy, it doesn’t seem like the Commander - who was one of the individuals who set up the Republic - is completely happy with Gilead’s society either. This is evidenced by the way that the Commander has forbidden but oddly friendly encounters in his study with the handmaids. The handmaid before Offred likely visited the Commander often but hung herself when their affair was found out. Additionally, Offred was invited to play scrabble and read books with the Commander. It seems almost as though the Commander craves new meaningful/romantic relationships and is dissatisfied with his current relational situation. This does raise the question, however, is the actions of the Commander a reaction to his own unhappiness or just his demonstration of his sexual greed. I like to think personally that the Commander comes moreso from a place of unhappiness rather than greed because he is in a position of power where he doesn’t need to do things like play scrabble or read with Offred to have sex. Obviously, that’s a
debatable topic. But running with the idea that even the Commander is unhappy, who is satisfied with this society? There’s not much textual evidence to say anything about the eyes or angels, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this trend held true with them as well. What are your thoughts?

Gilead's Instability

I feel that the Republic of Gilead, featured in Margaret Atwood's novel "The Handmaid's Tale", is not a successful dystopia. It doesn’t lack in qualities that we can easily recognize as dystopian, of course – in Gilead citizens are mistreated for the benefit of the ruling class, dissenters and dangerous ideas are sniffed out with a very effective surveillance network (e.g. the Eyes) and then quickly dealt with, etc. Despite all this, we know from the ending of the book that Gilead eventually falls. So what could be the problem?

Gilead is not a stable dystopia. In the long term, I think that its model for how society operates is not sustainable, since its citizens are actually not brainwashed enough. To some extent, they are conditioned to hold the beliefs of their leaders. This can be seen when the Japanese tourists visit, and the Handmaids feel that they are dressed inappropriately. But this conditioning falls short of convincing everyone that they are truly happy in their stations in life. From the small slice of Offred’s life we get a glimpse of, we can see plenty of folks who are miserable and skeptical of the idea that they are benefiting from their current situation, or that it was better than before.

The Handmaids, especially Offred, are an obvious example. From looking into her inner thoughts we can see how she yearns for her old life and her path to eventual rebellion. Ofglen’s situation is similar. For these people, who are most affected by the new system, it is easy to tell why their situations led them to rebel. But I’d also argue that the Commanders (or perhaps the ones who aren’t close to the top) are unhappy in their own way, despite supposedly helping to build Gilead. This can be seen with the Commander Fred, whose loneliness prompts him to make private visits with Offred. In addition, the Commanders are not immune in society – they may be put under review for violations of the rules and subsequently punished.

If people are not happy in a society, it follows that they will rebel in some fashion or another. I think that in the situation taking place in “The Handmaid’s Tale”, the broad unhappiness amongst various classes of people led to the dissolution of Gilead – the event talked about in the history lecture at the end of the book. Do you think my assessment is correct? What are your thoughts?

Why a utopia will never exist

In order to have a true utopian society, every aspect of that society must be perfect. There are no problems, no ailments, or anything that could upset anyone on an individual level in a utopia. Although I believe a complete utopia is impossible to achieve, there are aspects of utopian societies that could be present in the world. For example, some diseases could be eradicated completely. We can say that there are some objectively 'good' traits of society that everyone can agree on, such as eradicating health problems, providing clean running water to everyone, etc.

On the flip side, there are some aspects of society that people disagree on. For example, some people believe that a strict egalitarian society would be the ideal society, while others would argue that elitism is ideal. Some people believe that communism is the best governmental structure, while others strive for a more capitalistic society. The point is, everyone has different ideas on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Since the concepts of what’s 'right' and what’s 'wrong' are not concretely defined, any system that is put in place will have people advocating for it or against it.

Let's say that you could somehow manufacture a homogeneous population of humans that share the same subjective ideas of morality. Much like in the book Brave New World, each person would have a purpose and they'd believe that the current society is flawless. Are these people even human at that point? How can you be human without any diversity or individualism. In my opinion, the people in Brave New World are not even human, they are just mindless drones fulfilling the tasks they're assigned to.

The reason why a real utopia will never exist is because perfection is just a concept. Everything in the world has imperfections. We may strive for perfection, but there is never an end; you can always do better in some regard. Not everyone is going to agree with everyone else and that's just part of being human. Having a diverse world of ideas is the only way innovation can exist. Having innovation creates new ideas that could potentially bring us closer that that 'perfect' society. That's precisely why the United States has been so successful. By allowing people of all races and cultures into our country, we also allow their ideas, beliefs, and perspectives in. If we want to come closer to that ideal society, we should be letting more people into our country for varying countries, not restricting immigration.
- Arjun T