Friday, June 1, 2012
Analysis of Bruno Latour’s "Where are the Missing Masses?”
As humans, we like to perceive ourselves as in control of our environment. We have free will and can make use of technology at our own discretion to help alleviate our problems and issues. However, some would argue that technology plays such a major role in our lives, that it is in control of us. Bruno Latour’s "Where are the Missing Masses?” argues that we must consider “nonhumans” when analyzing the social structure of society. Technologies contain the ideas and morals of their creator, and these ideas are passed on to us as we attempt to learn how to make technology a part of our lives.
The idea that technology is in control of us may seem counter-intuitive at first. Technology is built by humans to serve a purpose, in a way that asserts our control of physics, natural resources and engineering. However, technologies are only effective when used in the proper manner. Latour cites doors as an example of these ideas; doors serve the purpose of a temporary wall, however they will not function correctly if one walks straight into a door. Through conditioning, we to twist the door nob then push before passing through a doorway. Technologies “teach” us through our attempts to use them, and this develops in to parts of our personality. Nobody tries to push doors that have knobs, the doors have trained us not to. Some personality traits are more subtle than turning a door knob, such as frequently checking a cell phone for new text messages or emails. Whether good or bad, it is hard to miss the fact that much of our lives are controlled by the technology around us.
One of Latour’s main claims in his paper is that technology should be analyzed in a similar fashion to humans when developing a social theory. When a person interacts with a second person, we can describe this as “using” that person. They may be using the other person for advise and assistance, or simply entertainment and social interaction. However, people are more likely to interact with those who they know personally, this can be described as interacting with those that they know how to use. This relationship is very similar to a human interacting with technology. Just as a person would be uncomfortable talking to a stranger that they don’t know how to “use”, people approach new technological devices with caution. They slowly gain comfort and develop a relationship with that object until they can easily use that object. In fact, a recent study shows that being shown one’s cell phone causes similar brain activity to being shown a close friend or family member (Lindstrom). We are all familiar with basic social guidelines, such as people will respond better to communication if it is in a kind and friendly manner. Technologies all have similar guidelines that we learn to follow as well, such as a cell phone will respond better to attempts to communicate if it is near a window or outside. When looking at the social frameworks that hold our society together, it is important that we look at the relationships between humans and technology as well as the relationships between humans.
Latour’s view of technology revolves around the idea of displacing our actions on to technology. When an engineer builds or designs a product, they have a set of ideas about how this new product should work, what it should do, and how people should use it. This new product now contains those ideas within it, people will forever have to learn the ideas of this engineer in order to extract the benefit of using his product. The advantage is, of course, that this product also displaces the work required to preform a task. For example, someone attempting to use a power drill is looking to displace the work required to create a hole in an object. However, the engineer of this drill has given it some new requirements, such as providing electrical power to the drill, holding the pistol grip of it, and squeezing the trigger. To someone accustomed to using a hand drill, this new drill removes the problem of strenuous cranking to drill a hole. However, the operator of the drill must become comfortable with the requirements imposed by the drill’s engineer such as finding a source of electricity and holding the drill correctly. Every problem solved by technology creates new problems associated with using that technology.
With the large amount of control that technology has on our lives, we can wonder whether we can consider these devices as having human characteristics. Latour points three reasons why we can characterize some technologies as anthropomorphic. First, technologies are the product of human designers and are made up of the ideas of their creator. Second, these products replace humans at preforming a task so that humans are no longer required. Third, these technologies shape our mind and relationships with the world around us. Latour lists those characteristics while referring to a door closer, however they an be applied to any type of object or technology. Latour continues by comparing technologies to written text. While writing is not a living being, it expresses ideas, opinions and the characteristics of the author. Just as a book can convince you to act in a different way, technology expresses the ideas of it’s creator, teaching you to act in a different way. If we can accept writing as anthropomorphic, than the same principle can be applied to technology.
Unlike earlier philosophers, Latour’s goal is not to express the benefits or problems with technology or our relationship with it. “Where Are The Missing Masses?” is intended to present the reader with a new way of understanding social relationships and accounting for the different aspects that play a role in our lives. Technologies are the product of men, and Latour shows us that these technologies contains the ideas and attributes of the men who made them. Only when we accept the way technologies can affect us can we fully understand how our society functions.
