I'll Post your Cat to a Modernist Cradle!

Postmodernism is a term that refers to the search for truth and reason in life.  Postmodernism began after the failed attempts of making order based on truth. In Postmodernism for Beginners, author Jim Powel explains how “Modern artists began to look for some internal value that was beyond all the chaos.”  In a postmodern era thinkers and society as a whole want to see life at its entirety and then explain what it means and how it exist.  This postmodernist idea appears throughout Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut.  At the beginning of the novel Vonnegut explains the religion of Bokonnism, stating “All of the true things I am about to tell you are harmless lies.” This religion gives the people something to believe and follow, but at the same time they don’t have to search for the deeper mean and find truth or reason. Vonnegut is able to emphasize the idea that there is no absolute truth. Writings from the modernist period focused on creating the perfect society by revealing the truth of science. However, Vonnegut points out the flaws of such a philosophy by criticizing the idea of absolute truth. In the novel, John goes to a laboratory for one of his articles, and talks to one of the directors and finds that the main purpose of the place was to find clarity in life.  He explains how, “Nothing generous about it. New knowledge is the most valuable commodity on earth.  The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become.” They thrive to find the deeper meaning in all the chaos of the world.  This clearly parallels with Postmodernism and the search for truth and reason.  In their eyes, it makes society as a whole closer to perfection by knowing the truth, similar to what Postmodernist believe. 

O' Brave New Essay!

In our essay for Brave New World I think it would be interesting to connect the novel to modern society and form parallels between the two. In addition I think it would be appropriate to even connect history with the development of the novel; such as the creation of the assembly line to “Fordism,” and so on.

Coming at this essay in this manner would benefit the most from the Sir Ken Robinson video we watched on the blog. It did a great job addressing some of the prominent issues in Brave New World. The video expanded on such topics like the “manufacturing” of students through the school system and “standardizing” them. This hits the hammer on the nail, so to speak, in making a parallel between reality and the novels focus on productivity and manufacturing. Also Robinson shares an interesting perspective on ADHD “anesthetics”  and how they are utilized in the classroom, a lot like soma is used by the government in the novel.

As for another source to include in my essay, I honestly don’t have much to choose from. I have hardly read books, up until this class really, which makes it hard to draw connections from Brave New World to outside texts. However I think I can manage using The Tempest in my essay. They are very similar in addressing the issue of civilization vs savagery.  Perhaps I can expand on it somehow…

As for the articles and texts supplied on the forum, I have yet to read them. Hopefully I come across some that further connect human development from the real world to Brave New World. I know that there was the one we went over in class, that I for the life of me cant remember and am too tired to look up real quick. It had a lot of good stuff in it I remember thinking in class… I think. Ugh, I have some reading to do…. 

People start losing interest in Oklahoma...

Sir Ken Robinson advocates a revolutionary idea in education. He argues against the old ways of education that focused on two foundational pillars: economic and intellectual. Education took a turn towards focusing learning to these concepts and thus initiated a “standardized” curriculum. Kids are now brought up in an education that pursues complete uniformity in knowledge. Robinson argues that we should be moving in the opposite direction, towards a divergent thinking mentality; in which we begin to focus on creativity and seeing multiple answers to a situation.

 Robinson’s video shows a strong connection to Brave New World. The government in the novel thrives upon productivity, “Ninety-six identical eggs working ninety-six identical machines!” And they achieve this by “standardizing” individuals to their future specific roles in society. In the video, the analogy is made that schools “manufacture” kids in an “assembly line” manner. Public schools are seen to be sharing the same “ford mentality” that exists in Brave New World.

 In the Enlightment and Industrial Revolution the idea of public education was first introduced. According to the video this idea angered many people of the time. They believed that it was pointless and a waste of time to educate lower-end individuals. In Brave New World, the government also sees it as unnecessary—a waste of energy—to educate everyone, and thus they separate the society into different castes and levels of knowledge.

Also the video talks about an ADHD “epidemic,” which is less an epidemic than it is a trend. Children are being numbed to “distractions” in order to achieve focus in class. In Brave New World, the drug soma has a close relationship to the ADHD anesthetic. When the government feels that its people are being unproductive or distracted they have conditioned them to drug themselves.  This worry-free state leaves actions unaccountable, and furthermore, not attemptable. 

Stability? ...or insanity?

Mustapha Mond mentions, "Wheels must turn steadily, but can not turn untended. There must be men to tend them, men as sturdy as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment." He alludes to the universal principle of government in overseeing and forming its desired society. In A Brave New World this desired society is one of efficiency and controllability. Mond reveals that the achievement of such a vision is succeeded by distorting perceptions of the past.

