Phase 3 -- Prompt 1

            Civilization in London, otherwise known as the World State, is quite an extreme society. Since all paths and futures are essentially predetermined at conception, people lack the freedom we treasure most – the freedom to make decisions. Having free will is just one of the biggest things that we consider to be ‘civilized’ today, however in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, those who were so free were considered ‘savages’. On the Reservation, the freedom of personal choice reigns, and it contrasts deeply with the overly oppressed society in London.

            John, one of the novel’s early protagonists, is thought of to be completely savage and uncivilized by the members of the World State. While John has the ability to use his mind and imagination to their full advantage, the people from London cannot. Lenina, for example, does not agree with John’s beliefs and decision to not sleep with her. In London’s community, sex is extremely prominent and something that is to be expected with multiple people. On the other end of the spectrum, John’s savage ways keep him from doing things with Lenina that he would have questioned later. Having the freedom to make decisions possibly makes things more complicated than living in a blissful ignorance.

            In my mind, I believe that the savage Reservation is more human than the World State in London. This is ironic because to be savage is to be wild or untamed, and to be civilized is to be well kept and somewhat organized. Being human is about the overall sake and evolution of humanity within mankind. Anyone can be a person, with the same features and body. But to be a humane individual requires compassion and the ability to better society through decisions and goals. The society in London is quite strategically designed; technology is the most important symbol from very early on. In essence, technological advancement is the World State’s religion. Even the unit of time used by the World State is measured by years after the Ford Model T release – and characters use the phrases like “His Fordship” (34). Even though technology seems to dominate this society, an inside perspective would probably not say the same thing.

            Another notable difference between the savage Reservation and the city of London is the use of drug-induced happiness. With the freedom to make personal decisions, happiness is always attainable. Ironically, without the burden of so many choices, those in London enjoy soma holidays where they forget entirely about any feelings that they are having. “Take a holiday from reality whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or mythology” (54). The city of London distributes soma pills to every person in the society, as well as encouraging plenty of its use. Because of this behavior, people have become numb to any and all feeling. This is supported even more by the types of conditioning the World State practices on children. This training is responsible for the loathing of flowers, and the desensitization over death and relationships. The members of the World State are blinded by the things that they cannot see or do not know the difference from. Every decision made in London’s society is not a choice by free will, but a choice made by government.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World,. New York: Harper & Bros., 1946. Print. 

Phase 3, Prompt 3

      Margaret Atwood’s article “Everybody is Happy Now” argues that Aldous Huxley’s dystopian society of Brave New World is very much alive and well today. Atwood outlines the similarities between Huxley’s work and the world we live in now, illustrating how the novel is in fact still an important text, and worth reading in spite of heavy political incorrectness. After thorough examination, though Brave New World is in many ways applicable to today’s society – most notably through consumerism and the birth of genetic engineering – it is also far from an exact portrait of it – as seen in the society’s lack of religion.

      During the Cold War, it seemed as though George Orwell’s 1984 was the more relevant novel to the time period. Communism was descending upon Eastern Europe behind the Soviet Union’s ‘Iron Curtain” as America and its allies sought to contain it. Orwell’s novel envisioned a wicked, “mind-controlling totalitarian state” (Atwood) that seemed to align with the political situation following World War II. But when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 and Communist authoritarianism was virtually eliminated, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World instantly became the better predictor of our future. In fact, the aftermath of the Cold War illustrated that the era was not simply an ‘East versus West’ conflict, but in fact pitted the society of Brave New World against the society of 1984. The West, as Atwood argues, became the society of Huxley’s work, with its essential worship of consumerism and a desire for “instant bliss” (Atwood).

      Of course, this assumes that the West, especially America, has willingly submitted to this style of hypnotic “regime.” This is probably true; from our shopping malls to our computers to our smartphones, the world is a different place than 1934. We’re surrendered to technologies that distract us from real issues: The release of the iPhone 5 out-trended the Benghazi attacks on Twitter.

