BNW & 1984 Government

In both BNW and 1984 the government is oppressive towards the people, have unorthodox family lives in today's standards, and seem to have almost barbaric social conditioning. The gov. in BNW seems more restrictive towards family and begins by abolishing family roles. They do not believe in children and mother relationships, and in 1984 the children are turned against their parents. In both books there is a presence of a dysfuncional family that leads to corruption and horrible social conditioning. Abolishing history is also a major role of the gov. in both books. In BNW the government simply bans all historical items while 1984 rewrites history to the present therefore eliminating it all together. 1984 is about proving the Party right and forcing people to follow them when they can accurately predict history, which is considered impossible. They are both oppressive to individual thought and free will and are rigid in social structure. They believe that by controlled thought the gov. retains power and order is established. In many ways the government eliminates individuality by destroying poetry, music, history, and similar objects that create individual interests. Overall, both governments are incorrect in today's standards and are oppressive of the freedom and personal rights America excepts today.

Brave New World Finished!

There were a few similarities between modern day American society and Brave New World. The one that stuck out the most was that each civilization had obvious social classes. Even though the means of acquiring those classes were different they were still prominent in both cases. In America there is a sure difference between the ultra wealthy, the middle class, and the lower class. The line between middle class and higher class is not as clearly defined as the lower class due to the fact that the middle class can better identify with the higher class. In both societies the rigid class structure helps to keep economy flowing and consumerism active.

Another similarity I saw was the superiority of intelligence. In both America and Brave New World being educated and using your knowledge is highly looked upon. Doctors, lawyers, and other professions that require large amounts of education are highly respected and paid for. In Brave New World those who were considered Alphas did not socialize with those of the "lower class" for fear of losing the edge of intelligence. In both civilizations those who are intelligent seems to have better living conditions, opportunities, and wealth. This has a direct correlation in America with the fact that it takes work and skill to be accepted in any practice or law firm.

The third similarity was the conditioning aspect in both societies. In America most of our conditioning comes from parental values and morality. In Brave New World it is science based and strict conditioned responses. In America and Brave New World the concepts behind conditioning are the same. The government (and your parents) are trying to teach you to lead your own life and benefit the community in some way. Although in Brave New World the responses seem over structured and belligerent they are still trying to condition people who will follow the rules and laws. Similar to American society, parents try to condition and teach their children the right way to think and act while still following the rules of a diverse and peaceful world.

Brave New World Post #2

Compare:

Obviously, there is more differences between Lenina and John than similarities. However, there are some things that seem similar with their social conditioning or the behavior as a result of the conditioning. Both Lenina and John are attracted to each other in a some what deep and passionate way. It surprised me when Lenina talked about John. She spoke as if she had a deep affection for him, very intimate and personal. Compared to the way that she spoke and acted around other men she seemed to take to John in an uncivilized manner. John also had the same affection for her. The similarities between them was that no matter their social conditioning they still felt the same way about each other, yet the differences came when they found the limitations of their conditioning.

Contrast:

Lenina has been conditioned through hypnopedia which allows her to make an impersonal mechanical response to social situations. She seems too mechanical and has no thought process behind her reactions to others. She can not apply her conditioning to virtually anything. Everything seems to have the same response. Her conditioning allows her to only make unopinionated responses that have no trace of her own values and morals. However, John's conditioning seems to be more versatile and compatible with our civilization. It is deep, passionate and allows him to connect himself to others through deep meaning in literature and poems. He is allowed to form his own opinions within his conditioning which makes him seem more personable. John seems much more spontaneous and risky than Lenina. The only bad thing about his conditioning is that he doesn't know how to control himself or react when people have different opinions than himself. He gets angry with Lenina when she forces herself on him, but instead of simply disagreeing he pushes her (so NOT cool). He responds in all the wrong ways, makes mistakes, and is afraid to expose himself. All of this happens because his social conditioning is not as rigid as Leninas. He has social conditioning that simply establishes morals and values instead of rigid responses. Lenina's type is completely mindless and only teaches ways and things to say in all situations, not specific. John's type allows him to make mistakes and learn and only gives him a general direction to move in.

Brave New World Chapters1-3

There are many things in both Utopia and Brave New World that are similar in concept and actions. Religion is the first thing that seems to have parallels and it sticks out in my mind because it is very controversial in both works. In Brave New World the new religion of Fordism is simply a knock off of Christianity. It takes concepts and images already accepted in Christianity like the cut of crosses, Our Fordship, etc.. and is simply a renovated religion. It is obviously easier to modify something like religion instead of completely change it. However, in Utopia the presented religious belief is that any religion is acceptable as long as one believes in a higher deity or belief. However, throughout the book many references are made to Catholicism and there are occasions of criticism for other religions. The "government" in Utopia knows that all citizen perceive their society as diversified; nevertheless the truth is obviously that criticism still exists. This is like Brave New World in the fact that appearance is different than reality. Both civilizations put on a front about religion and then practice or steal something else. Utopia being secular and Brave New World being core consistent with the original religion. There are also many similarities between social hierarchy and social class. In both societies people are content with their social standing. Although Brave New World has social classes, all people are satisfied with their level and can't imagine being anything different. These are only a few of the similarities in Chapters 1-3, but there are surely many more connections throughout the reading.