Ford, the constructed society’s inspiration, is quoted to have said, “History is bunk. History is bunk” and thus is why “you’re taught no history.” This ignorance to historical record is essential when putting such things as family, monogamy, impulse, feeling, and desire into a favored perspective.

Mond reconstructs, “Home, home—a few small rooms, stiflingly over inhabited by a man, by a periodically teeming woman, by a rabble of boys and girls of all ages. No air, no space; an understarilized prison; darkness, disease, and smells.” Mond establishes an unfavorable and exaggerated connection to family, and with no prior experience or knowledge the listeners unquestionably accept every words stated by the “prestigious” man.

Mond continuous, “No wonder these poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked and miserable. Their world didn’t allow them to take things easily, didn’t allow them to be sane, virtuous, happy. What with mothers and lovers, what with the prohibitions they were not conditioned to obey, what with the temptations and the lonely remorses, what with diseases and the endless isolating pain, what with the uncertainties and the poverty.” These characteristics are “dirtied” in a way by Mond and thus the people remain grateful with their current life.

Mond focuses on stability in a society. He states, “No civilization without social stability. No social stability without individual stability.” And he drives this message in by expressing that the ways of the earlier era caused the people to feel strongly; “And feeling strongly, how could they be stable?”

This I think brings us to the center of the manipulation taking place. The people are deprived of ever feeling strongly and thus are able to be controlled. And Mond influences the perception of feeling strong by saying it leads to a civilization being unstable. 

Critical Critics

In discussions of The Tempest and the boundaries of interpretation by critics, a major controversy has broken out over whether or not Shakespeare intended to connect The Tempest to the political issue of imperialism and colonialism.  On the one hand, critics such as Aime Cesaire argue that the context of the Shakespeare era is at full works in The Tempest.  In her rewriting of The Tempest titled, A Tempest, she highlights what she thinks to be the central theme of the play—imperialism. Advocators of this interpretation include Stephen Greenblatt who states, “It is, I believe, all but possible to understand these plays without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare’s art so powerfully draws.” He advocates the importance placed on imperialism inferred from the context of The Tempest. Both support that the characters of Caliban and Ariel are enslaved by the foreign figure of Prospero, representing the waft of imperialist on native inhabitants. On the other hand are the critics who believe that such analysis by contextual supporters goes too far. Among these individuals stands George Will. He argues, “By “deconstructing,” or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority.” Will believes that overzealous critics become in control of a text’s purpose when they analyze it too far. “Critics displace literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” Taking these extremely polarized viewpoints into account I lean towards the argument made by Will, and I believe that it is too far a leap to connect The Tempest to imperialism and colonialism. I feel that Shakespeare intended no reference, or at least very little reference, to be made to the imperialism of his time through his writing of the comedic and highly controversial play, The Tempest.

How far, is too far?? ... ;)

The article contrasts the views of two well-respected individuals of literature, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt. Both present arguments to which the boundary of analysis should apply when considering the context of a piece of literature.

Will believes that these works are being over-assessed by critics who deem that the context of a play is vital when considering the meaning of a piece. He states, “By “deconstructing,” or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority.” Will believes that overzealous critics become in control of a text’s purpose when they analyze it too far. “Critics displace literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.”

Greenblatt, on the other hand, believes that the time period in which a work of literature is written is completely relevant to the meaning of the text. He believes that these pieces are intended to be interpreted through context: “But art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing… The best way to kill our literary inheritance is to turn it into a decorous liturgical celebration of the new world order.” A major focal point to Greenblatt’s argument is derived from the Tempest. He feels that Shakespeare was most definitely commenting on the nature of imperialism—a prominent subject during Shakespeare’s era. “It is, I believe, all but possible to understand these plays without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare’s art so powerfully draws.”

            After reading both arguments, I would have to say I agree with both. I don’t see how it’s possible to come from only Will’s or Greenblatt’s perspective. I believe many pieces of literature call for the attention of someone both considering the context as well as respecting the author’s territory over the purpose of his/her work. It would be ignorant to throw out the importance of the time period in which the piece was written; which allows readers to better understand where an author is coming from. However, it is also important to respect the boundary between the author’s intentions for the piece and the temptation to over-analyze. At that point the reader begins taking too much from the text, and thus taking away from it desired purpose. 

Poor, Poor, Caliban...

In the Postcolonialism article it clarified the different perspectives of the colonialism era; in both the light of the colonizers and colonized. It helped understand the character of Caliban in The Tempest.

In the Postcolonialsim article it explains how, “As soon as the colonized were forced to speak the language of the colonizer, the colonized either accepted or were coerced into accepting the collective consciousness of the French, thereby identifying blackness with evil and sin and whiteness with purity and righteousness.”  In The Tempest Caliban was forced to speak the language of Propsero, and therefore submitted himself under his control by accepting his way of thought.