      Atwood is also accurate in her connection between Huxley’s society and today’s human genetic industry. It is shocking how rapidly human embryonic stem-cell research has grown in the beginning of the 21^st century, with the United States at the forefront of scientific research. “On the wilder fringes of the genetic engineering community,” Atwood writes, “there are true believers…engaging in schemes for genetic enhancement” (Atwood), from surrogate motherhood, egg and sperm donation, cloning, and the designing of genetically ‘perfect’ children. Though the use of stem cells is highly controversial, this genetic technology is nonetheless the first step toward Huxley’s prophecy. We obviously have not established a ‘Hatchery and Conditioning Center’ as found in Brave New World, but the development of this science is enough to cause alarm. The calculations of Brave New World illustrate a frightening consequence of this genetics development, yet nobody seems willing to stop it.

      However, the one major difference between Brave New World and today’s society is the role of faith – something Atwood fails to recognize. Faith and religion still play huge roles in today’s world, whereas Huxley’s prophecy World State has all but eliminated God from individual thought. Mustapha Mond makes the argument that religion in his world is materialistic, thus the widespread worship of “Our Ford,” and that the culture of utopian comfort has made God essentially obsolete. According to Mond, humans turn to faith only when pain and loneliness force them to search for a meaning beyond the physical world. “We inevitably turn to God,” he claims, because God “makes up to us for all our other losses.” (Huxley 233). Thus, while Mond accepts the virtues of Christianity and has read the Bible, he still points out that soma – with its ability to suppress emotions and pain – can do the work of God, “without tears” (Huxley 238). ‘Ford’ has consequently become ‘Lord,’ and ‘soma’ has become ‘communion.’ Atwood admits that God’s presence is absent in Brave New World, save for the faithful John the Savage, which is very much a departure from today’s society. God still holds a significant presence today and, according to Mond’s logic, proves that pain is also very much exists.

      Margaret Atwood was mostly correct in her outline of the parallels between Brave New World and today’s society. While she noted the Cold War and its aftermath, the rise of consumerism and excess technology, and the genetic revolution in comparison to Huxley’s work, she forgot to mention the discrepancies between the Godless society of the book and the God-loving society we live in. Thus, though Brave New World has in many ways succeeded in forecasting our humanity, it has still failed in one major aspect to completely prophesize it – at least for now.

 

Atwood, Margaret. "'Everybody Is Happy Now'" The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Nov. 2007. Web. 14 Oct. 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/nov/17/classics.margaretatwood.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperPerennial, 1932. Print.

"Brave New World" Than Knows No Tears

             Aldous Huxley’s novel “Brave New World” depicts a world starkly contrasted to our own in which people are engineered to be thrust into a certain caste. This takes away choice and trades it for happiness. All individuals are made specifically to fulfill a void in society and crafted to enjoy that job, and only that job. The society depicted in this book has almost always been depicted as a dystopian society. But, is it really all that bad? Is life choice really too much to trade for happiness? I don’t think so. I think that if you really think about it, you would discover Huxley’s “Brave New World” isn’t all that bad, and may in fact depict a utopia of sorts. However, the analysis of the Society in “Brave New World” will require some deeper level thinking.

                First, let’s consider why many readers have considered the environment a dystopian one. The most common argument I have heard against the utopian nature of “Brave New World” is that it takes away the right of a person to choose their own path. In the novel, all human beings (except for the “savages”) are designed for a purpose. They are all “test-tube” babies, manufactured on a large scale for a specific purpose. They are put into castes to perform certain tasks and conditioned to be happy in that field. This is viewed by many as a negative thing. They believe that one can only be truly happy if they choose their own way. Happiness, they would assert, is not just about conditioning, but is an exercise of free will. They would argue that someone cannot be truly happy if they are forced into a situation.

                Supporters of this theory are missing a large piece of the puzzle, however. They do not understand that they themselves have been conditioned by our current culture. Let’s think about this a moment. Think about your childhood. Whether you can see it or not, somewhere in during your early years you were taught the basic of life and how our culture operates. This is a part of every human being’s life on the planet. But we do not see this as conditioning because it is subtle and takes more time. But, what’s the difference between a long, drawn out process and a short and quick one. So, we see that conditioning is something we all go through. The only difference between the society in “Brave New World” and our own is that we condition our citizens slowly and without reason whereas in “Brave New World” it is done before the person even knows it for a definite reason. The society of “Brave New World” simply takes a natural process and organizes it. All else remains the same.