Works Cited
Lindstrom, Martin. "You Love Your IPhone. Literally." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/you-love-your-iphone-literally.html>.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Analysis of Habermas' "Technology and Science as Ideology"
Do humans use technology, or does technology use us? Does technology allow us to reach into the future, or does it constrain us to the social order. These ideas are central to Jürgen Habermas’ piece “Technology and Science as Ideology.” In this essay, Habermas criticizes Herbert Marcuse’s ideas that technology corrupts our idea of what we need to do to succeed and makes us resistant to social change. Rather, Habermas states that technology is the natural method of outsourcing our tasks that has been universally growing for all of history. Habermas divides our interactions with technology into purpose driven and culturally driven actions. Unlike Marcuse, Habermas believes our problems are not with our relationship with technology, but rather which parts of that relationship we put more emphasis on.
Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man” portrays technology as a tool used to maintain social order in a society. While there are many instances in which technology appears to be forcing us to conform to society, technology is more a reflection of society than a unique aspect that can be changed. To illustrate this idea, we can compare the ideas of technology and government. Governments are tools built to solve problems, however they are built on the ideas of people and can freely adjust itself. However, technology is not a human institution but rather an organic progression of our means to solve problems. Governments tend to be tightly connected to the culture in which they govern, new alternative governments rise once they become too disconnected. Habermas points out that, unlike government, we can not connect technology to social projects because there is no alternative to a world with technology. Technology will always remain a major part of society and our relationship with technology will only change as our culture changes around it.
Throughout history technology has evolved to match the challenges faced by humans. Just like early humans used technology as a method of solving their primitive problems like heat and shelter, we continue to develop and use technology to solve our modern problems like communication and transportation. Technology allows humans to extend our natural capabilities to be more efficient and successful. For example, a farmer can work his crops by hand, but using a plow allows him to outsource that task to technology. Humans can easily communicate verbally, but by handing the process of communication to technology, we can communicate at far greater distances. Therefore, technology can not necessarily be connected to it’s historical and political context, as it is human nature to try to preform our necessary tasks with as little effort as possible. Furthermore, Habermas finds issue with Marcuse’s claim that modern technology is always part of a system of repression.
To explain the ways in which we interact with technology in a modern society, Habermas draws a distinction between work and interaction. Work is actions made to accomplish a task and is “governed by technical rules based on empirical knowledge.” Interaction is is actions that allow us to connect to our environment and engage on a social and political level. Interaction less efficient, as it is not centered around rational, purpose driven action, but rather adherence to the social norms. A “traditional society”, as defined by Habermas, is one in which interaction is the dominating force. These societies are constructed around “developed technologies” and work remains an important force in sustaining the society, but remain grounded in traditional values.
Unlike traditional societies, capitalist societies do not feature interaction as the dominant force. “Capitalism is the first mode of production in world history to institutionalize self-sustaining economic growth,” explains Habermas, which is an attribute that is both very helpful but also causes many problems. Capitalism leads to an extremely fast rate of economic growth, which can increase living conditions and lead to a more prosperous country. However, Habermas explains that the problem is that this growth is unconstrained and constantly increasing, leading work to become the dominating force of the society. No longer is work part of the subsystem of the society, work becomes the driving force in the society. This means that interaction becomes less important, and many of the social and cultural attributes of society fall apart. As an example, Habermas discusses the modern protester. Protesters should tend to be oppressed minorities, such as lower-class and poor citizens, however modern protesters are typically made up of privileged college students. In our society, those who actually have legitimate issues to fight for are swept away by the capitalist system, leaving only college students with significant resources as well as a disengagement from the capitalist environment. Political protest, one of the founding ideas of this country, is swept away as work comes to dominate it.
