Creepy New World.

In class, we played the devil's advocate and asked why the world in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was not, in fact, more free than ours. Is it not the ultimate liberation to have no responsibility towards free thought or creativity, or making life choices? In this imaginary world, Henry Ford is revered as a god because he was the genius who conceptualized the assembly line, this efficient, uniform system of creating. For this efficiency and perceived freedom, the people of Brave New World sacrificed all art, science and religion. Anything that connotes creativity and expression instead of practicality and efficiency is seen as irrelevant.

This is not freedom. I see freedom as the right of a person to think and act the way they are inclined. People are not inclined towards uniformity; if they were, the human race would have died out thousands of years ago. People are inclined towards individuality, and it is in this individuality that we find freedom. In a world where no one is dissatisfied because they are programmed not to be, the people are not free. In a world where no one can express their feelings, in a world where people are robbed of their feelings, the people are not free.

The Patriot Act

As much controversy as the Patriot Act has caused, reading the excerpt of USA Patriot Act: How to be Response Ready by Nicole Rivard and The Patriot Act Under Fire by John Yoo and Eric Posner made me realize how little I actually understood the logistics of the Act. First of all, I had no idea that USA Patriot Act is in fact an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The title is disturbing to me on two levels: first, it asserts that one is not a patriot if one does not support the Act; secondly, the acronym itself is reminiscent of the words of the government in V for Vendetta. It cites Unity and Strength as the two main goals of the document, and employs the concept of "rule by fear" by reminding the public of the threat of terrorism.
I was very interested in the class discussion because it embodied my own inner conflicts about the Patriot Act. While I am usually very in favor of supporting the principles of freedom and that the purpose of government is to safeguard the rights of individuals, for whatever reason I did not find this anger in my gut that is so often associated with the Patriot Act. I did not find myself deeply offended by this concept of our government's practically unlimited access to our personal information. In theory, I am strongly opposed to this Act yet my emotional reaction was not as strong as I had anticipated. I am not a terrorist. I do not care if a suited man in Washington knows what brand of shampoo I buy or what movies I rent from Netflix. I do not support terrorism. In theory I am willing to help protect this nation from it by any means necessary.
^ There it is. That's when I realized what I find wrong with the Patriot Act. "By any means necessary." If we allow our government to use the threat of terrorism as a justification for limiting our individual liberties, what will be the next excuse? We need to be worried about this Act because it is a significant step in the wrong direction. This government was created with the expressed purpose of protecting our rights as individuals, and this Act is in blatant opposition to that goal.

V for Vendetta

Even though I had already seen V for Vendetta a few times before this week, it was great to revisit it after having gone through a course on ideology. The story takes place in the future, and one of the most disconcerting aspects of the film was that most of the events are entirely plausible. Chancellor Sutler was not just a raving lunatic, he was intelligent, manipulative and charismatic. The scenes depicting Sutler's ride to power and his speeches in front of thousands of followers, the movie seemed to be making a reference to Hitler's rise to totalitarian power and the creation of the Third Reich. It was a reminder of the power of the "cult of personality," that someone who is confident and strong can overcome the sometimes feebler power of logical thought. The government in V for Vendetta's England is one based on the politics of fear. After the outbreak of the virus, Sutler offered stability and security to people who were in a state of chaos. He carefully manipulated the situation (one that, as it turns out, he played a hand in creating) to construct himself an image as a hero.

The character V was particularly interesting because he is the protagonist of the story, and yet he is a terrorist. Especially in American culture, to see a terrorist as our hero is very uncommon. This raises the timeless question of whether or not the ends always justify the means. Was V justified in killing the "Finger Men" because they were following orders from the fascist regime? Did he have the right to have the Chancellor killed? Was it reasonable to blow up Parliament? I think that, in the film world of V for Vendetta, this terrorism was justified because it was only a reaction to the institutionalized terrorism of the government. As V says in the film, people should not be afraid of their government; the government should be afraid of its people.

"This is What Democracy Looks Like."

Watching the documentary about the anti-globalization protests in Seattle reminded me that civil disobedience is still very much alive. There is a tendency to think that protests and sit-ins stopped with the Civil Rights Movement, but that is not remotely the case. It also made me look back on my own involvement in the world around me. I remember in middle school, there was a walk-out organized to protest the war in Iraq, and I remember that I was too afraid to go. I was in Ms. Quilty's environmental science class when the walk-out was supposed to take place, and she told us that as Americans, we had a right to protest, as long as we were willing to accept the consequences. She told us that if the protest was something we believed in, then we should get up and leave. At that point, I did not understand the concept of civil disobedience or what it could achieve; I think I have a much better understanding of it now. I completely disagree with those who call protests pointless and futile, who say that you have to be in a position of political power to make a difference. The protestors in Seattle may not have stopped NATO or its actions, but they did make a difference. Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that "Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open where it can be seen and dealth with." This is what civil disobedience is about; to remind the government that its purpose is to serve the will of the people, and to let them know when they are not.