                But, don’t they live unfulfilling lives if they do not choose their own paths? From the text we can determine that, for the most part, everyone is happy in the caste they are in. Except for the cases of perhaps Bernard and Helmhotz, everyone seems quite sublime. Even in these cases, the two are unhappy because the system has failed on them. They are social deviants, just as we have now. In fact, it is rumored that Bernard is the way he is because someone added too much alcohol to his sample when he was in the lab. This then, would not be the fault of the society. So we see that the citizens of the society are indeed happy. In fact, the citizens in this culture (which prides itself on freedom) seem to be far less happy than the ones in “Brave New World”. I think this is because they do not have to go through the pain of seeking happiness as we do. Their happiness is handed to them and secured at birth. Ours, on the other hand, must be fought for. This is rough and causes much heartache  Mustapha Mond understands this. He claims that “happiness is a hard master”. By this I think he means that appeasing and supporting happiness is difficult. It is much easier to have it handed to you.

                Given all these facts, I would conclude that the society in “Brave New World” is a utopian society because everyone is truly happy and fulfilled in their lives. No one is left out any more than now. It is a fundamentally different culture, but that does not make it wrong. I think this is why it has been written off as a dystopian society: it is different from ours, therefore it must be wrong. This view is narrow-minded and ethnocentric. Who are we to judge this society as ill just because it is different? If everyone is truly fulfilled with the life they live, what holds it back from being a utopia?

Phase 2 Prompt 3

            When you picture a utopian society, religion, society class segregation, and drug abuse usually aren’t included in that image. These qualities typically lead one to plan a more “perfect” world, not for Huxley’s Brave New World. Huxley’s idea of perfect society includes these ideals.

            Religion in today’s society is the belief of the supernatural higher power that provides moral codes or standards applied to living life the right way. In Huxley’s Brave New World the belief of God faded as technology matured. Throughout the book the “civilized” substituted the name of Henry Ford, the early twentieth-century industrialist and founder of Ford Motor Company, when in today’s time we say “Lord”. This goes to show in Huxley’s society religion has been replaced by worship for technology. Mustapha Mond’s reason for this is “God isn’t compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness” (Huxley 231). Mustapha Mod believes “it is natural for you to believe in God when you’re alone”, which brings up why loneliness is eliminated in this utopia (Huxley 235). Since loneliness is eliminated, sadness is eliminated, which would be required in a utopia; in this case there would be no need to turn to God. Another reason mentioned is that God is old and never changes as men change. Men change as technology changes. Going back to “Our Ford”, Henry Ford started the assembly line. This applies significantly to the production of this society, how babies are developed in factories in bottles on an assembly line, hence their “Ford” is their maker instead of God. A religious service takes place, what we call church, they refer to as “Solidarity Service” where they praise their “Ford” and have an orgy at the closing of service, which would be a horrific sin in our religions today. After observing Mustapha Mond’s reasons as to why there is no God in their society, I see that technology brings happiness with no sin, while God brings loneliness (unhappiness) and love, which causes passion, which can bring war, which isn’t part of a utopia.

            Like our world today, people are divided by social classes where it is possible to move up in society. In Huxley’s society, citizens are born and locked into their social class where they are genetically forced to enjoy and accept their place, which eliminates greed, eliminating the urge to move up in class. You would think this to be dystopian because in a utopia everyone should be of equal stature. If this occurred in the time setting of Brave New World it would be an unstable disaster because everyone is genetically conditioned to love their place in their “caste”; higher caste isn’t meant to do lower caste work (not everyone is equal). These conditions keep this society running.

            Mustapha Mond mentioned “happiness is a hard master” (Huxley 227). Since this isn’t perfected, citizens publicly take anti-depressant like pills they call soma. This controls that imperfection of this utopia. Any negative emotions the people feel soma relieves it. In our world this would be drug abuse (dystopian), but since soma is taken for the sole purpose to maintain happiness, this is a key factor in this type of utopian society.