One of the good things in Brave New World society is that at least everyone is content with their lives. Although they were genetically mutated to be that way, being content with lifestyle plays into the idea of representing success with other items besides money. Although the monetary system in Brave New World has not been touched on, the social standing says a lot about what people think is their job and how they judge how they are successful at their job. People are content with their assigned job and carry it out to the best of their ability. The only problem I have with that concept is the fact that their jobs are predetermined. People should be able to determine their career based on individual qualities and strengths.

The thing that bothers me most about Brave New World society is that people are manufactured and leaders are playing God with biology. This idea plays into other problems like predetermination, human cloning, genetic engineering, and biological tampering. But the biggest problem for me is that the leaders play God with biology, and the choose who lives and dies. Not only do they chose who lives, they choose what kind of person is made. People are harvested instead of born. Inhuman practices of biology for the purpose of manufacturing certain people for society is disturbing. Sadly enough, these practices are possible for our future. Talk of human cloning and genetic mutation to rid of incurable disease are already apparent. I realize that this book is an extreme hyperbole of what could happen, but the elementary of some of the ideas is possible.

Utopia Book 3

Thank goodness this was the last section of this crap....if he would have condensed the 500 pages he took to say the same thing over again it would have only been 10 pages long. Anyways...in book three most of what was explained was the social and civilized aspect of Utopia. He began with the concept of slavery. He explained that the majority of slaves were prisioners of war taken in battle; however, the genetic lines of slavery like American slavery was not practiced. Refugees from other countries sometimes beg to be slaves in Utopia because their home lives are so terrible and slavery treats them better than society in their native country. These slaves spend most of their time tending to the sick, which obviously is a big deal in Utopia because sick people are treated like royalty. Nevertheless, when people get sick enough that they have no chance of recovery or are no use to the soceity they are exhorted once they become a burden to others. This concept reminded me of the Holocaust and modern genocide, if you are too weak to work you are killed. Marriage was the next topic, and in Utopia females are not allowed to get married until 18 and males not until 22. If a couple were to break these restrictions or have marital relations before marriage they are punished severely. Before the wedding ceremony actually takes place both the bride and groom are stripped down and seen naked by the other. This is a way of making sure there are no deformities....like making sure the eggs aren't cracked at the grocery store. Adultery is absolutely a no no. If one of the partners in the marriage is wronged the innocent one is granted the privilege to marry again, the perpetrator is not. If adultery is committed the adulterer and the outside lover are condemned to slavery. They are eventually given another chance, but if the offense is committed again they are condemned to death. Within the marital realm is the social hierarchy. From what I read there seems to be no social classes besides slaves and magistrates. Everyone else seems to be in the working class due to the insignificance of money and riches. Another broad topic was the subject of war. Obviously, Utopia does not support war unless they are directly threatened or one of their allies is directly threatened. Even then they do not pursue and attack unless it is the only option. Since they do not believe in a standing army they train all citizens to fight. Men and women go into battle together, serving a dual purpose in economy as a citizen and a soldier. They do not participate in the spoils of war victories, nor do they expect payment or give payment to allies. If war was to happen in Utopia all of the saved money goes to buying foreign soldiers, the concept of letting someone else do the dirty work seems to be popular. The next big subject was religion. From the reading worshiping different gods does not seem to be a problem....however paganism is not included. Many of the religions mentioned have ties to Catholicism and Protestantism mixed together. They have priests but they are allowed to marry and there are some women holding a high office in the church. In Utopian culture being married by the church was considered the socially excepted thing and was the goal for all people. Being single seemed to be torturous and wearing of all pleasures. Justice and equity are important to all people.

Overall, this section was boring. The only interesting parts were about how uncool slavery is and how unfair marriage seems to women. What if a woman was raped? By no fault of her own she would have technically committed adultery. She would be so screwed. Is there any exceptions to that rule? I think the age limits on marriage are restrictive in a bad way. My own personal opinion is that marriage is something that works better between people who are mature and understand a committed relationship. Granted this does not normally happen until you are in your mid to late twenties. However, some people mature earlier than others. But how can you possible control when you fall in love with someone? What if it was before you were 18? Could you start a family? Get married? Not in Utopia. You would have to wait...depending on when you met your significant other that could be a while. Is that fair? Maybe it should depend on your maturity level and the understanding you have of relationships. That might cut back on the numbers of divorces even in people who are old enough to get married by these standards. Slavery is not cool no matter if it is prisoners of war or refugees who have no chance in their native countries. The money Utopia has should be spent on making themselves better and the neighboring countries better. That would help the economy of those countries so that those people would not have to come and beg for slavery because that is a better alternative. How bad would your life have to be to want to go into slavery instead of living where you are? People should never feel inferior to others no matter their race, intellectual level, or native country. People should also never feel the need to put themselves in a superior position above others for any reason. People are people. We all came from the same place where ever you believe that is. Utopians believe in human nature is the partnership that bonds us all together as one body. Our life is a gift and a privilege in itself and that is one thing that we ALL have in common.