It's Anarchy!

Reading Emma Goldman’s essay “Anarchism: What it Really Stands For,” truly intrigued me. I had never really thought of Anarchism as an actual ideology or school of thought, I only associated it with a complete lack of authority. The kids in my town who called themselves “Anarchists” are certainly not people with strong political views; they were just kids who hated being told what to do. Goldman’s essay called out the public for just that reason: she dispelled the notion that Anarchy is nothing but an ideology of rule-breakers. After reading the essay, though, I was still not completely sure about what exactly Anarchy does stand for. I was interested in the “three evils” that Goldman listed (religion, property and state), and actually agreed with some of her arguments about these evils. As a matter of fact, I found myself excited as I read through the essay, and felt a sense of pride and respect for the Anarchists’ theories on the individual. In my “teen” years, I was aways interested in anything that went against the grain or against peoples’ expectations, and I still have serious problems with religion and property because of the way it belittles the power and importance of individuals. At the same time, Anarchism is based on the theory that a person can only be free when that person is completely free from all constraints of a society. I completely disagree. In fact, this is the basis for my problem with Anarchism: humans are social creatures. I think it is our natural inclination to organize ourselves and form societies. This is one of the great strengths of humanity, that we naturally strive to work together. Individuality is key, yet I don’t think that individuality and society are mutually exclusive. I think a successful society is one that allows humans to work together for the benefit of everyone involved while maintaing their individuality. I think Anarchism offers an unrealistic and undesirable approach to preserving the individual; it maintains that any “state” whatsoever makes this preservation impossible. It is on this basis that I have such a huge problem with the idea of Anarchism. Anarchists do not seek a balance of individualism and society, they seek an abolition of one in order to promote the other.

Soviet Propaganda.

"The easy worker is on the hot seat. Fear has occupied his soul: he would have looked good otherwise, but next to him is a perfect worker!" -Soviet propaganda poster

I was completely intrigued by the posters and artwork in the gallery of Soviet Propaganda. First of all, I had a hard time grasping that this movement took place so recently; that my parents and grandparents were alive while this was going on really put things in perspective. It is also made me realize how any ideology, no matter how noble its intentions, has the potential to be used to devastating effect. In theory, Communism is ideal and if such a society could exist, I would love to be a part of it. However, like many ideologies, Communism has given birth to countless sects and sub-sects and his been used to legitimize and facilitate the much less noble conquests of leaders like Lenin and Stalin.

It disturbed me that there was such a correlation between the depiction of members of the Communist party and religious icons. The gallery had multiple Soviet images presented side by side with a religious painting with an undeniable resemblance. It is understandable, albeit unsettling, that they took this approach because Lenin and Stalin wanted there cause to feel comfortable and familiar, so they used iconography that the public would be used to. It brings about the startling idea that members of the Party were trying to put themselves on par with gods and saints. The uniformity and blind obedience that Stalin and Lenin strove to create made me realize how close we really were to a third World War; if this movement had not been diffused, I'd rather not think of where we might all be today.

Revolution and Conservatism.

I think my biggest problem with Burke's idea of conservatism (and conservatism in general) is its relationship with the past. According to Burke, retrospection should be used to maintain the status quo rather than as a way to study and build upon the past. While I absolutely agree that you can't move forward without having first looked back, I absolutely disagree that the reason we look back to the past is to imitate it. The idea that backwards is the way to look is just that: backwards. Moving forward needs to be about moving forward, not about dragging outdated policies and ideologies along with us.

Burke says that people "should not think it amongst their rights to cut off the entail, or to commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society." He claims that, if we had this right, "the whole chain and community of the commonwealth would be broken." But what if it needs to be broken? I wonder how much suffering and oppression Burke would be willing to allow at the expense of keeping alive this "original fabric." The very nature of humans it trial and error; to touch fire and realize that it hurts and not touch it again. If a society is functioning properly, there won't be an issue of rebellion. If a society fails to serve its people, however, than no ancient order should prevent them from changing it.