Both Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, and Sir Ken Robinson have commented on the "manufacturablity" of today's children. Huxley does so by describing the massive amounts of conformation children are subjected to (in the aforementioned novel). Robinson, through a quite snazzy video-lecture contends that the most important thing about children nowadays, as far as the school system goes, is their age.
Huxley says: "the hands of all the four thousand electric clocks in all the Bloomsbury Centre's four thousand rooms marked twenty past two. 'The hive of the industry,' as the Director was fond of calling it, was in the full buzz of work. Everyone was busy, every one in ordered motion" (146).
Robinson says: our public education system has, as of late, turned into something of a "production line mentality;" "it's about standardization."
Now, though both sources are each detailing a situation a little different from the other, it essentially boils down to the same thing. This type of standardization, of conformation, is wrong. Huxley, however, gives the hint that it does indeed make for quite the good society. In theory. However, as seen in the rest of Brave New World, domination such as this cannot function to its fullest under realistic conditions.
So being, both men disapprove of standardization. Robinson states that with conformation (in schools, to use his scenario) is not only an unfit way to mold the minds of young children, but will eventually end up hurting their mental facilities, such as their weakening of divergent thinking.
Huxley writes of what would be, without any flaws, the perfect society. Every clock is synchronized down to the section. If that is so, the people must be even more so. As portrayed throughout the novel, conformity to this magnitude either yields persons with the ability to corrupt other (and by corrupt, I mean advancing "heretical" ideas) towards the citizens of the World State and a general breakdown of the system by which the society is ruled.
Finally, both Huxley and Robinson agree on the point that standardization is detrimental to the development of a society, especially its youth.
The end. You may go about your business now.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
It's okay. I've always wanted a Malthusian belt, too.
Mr. Aldous Huxley states in his rather famous novel, Brave New World: "The Caste System. Constantly proposed, constantly rejected. There was something called democracy. As though men were more than physico-chemically equal" (47).
Oddly enough, he also says "family, monogamy, romance. Everywhere exclusiveness, a narrow channel of impulse and energy. 'But everyone belongs to everyone else' " (40).
The former, which I shall lovingly call Hopscotch, and the latter, which I shall not quite as lovingly, but more in a "I-only-keep-you-around-because-the-law-demands-it" kind of way, call My Little Pyrrhic Victory, both indirectly (and in a mildly sassy manner, I might add) describe the subject world's values as it pertains to both current social etiquette and past ignorance and/or ineptitude.
With their pompous commentary, Hopscotch and My Little Pyrrhic Victory both present said values just as clear as crystal. If, of course, you were to take that crystal, and maybe throw some of that magic Windex stuff that makes your windows disappear, and then take another crystal, and scrabble out a hole in the middle of the first crystal so that you could more or less see through it.
Value #1: Only those who spent their six to eight years of their childhood on the eastern coast of Noumea attempting to make a lego castle out of the dreams of other small children would believe that democracy is a good idea.
Value #2: Alphas are fantastic. Betas are kind of cool, but not really as cool as the Alphas (even though they try to sit next to them at lunch). And Deltas, Gammas, and Epsilons can go die in a hole for all the world cares. Meaning, men are not equal. Never were, never will be, and most likely aren't at the moment.
Value #3: Promiscuity rocks. Any romantic business is sheer folly. Yes, folly.
Family and monogamy: noting rule #3, we can see that these such actions/lifestyles are looked down upon. In order to produce the desired results, the government in this novel asserts that women and men should all just sleep around in one, big, happy family.
Desire, impulse, and passion: eh, I'm too lazy. Look at the paragraph above. And the judgement you just made about me really wasn't necessary.
Oddly enough, he also says "family, monogamy, romance. Everywhere exclusiveness, a narrow channel of impulse and energy. 'But everyone belongs to everyone else' " (40).