            A typical utopia, just to name a few, has happiness, no loneliness, no pain, and no diseases. In Huxley’s fictional world there are the typical traits a utopia has, along with the typical dystopian traits. Dystopian traits like what we see as drug abuse, religion, and social segregation makes the society of Brave New World a utopia stabilizing order and happiness. Lastly, going back Mustapha Mond’s statement about naturally looking to God when you’re lonely, if “everyone belongs to everyone else” (non-loneliness), then why do they need any form of religion?

Phase 1, Prompt 3

            The term, “reservation realism”, used by Sherman Alexie in The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven can be defined in many ways. Alexie choses to leave the term undefined in the introduction by saying, “Well, I’ll let you read the book and figure that out for yourself” (xxi).

            While doing some research I came across this on a website (ipfw.edu): “Alexie’s statement presents a contradictory definition that is reminiscent of Tim O’Brien’s similarly contradictory attempt to define how to tell a true war story in the Things They Carried. O’Brien’s definition similarly asserts that “a thing may happen and be a total lie, another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth” (Things They Carried 89). The difference, the narrator notes later, lies in the fact that “story-truth is something truer than happening truth” (TTC 203). This really opened my eyes to what I think Alexie meant by “reservation realism”. He means that something is not necessarily real just because it is true. In fact, he means that something that is not true can be even more real than something that is. What I am trying to say is that the kind of realism Alexie is referring to is realism on a whole new level.

            Indian Education is one of the short stories from the book that shows what “reservation realism” is. I did some research and found that what the narrator experienced in school was a typical experience for Indians growing up. “In the 1960s, a congressional report found that many teachers still saw their role as civilizing American Indian students, not educating them. The report said the schools still had a "major emphasis on discipline and punishment” (npr.org). This report goes hand in hand with this quote from Alexie’s short story: “Once, she [the teacher] gave the class a spelling test but set me aside and gave me a test designed for junior high students. When I spelled all the words right, she crumpled up the paper and made me eat it. “You’ll learn respect,” she said” (pg. 173).

            Another short story from the book that I feel really shows what Alexie means by “reservation realism” is Family Portrait. There are many examples in this story that I perceive as “reservation realism”. One example is, “For instance, in the summer of 1972 or 1973 or only in our minds, the reservation disappeared… Finally, I remember thinking, but I was six years old, or seven. I don’t know for sure how old; I was Indian” (pg. 192).  This is a good example because the narrator of this story admits that he does not know if this even happened. It is considered realism because it was real to the narrator which justifies it as real to the story. Another example from this story is, “Will my children love me when I’m old?” she [Mother] asked, but I knew she wanted to ask me, “Will I regret my life?” (pg. 194). The realism behind the mother kicking her son out into the snow because she thought he saw the future is that she wanted him to see the future so she could know if she would regret her life later on.

            My personal definition of “reservation realism” is something like this: Reservation realism is what a person gets out of a memory, a conversation, or a situation. It is what the person considers “real”, what sticks with them afterward. For example, it could have been something that was said that was never really said at all, like on page 195. “My sister told me she could recognize me by the smell of my clothes. She said she could close her eyes and pick me out of a crowd by just the smell of my shirt. I knew she meant to say I love you.” Do you see what I mean? The sister never once said that she loved her brother, but that is what he took from what she told him. “Reservation realism” is a way to see past things like “small talk” and get the real(ism) from it.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865

http://opus.ipfw.edu/english_facpres/58/

Phase 1 Prompt 3

Alexie has admitted that Victor is a representation of himself. He also uses the word “reservation realism” in describing his style of writing. But what exactly is reservation realism? Reservation realism seems like it is something that describes the truths from the struggles in their lives.

In The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, we are introduced to stories that are not hopeful, and contain a big amount of alcoholism. Under these circumstances, Alexie makes these stories easier to comprehend by lightening the mood with humor and unique characters. Despite the conflicts, the characters still search for their happy place and face the “reservation realism.”

 “Every Little Hurricane” gives us an insight into their life on the reservation. There is a hurricane prediction and Victor’s parents are planning on throwing a huge party. The hurricane is foreshadowing the events that are going to happen at the party. At the party, drunken fights and other events have occurred which resemble a hurricane. Victor’s uncles get into a disagreement and start fist fighting. The narrator says that “They are all witnesses and nothing more.” (2)  Having to watch this fight and encounter such problems such as a hurricane is part of “reservation realism.” Victor is only able to stand back and watch the disagreement. He was not able to help them or do anything about it. “Reservation realism” comes into play because it relates to his own personal hurricanes.