“Technology and Science as Ideology” lays forth Habermas’ beliefs that society's problem is not simply the abundance of technology or our dependence on it, rather it is the way we use technology to interact with society. When work is the driving force of society, we lose many of the elements that make modern societies diverse and cultural. I find Habermas’ views much more accurate than earlier philosophers such as Marcuse. His opinion that we must chance technology to fix the problems associated with it is rather irrational, as the growth of technology is a natural progression that can’t be simply redirected. Habermas accepts technological growth and the ways in which it applies to our culture, but believes that our problems with technology come from a dis-balance of the ways we use technology.
Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man” portrays technology as a tool used to maintain social order in a society. While there are many instances in which technology appears to be forcing us to conform to society, technology is more a reflection of society than a unique aspect that can be changed. To illustrate this idea, we can compare the ideas of technology and government. Governments are tools built to solve problems, however they are built on the ideas of people and can freely adjust itself. However, technology is not a human institution but rather an organic progression of our means to solve problems. Governments tend to be tightly connected to the culture in which they govern, new alternative governments rise once they become too disconnected. Habermas points out that, unlike government, we can not connect technology to social projects because there is no alternative to a world with technology. Technology will always remain a major part of society and our relationship with technology will only change as our culture changes around it.
Throughout history technology has evolved to match the challenges faced by humans. Just like early humans used technology as a method of solving their primitive problems like heat and shelter, we continue to develop and use technology to solve our modern problems like communication and transportation. Technology allows humans to extend our natural capabilities to be more efficient and successful. For example, a farmer can work his crops by hand, but using a plow allows him to outsource that task to technology. Humans can easily communicate verbally, but by handing the process of communication to technology, we can communicate at far greater distances. Therefore, technology can not necessarily be connected to it’s historical and political context, as it is human nature to try to preform our necessary tasks with as little effort as possible. Furthermore, Habermas finds issue with Marcuse’s claim that modern technology is always part of a system of repression.
To explain the ways in which we interact with technology in a modern society, Habermas draws a distinction between work and interaction. Work is actions made to accomplish a task and is “governed by technical rules based on empirical knowledge.” Interaction is is actions that allow us to connect to our environment and engage on a social and political level. Interaction less efficient, as it is not centered around rational, purpose driven action, but rather adherence to the social norms. A “traditional society”, as defined by Habermas, is one in which interaction is the dominating force. These societies are constructed around “developed technologies” and work remains an important force in sustaining the society, but remain grounded in traditional values.
Unlike traditional societies, capitalist societies do not feature interaction as the dominant force. “Capitalism is the first mode of production in world history to institutionalize self-sustaining economic growth,” explains Habermas, which is an attribute that is both very helpful but also causes many problems. Capitalism leads to an extremely fast rate of economic growth, which can increase living conditions and lead to a more prosperous country. However, Habermas explains that the problem is that this growth is unconstrained and constantly increasing, leading work to become the dominating force of the society. No longer is work part of the subsystem of the society, work becomes the driving force in the society. This means that interaction becomes less important, and many of the social and cultural attributes of society fall apart. As an example, Habermas discusses the modern protester. Protesters should tend to be oppressed minorities, such as lower-class and poor citizens, however modern protesters are typically made up of privileged college students. In our society, those who actually have legitimate issues to fight for are swept away by the capitalist system, leaving only college students with significant resources as well as a disengagement from the capitalist environment. Political protest, one of the founding ideas of this country, is swept away as work comes to dominate it.
“Technology and Science as Ideology” lays forth Habermas’ beliefs that society's problem is not simply the abundance of technology or our dependence on it, rather it is the way we use technology to interact with society. When work is the driving force of society, we lose many of the elements that make modern societies diverse and cultural. I find Habermas’ views much more accurate than earlier philosophers such as Marcuse. His opinion that we must chance technology to fix the problems associated with it is rather irrational, as the growth of technology is a natural progression that can’t be simply redirected. Habermas accepts technological growth and the ways in which it applies to our culture, but believes that our problems with technology come from a dis-balance of the ways we use technology.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Heidegger vs Marcuse
Few would disagree that technology has become an important part of almost every aspect of our lives. We use cars and to quickly transport us miles away, share vast amounts of information with each other over the internet and depend on our cell phones for communication. Despite the benefits of these technological advances, some are critical of this dependence on technology. Martin Heidegger’s "The Question Concerning Technology" and Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man are both philosophical pieces critical of modern societies’ relationship with technology.