The former, which I shall lovingly call Hopscotch, and the latter, which I shall not quite as lovingly, but more in a "I-only-keep-you-around-because-the-law-demands-it" kind of way, call My Little Pyrrhic Victory, both indirectly (and in a mildly sassy manner, I might add) describe the subject world's values as it pertains to both current social etiquette and past ignorance and/or ineptitude.
With their pompous commentary, Hopscotch and My Little Pyrrhic Victory both present said values just as clear as crystal. If, of course, you were to take that crystal, and maybe throw some of that magic Windex stuff that makes your windows disappear, and then take another crystal, and scrabble out a hole in the middle of the first crystal so that you could more or less see through it.
Value #1: Only those who spent their six to eight years of their childhood on the eastern coast of Noumea attempting to make a lego castle out of the dreams of other small children would believe that democracy is a good idea.
Value #2: Alphas are fantastic. Betas are kind of cool, but not really as cool as the Alphas (even though they try to sit next to them at lunch). And Deltas, Gammas, and Epsilons can go die in a hole for all the world cares. Meaning, men are not equal. Never were, never will be, and most likely aren't at the moment.
Value #3: Promiscuity rocks. Any romantic business is sheer folly. Yes, folly.
Family and monogamy: noting rule #3, we can see that these such actions/lifestyles are looked down upon. In order to produce the desired results, the government in this novel asserts that women and men should all just sleep around in one, big, happy family.
Desire, impulse, and passion: eh, I'm too lazy. Look at the paragraph above. And the judgement you just made about me really wasn't necessary.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
How to write about preparing to write an essay that other people have already written about.
Right. Well, the prompt was a bit like drinking from a fire hose, but I'll do my best to answer it in its entirety.
On the one hand, Aimé Césaire argues that it is indeed a fine thing to include all perspectives, even if it is contrary to what the author wanted. For example, instance, and goodness sake, she, in rewriting a bit of "The Tempest" in her own words, writes Prospero criticizing Ariel for having done his bidding with a disfavoring disposition: "Oh, so you're upset, are you! It's always like this with you intellectuals! Who cares! What interests me is not your moods, but your deeds." (112). Portraying Prospero as a rather irate individual who cares so little for Ariel and his/her feelings shows the reader the complete opposite viewpoint of what Shakespeare wanted. Which definitely should be done. I mean, you can't know the value of a coin without looking at both its faces. And you can't make sense without knowing what the heck you're talking about. Gosh.
In discussions of "The Tempest", the traditional view is that Prospero is a puppy-loving, rainbow-creating, flower-nurturing hero. However, one controversial issue has been the inclusion of post colonialist theory in analyzing the play. Mainly, whether or not these philosophies would help the understanding of said play. Going further into the lands of controversy, just past the town of I-don't-want-to-think-about-this-anymore-because-all-this-right/wrong-business-has-given-me-a-headache, is whether or not this point of view confuses the author's original intent, and if this original intent should even be seen in the modern world.
For one thing, Aimé Césaire argues that it is indeed a fine thing to include all perspectives, even if it is contrary to what the author wanted. For example, instance, and goodness sake, she, in rewriting a bit of "The Tempest" in her own words, writes Prospero criticizing Ariel for having done his bidding with a disfavoring disposition: "Oh, so you're upset, are you! It's always like this with you intellectuals! Who cares! What interests me is not your moods, but your deeds." (112). Portraying Prospero as a rather irate individual who cares so little for Ariel and his/her feelings shows the reader the complete opposite viewpoint of what Shakespeare wanted. Which definitely should be done. I mean, you can't know the value of a coin without looking at both its faces. And you can't make sense without knowing what the heck you're talking about. Gosh.
Likewise, Mr. Bressler contends that in such texts as "The Tempest", the theory of "alternity" is used, "whereby 'the others' are excluded from positions of power and viewed as different and inferior." (236). Now, in many cultures people considered inferior in whatever manner are usually not allowed to write books, especially in Shakespeare's era. So then, these "others" most likely wouldn't have been able to give their perspective on colonialism as Shakespeare was. Therefore, it is almost overwhelmingly necessary to read literature from as many viewpoints as possible in order to understand the human race, and all that it is/was/hopes to be when it grows up.