Utopia Book 2

This book begins with a description of the cities on the island which was bland and basic because all of the cities are basically the same. But, he made a good point stating that "no town desires to enlarge its bounds, for the people consider themselves rather as tenants that landlords." I thought this was unusual because in normal society civilization and growth is based on size. Utopia was described as having a system that exposed all citizens to the agricultural based environment and the city based environment. It was a strange system, but even today having skills to sustain life by ways of agriculture is an advantage. Amaurot is one of the most proper Utopian cities surrounded by rivers and rolling hills. Citizens within the town use natural resources like rain water to provide for the people. Their government includes a magistrate (syphogrant) which is chosen by the people and represents a certain number of families in the surrounding areas. These chosen leaders make up a council which meets much like the Senate and decides on the issues of the whole island. From there he begins to describe the common family and everyday activities in Utopia. Agriculture is the main activity in the day and is followed with games like chess and reading. Gender roles are structured in Utopia and children are raised to be married and breed. Most Utopians are simple in style and clothing and material wealth does not mean much to them. Basic needs are fulfilled and the want for more showy or expensive stuff is not nonexistent. Women are basically grown up in a home were they learn the basic skills to raise a family which is their main purpose. Most of the dirty work involving slaughtering and killing of animals are done by household slaves. Traveling requires a passport and permission from the government, and without one can lead to harsh punishment. The basic idea of book 2 was that material wealth and flashy clothing meant nothing to Utopians.

My overall concern with this article was the strict gender roles that Utopians abide by. I do not think that women's' only purpose is to learn how to make sandwiches and have children. The way it was written women sounded like the were rented cars ("Their women, when they grow up, are married out"). I did not agree with the way that women were treated. They seem so limited on what they can experience.I also did not agree with the use of slaves to do the dirty work. That sounds so politically incorrect and cowardly to me. If my lifestyle was to farm and produce agriculture I would think that slaughtering animals was in the job description. However, in Utopia slaves are put up to do those jobs because they are viewed as dirty and impure. Knowledge seemed very important to Utopians and that is something that I agree with, obviously if people spend nearly half their lives getting an education it better be important. Overall, the things that bothered me the most were the strict gender roles and slavery.

Utopia Book 1

The first part of the essay talks about his refusal to aide the prince or king with his infinite wisdom. To Raphael, it seemed as if he was not inclined to participate in direct government in that position. He explained that he had too much of a temper. He defended himself by saying that governing bodies are selfish and listen and do only what allows them personal gain. They only are interested in war and fighting for material wealth and land power. He states that they are more concerned with attaining more land than governing their own people. He mentions the bad qualitites of a standing army. Civilizations like Syria fell due to their standing army and went to war only to occupy the soldiers. Following his explanation of his uninvolvement, he begins to speak of the death penalty. In some societies who had executed thieves for the mere crime of stealing. Although Raphael agreed it was indeed a punishable crime, he did not however believe that the proper punishment was death. He wondered how a crime like murder could have the same punishment as thievery. He then defended the poor by bringing up the point that they have no choice and it is by little fault of their own that they steal from others. He said those who are rich take land and the way of life from the poor and force them to steal and beg to stay alive. He then provides solutions to this problem including restricted wool prices and farm land availability. He labels those as slaves who have been convicted of robbery and establishes rules to govern only those stricken with robbery charges. Throughout the first twenty pages he mentions money as the base of all purpose numerous times and begs the question of the value of wealth.



POVERTY=NOTHING TO LOSE=CRIME

GOVERNMENT=SELFISH=CORRUPTION=POVERTY



I'll start with a disclaimer, it was 12:00 at night when I read the last five pages so don't judge my analysis. But, most of the time during the reading I kept asking myself two questions: What is justice? and Is money everything, even in Utopia? Those questions connected to much of what I read as the death penalty and poverty were the main subjects. I agree with the fact that death needs to be reserved for only heinous or high crimes, and if this was not to happen the justice system would have no rehabilitation value. The purpose of justice I think is to punish those who have committed crimes but also to rehabilitate those who can be saved and learn to become a more productive citizen. For example, the thieves mentioned in the reading would have the possibility to rehabilitate, but a mass murderer would not. Nevertheless, it still poses the question, What is a high crime to you? This is a matter of opinion and therefore the decision to sentence the death penalty can never fully be defined. Which poses another question in my mind, Who has the right to decide who lives and dies? The judge? The jury? The murderer? Questions, questions, and limited answers. Another question, Is money everything? Based on the reading I drew that in Utopia material wealth is not the highest priority. Even though money can never be taken out of a society, I can see Utopia having less issues with fiscal hierarchy. Material wealth seems to be a surface quality in many humans that ends up only fulfilling surface needs, wants, purpose, and fantasy. If money isn't life, what is? What can you possibly judge success on? Happiness? Love? Honesty? Integrity? or Cars? Houses?Bank Account? Personally, I would like to base my life on something below the surface. What would you choose?