The article also talks about the generalization given to the “others” that existed among those outside of the newly enforced hemonegy by the colonizers. It explains that the others were considered “subhumans or savages,” and “were indolent, thoughtless, sexually immoral, unreliable, and demented.” Caliban definitely represented this group. When Stephano and Trinculo first encounter him they refer to him as “a monster” and conclude that he was what the inhabitants of the island looked like.

Also the article explains that the colonized were made to “…produce and then give up their countries’ raw materials in exchange for what material goods the colonized desired or were made to believe they desired by the colonizers.” In The Tempest Caliban states, “I’ll show you where to get fresh water. I’ll pick berries for you. I’ll fish for you and get you plenty of firewood… I beg you, let me show where you can find crabs to eat. I’ll use my long fingernails to dig edible roots for you, find you a bird’s nest, and teach you how to catch a nimble monkey.” In return Caliban wanted Stephano to be his master.

So far, I feel that Shakespeare is sympathetic towards Caliban and against the “colonizers.”  He shows the conniving plots of Antonio, Prospero, and Stephano in a somewhat negative and ridiculous light. And although Caliban is depicted as a fowl mouthed savage, I think Shakespeare centralizes on  his innocence in a way as caliban becomes so willing to rule a different master while never really concerning himself with having no master. 

The Tempest (Act 1)

In The Tempest, Prospero shows a mastered understanding of manipulation. As seen in the first act he utilizes unique historical narratives to control the three “subjects” in play so far: Miranda (his daughter), and Ariel and Caliban (his slaves.)

As scene two opens in act one the reader is immediately informed of the so-called “history” that lays the foundation to the rest of the novel. Prospero shares with Miranda of their past and how they ended up on the island. Miranda inquires at the beginning of her father’s story, “You have often begun to tell me what I am, but stopped.” This suggests that Prospero has built up the story he is about to reveal to Miranda, making her slowly over time more susceptible to what he says. Prospero conveys a story to her that makes himself seem in deserve of her reverence and sympathy; which leads to control.

Ariel and Caliban also succumb to a similar control. When reminding Ariel of the witch he saved her from, Prospero tells Ariel, “Have you forgotten the torture I freed you from? ... I’ll have to tell the story again every month, since you seem to forget it.” This, much like in Miranda’s case, suggests that Prospero has been installing the story within Ariel for awhile now. Again by using sympathy and building reverence, Prospero is able to recruit the command of another subject.

In slight contrast, however, Caliban is told a history conveying self-fault and guilt. Prospero recalls, “I once took good care of you—piece of filth that you are—and let you stay in my own hut until you tried to rape my daughter.” More effective though, Prospero used fear to control him and maintain control. Caliban states, “I have to obey. He’s got such strong magic powers that he could conquer and enslave the god, Setebos, that my mother used to worship.”

Like we’ve been discussing in class, isolation is the key to these historical narratives. In The Tempest the characters are plotted on an isolated island in which the account for the past is conveyed by the sole figurehead, Prospero. 

The Terrifying Tale of a History Textbook Bias ...(dun, dun, dun!!!)

In last week’s socratic circle I learned a lot from other people’s perspectives, as well as my own, from discussing the article.

The importance of history was highlighted in 1984, and our class was awakened with a new outlook on control and its tie to the past. As we discussed the article, however, I was surprised by the legislation being past in Texas. It startled me to think that our own reality, in reality, can be so easily manipulated by officials in charge of history book content.

It was hard to imagine a history textbook with bias, but after discussing it in class, it is now hard to imagine a purely objective history textbook.  When our education, especially of something as malleable as the past, is written by a select few it makes our reality and interpretation of history much more questionable.

It was brought up in class that the problem of bias material in history books can be avoided if the textbooks stuck with solely facts. However, history is much more than just facts. It is an interpretation of facts and events, and the importance they play in our country. To just lists events would do nothing but explain “who,” “what,” “when,” and “where” something happened, and would probably fill the pages of a small pamphlet for that matter.  But it lacks the vital and ever-expanding details of “why” something happened. …which is where the bias becomes an issue.

It was also brought up in class that history books should consist of “both sides.” But, in my opinion, there is no “both sides;” there are many, many, many sides! It would be impossible to list EVERYONE’S side, which is the foundation of an objective text.

Luckily we continued on to another solution in which I felt was the most sufficient. Discussion in class, I feel, is the most important aspect of an objective learning environment. I think it is necessary for history teachers to allow time for class discussion.

Although bias in history books can never be cured, it can certainly be treated.   

My internal dilemma...