Therefore, taking these positions into account, we can see that most of my commentary has already been given. However, since I like you so much, I'll say it again in a different way so that you don't feel like you're reading the same thing twice. That being said, I won't cry if you do realize it. Anyways, not reading literature in the way the author intended is okay. In fact, it's good. Well, it is if you understand the author's original intent (I really do need to find another word for that) in addition to your myriad of connotations.
This really feels like it's never going to end, huh?
As for using sources in the coming essay, I feel it'd be good for my health and small children in third world countries if I stuck with the two aforementioned. I might throw in the opposition just so that I can hurt his/her feelings. I might even switch to use the opposition by itself. Well, I guess I'll just decide when I right the essay the morning of its due date.
On the one hand, Aimé Césaire argues that it is indeed a fine thing to include all perspectives, even if it is contrary to what the author wanted. For example, instance, and goodness sake, she, in rewriting a bit of "The Tempest" in her own words, writes Prospero criticizing Ariel for having done his bidding with a disfavoring disposition: "Oh, so you're upset, are you! It's always like this with you intellectuals! Who cares! What interests me is not your moods, but your deeds." (112). Portraying Prospero as a rather irate individual who cares so little for Ariel and his/her feelings shows the reader the complete opposite viewpoint of what Shakespeare wanted. Which definitely should be done. I mean, you can't know the value of a coin without looking at both its faces. And you can't make sense without knowing what the heck you're talking about. Gosh.
In discussions of "The Tempest", the traditional view is that Prospero is a puppy-loving, rainbow-creating, flower-nurturing hero. However, one controversial issue has been the inclusion of post colonialist theory in analyzing the play. Mainly, whether or not these philosophies would help the understanding of said play. Going further into the lands of controversy, just past the town of I-don't-want-to-think-about-this-anymore-because-all-this-right/wrong-business-has-given-me-a-headache, is whether or not this point of view confuses the author's original intent, and if this original intent should even be seen in the modern world.
For one thing, Aimé Césaire argues that it is indeed a fine thing to include all perspectives, even if it is contrary to what the author wanted. For example, instance, and goodness sake, she, in rewriting a bit of "The Tempest" in her own words, writes Prospero criticizing Ariel for having done his bidding with a disfavoring disposition: "Oh, so you're upset, are you! It's always like this with you intellectuals! Who cares! What interests me is not your moods, but your deeds." (112). Portraying Prospero as a rather irate individual who cares so little for Ariel and his/her feelings shows the reader the complete opposite viewpoint of what Shakespeare wanted. Which definitely should be done. I mean, you can't know the value of a coin without looking at both its faces. And you can't make sense without knowing what the heck you're talking about. Gosh.
Likewise, Mr. Bressler contends that in such texts as "The Tempest", the theory of "alternity" is used, "whereby 'the others' are excluded from positions of power and viewed as different and inferior." (236). Now, in many cultures people considered inferior in whatever manner are usually not allowed to write books, especially in Shakespeare's era. So then, these "others" most likely wouldn't have been able to give their perspective on colonialism as Shakespeare was. Therefore, it is almost overwhelmingly necessary to read literature from as many viewpoints as possible in order to understand the human race, and all that it is/was/hopes to be when it grows up.
Therefore, taking these positions into account, we can see that most of my commentary has already been given. However, since I like you so much, I'll say it again in a different way so that you don't feel like you're reading the same thing twice. That being said, I won't cry if you do realize it. Anyways, not reading literature in the way the author intended is okay. In fact, it's good. Well, it is if you understand the author's original intent (I really do need to find another word for that) in addition to your myriad of connotations.
This really feels like it's never going to end, huh?
As for using sources in the coming essay, I feel it'd be good for my health and small children in third world countries if I stuck with the two aforementioned. I might throw in the opposition just so that I can hurt his/her feelings. I might even switch to use the opposition by itself. Well, I guess I'll just decide when I right the essay the morning of its due date.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)