Section 11
Final Report
Utopias and distopias have been the subject of many stories in recent years. From The Giver to Nineteen Eighty-Four, we've become familiar with the terrible societies of our nightmares. The control of families, careers and, possibly the most frightening, words, has shown us how much bad can be legitimized for the "good of the people." This brought me to a thought. What if the leaders and enforcers really did think this was what was best for the people, what if they just misunderstood.Escapism (noun): the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy.
Escapism could be an explanation for how the leaders of such a society could legitimize their actions. If they don't look down at the lives of individuals, they could think that such a society is best for the people and not just themselves. Big Brother may have thought that the only way to keep a stable society was to control the masses even when his folly would have been revealed by a simple stroll through the streets of London.
In both The Giver and Nineteen Eighty-four, Couples must apply for parenthood, and the size families is limited. This isn't something we would consider acceptable, but for someone who is not directly exposed to the state of the public, it could be seen as the best way for society to progress. They can't let just anyone have children, now can they.
In both books, the individuals of the community are involved in the denial, either by propaganda, or medication. They believed the things that were limited were in their own best interests. The similarities between these communities, and the fact that most individuals are content with the powers that be shows the power of denial, and therefore, escapism.
Discussion Questions:
1. What other Distopian societies fall under the blanket of escapism?
2. How does escapism affect your life?
Late
ReplyDelete“We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
ReplyDeleteBut we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.”
― Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business