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.
Friday, December 12, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)