Heidegger uses the concept of “revealing” in his piece to explain the issues concerning our connection to technology. “Every bringing-forth is grounded in revealing,” is how Heidegger explains this concept, or in other words, our exposure to new ideas. He believes that our dependence on technology has lead to only accepting factual information as truth, therefore limiting our revealing. Heidegger does not believe that technology should not be a part of our life, but rather that it should be considered as one of many ways of revealing the world around us. He emphasizes this point by discussing modern physics. Physics describes the entire world as “a calculable coherence of forces,” but clearly there is more to life than forces interacting. Heidegger shows that although technology reveals one aspect to you, you need to consider other points of view as well to increase your understanding.
Marcuse’s piece explains that it is human nature to fulfill our needs. Some of these needs are essential to our existence, others are “repressive” needs, needs that we want to fulfill. Marcuse believes that repression is necessary for humans to flourish, however technology leads us to repress things simply to maintain the status quo. For example, father may chose to repress the desire to spend time with his children because he needs to work and maintain his position at his job, his job being a type of technology. I have noticed this type of repression at concerts and public events where I see attendees more focused on filming the event on their phone than enjoying the event in person. They are repressing their desire to take in the event because our society puts more value on experiences that have evidence to back them up. Although the video will probably never be played again, the person standing there filming wants to make sure that he will be able to prove his experiences.
Marcuse’s Marxist ideology is evident throughout his work as he points out the issues behind capitalism and democracy. He is clear to point out that although America was built around the principles of freedom and liberty, those ideas are constantly being limited as our society progresses. Some of these are explicit limitations put in place by the government, such as the PATRIOT Act, which allows warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of private citizens. However these limitations aren’t as powerful as the controls set in place by our culture, such as the political news media, which funnels political viewpoints into one of two defined ideologies. These limitations essentially remove the need for critical thinking, making people more one-dimensional. Marcuse asserts that without this capitalistic system, corporations and governments would not be able to exert this type of control on the masses.
Both Heidegger and Marcuse provide thoughtful critiques of our society and culture, bringing to light many ways in which technology shapes our lives. However, Heidegger suggests that we should hold the technological approach to the world as one of many methods of revealing. Essentially, Heidegger is saying that factual information has it’s place, but we also need to look in other places such as our beliefs and faith to reveal new ideas. Personally, I believe that the societal issues described by Heidegger are not the result of too much focus on technology, but too narrow of a focus on technology. When presented with a challenge, a person will most likely turn to familiar technologies in order to reveal solutions. By broadening the scope of technologies one uses to “reveal”, people are more likely to question the status-quo and escape the technological restraints set by our culture.
Imagine a man tasked with caring for his elderly mother in the hospital. This man may face the challenge of deciding whether she should be given care to extend her life further, or allow her to perish. The technology-focused institution of modern medicine would say that every effort should made to keep her alive. Heidegger would say that the person’s beliefs may tell him that his mother would not be happy in this state. However, I think that being to relate to their needs and desires as well as knowing the information is another type of technology. It is acceptable for a person to follow emotions, but only if they understand the purpose of those emotions.
I agree more with Marcuse’s view, although he does imply that our focus on factual information leads to “indoctrination and manipulation”. While it may be true that the most commonly available information can often simply be a reflection of society’s norms, the intake of more information will lead to a fuller view of the world.
It is nearly impossible to directly change a culture in a drastic way, and it is unlikely that Heidegger or Marcuse’s ideas will ever resonate with an entire population. The human attributes described in these works evolved over time and, for good or bad, allow society to continue to function as normal. However, by further understanding the problems that face our society, one can work to better themself as an individual, and that is the true purpose of these works.
Heidegger uses the concept of “revealing” in his piece to explain the issues concerning our connection to technology. “Every bringing-forth is grounded in revealing,” is how Heidegger explains this concept, or in other words, our exposure to new ideas. He believes that our dependence on technology has lead to only accepting factual information as truth, therefore limiting our revealing. Heidegger does not believe that technology should not be a part of our life, but rather that it should be considered as one of many ways of revealing the world around us. He emphasizes this point by discussing modern physics. Physics describes the entire world as “a calculable coherence of forces,” but clearly there is more to life than forces interacting. Heidegger shows that although technology reveals one aspect to you, you need to consider other points of view as well to increase your understanding.