On the reservation, Victor and the other Indians do not so anything to ignore their current situations. They learned to accept it and move on. Occasionally, they can escape it through their imagination. I think this is why Thomas-Builds-A-Fire tells so many stories. It is his way of escaping the hard times. Thomas is the only one that is brave enough to imagine a better life. The others are too scared. They do not want to go to a place that may never be real to them. With these hard times, they are forced to face the “reservation realism.”

Along with the stories, Victor also shares other nightmares. These can be related to Alexie’s struggles in real life. Throughout the book he tells us about times when he was starving to death or when his father would wake up drunk. This to me seems like it could be very realistic in relating to his real life. After doing some research I found that the quality of life on reservations experienced issues with life expectancy, nutrition, poverty, and alcohol abuse. From some of the stories in the book, it seems like Alexie could be indeed sharing some of his personal experiences. One could argue that he may exaggerating a bit but he still shares the idea of the issue he was given.

There can be many definitions given for “reservation realism” based on the book. The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight is an exciting but controversial book. We all may be facing some “reservation realism” in our lives.  What do y’all think reservation realism means? Do you think Alexie’s experiences are believable?

"Life on the Reservations." U.S. History Online Textbook. Independence Hall Association, 2012. Web. 30 Sep 2012. <http://www.ushistory.org/us/40d.asp>.

Prompt 4: Becoming a Warrior and Learning to Survive

Throughout The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, Sherman Alexie uses survival as a common theme to emphasize the importance of being a warrior in the Native American society. Even in the very first story, “Every Little Hurricane,” Victor vaguely depicts his life’s struggles as a boy in the Spokane Indian tribe. Even from early on in his Indian life, between his family and friends, Victor’s time on the reservation is plagued by trials and tribulations. His metaphor of personal hurricanes symbolizes survival and that every man must experience things that shake their personal foundations to the core. The ideas of becoming a warrior and fighting for your life are very present in Alexie’s collection of short stories because they are fundamental to all Native American culture.

         Young Native American men especially long to be warriors within their reservation’s society. I believe the yearning stems from the boys’ desire to protect the Indian community from another genocide or disaster. The idea of being a warrior can be related to the idea of being prominent within the reservation, and even to being a hero. After white people infiltrated the Spokane tribe, the society was never the same – Sherman Alexie even writes on page 29, “Indians are pretty much born soldiers anyway. Don’t need a uniform to prove it.” As Native Americans, there is an innate desire to triumph, whether it is over white people, over each other, or over personal hurricanes. It is clear throughout the novel that each character utilizes their own means of survival in order to endure life on the reservation. Thomas Builds-The-Fire fights battles by means of honesty and storytelling, for example, and even eventually lives his life through his adopted son, James.

         “But it’s almost like Indians can easily survive the big stuff. Mass murder, loss of language and land rights. It’s the small things that hurt the most” (49). The destruction of the Spokane people, as well as Native American society as a whole, is mentioned throughout the several short stories as a hurricane felt by all. On the reservation, although sharing different characteristics, the tribe bonds over their survival and over the loss of their loved ones and people. Fighting and becoming strong as individuals is what leads to the strength of their community. Survival is even more played up in “The Approximate Size Of My Favorite Tumor,” where James is dying of terminal cancer. James Many Horses uses humor to survive, while his wife Norma doesn’t understand his actions. James combats a world full of terrible struggles in his own way. Some other examples of potential Indian warriors learning to cope and fight would be the man in the tribe who can only drive in reverse or when the young men steal a car and park it in front of the police station.

Sherman Alexie essentially points out that being a warrior can be just as figurative as well as it is literal. Do the men of the Spokane tribe collectively struggle for the same end result? Or do they choose to fight individual battles for specific purposes? The fulfillment of their desires is continuously frustrated by the quality of life on the reservation – the lack of an advanced infrastructure or a well-developed economy greatly hinders the progression of their society.