Marcuse’s piece explains that it is human nature to fulfill our needs. Some of these needs are essential to our existence, others are “repressive” needs, needs that we want to fulfill. Marcuse believes that repression is necessary for humans to flourish, however technology leads us to repress things simply to maintain the status quo. For example, father may chose to repress the desire to spend time with his children because he needs to work and maintain his position at his job, his job being a type of technology. I have noticed this type of repression at concerts and public events where I see attendees more focused on filming the event on their phone than enjoying the event in person. They are repressing their desire to take in the event because our society puts more value on experiences that have evidence to back them up. Although the video will probably never be played again, the person standing there filming wants to make sure that he will be able to prove his experiences.
Marcuse’s Marxist ideology is evident throughout his work as he points out the issues behind capitalism and democracy. He is clear to point out that although America was built around the principles of freedom and liberty, those ideas are constantly being limited as our society progresses. Some of these are explicit limitations put in place by the government, such as the PATRIOT Act, which allows warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of private citizens. However these limitations aren’t as powerful as the controls set in place by our culture, such as the political news media, which funnels political viewpoints into one of two defined ideologies. These limitations essentially remove the need for critical thinking, making people more one-dimensional. Marcuse asserts that without this capitalistic system, corporations and governments would not be able to exert this type of control on the masses.
Both Heidegger and Marcuse provide thoughtful critiques of our society and culture, bringing to light many ways in which technology shapes our lives. However, Heidegger suggests that we should hold the technological approach to the world as one of many methods of revealing. Essentially, Heidegger is saying that factual information has it’s place, but we also need to look in other places such as our beliefs and faith to reveal new ideas. Personally, I believe that the societal issues described by Heidegger are not the result of too much focus on technology, but too narrow of a focus on technology. When presented with a challenge, a person will most likely turn to familiar technologies in order to reveal solutions. By broadening the scope of technologies one uses to “reveal”, people are more likely to question the status-quo and escape the technological restraints set by our culture.
Imagine a man tasked with caring for his elderly mother in the hospital. This man may face the challenge of deciding whether she should be given care to extend her life further, or allow her to perish. The technology-focused institution of modern medicine would say that every effort should made to keep her alive. Heidegger would say that the person’s beliefs may tell him that his mother would not be happy in this state. However, I think that being to relate to their needs and desires as well as knowing the information is another type of technology. It is acceptable for a person to follow emotions, but only if they understand the purpose of those emotions.
I agree more with Marcuse’s view, although he does imply that our focus on factual information leads to “indoctrination and manipulation”. While it may be true that the most commonly available information can often simply be a reflection of society’s norms, the intake of more information will lead to a fuller view of the world.
It is nearly impossible to directly change a culture in a drastic way, and it is unlikely that Heidegger or Marcuse’s ideas will ever resonate with an entire population. The human attributes described in these works evolved over time and, for good or bad, allow society to continue to function as normal. However, by further understanding the problems that face our society, one can work to better themself as an individual, and that is the true purpose of these works.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
"Brave New World" Analysis
“Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery,” states Mustapha Mond, as he explains the workings of the futuristic society in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”. This society is remarkably different than our own, and is intended to be a cautionary tale of how undesirable the world can become as we use technology to shape away our problems. In this world, Mustapha Mond is one of the few Controllers, the most powerful position in the government. In our current society, many people view happiness as achieving goals such as wealth and human relationships through hard work. However, Mond believes that humans are happy when they can quickly satisfy their urges without pain or suffering. By shaping the culture around this idea, many of the major problems that face humanity have been solved, however Huxley tries to point out the cost of this type of society.
While we all wish to construct strong relationships with those around us, there is a tremendous burden associated with this. Humans constantly struggle to build and maintain the relationships that society says we should create, whether with family or spouses. When we are unsuccessful at establishing these relationships, we feel sad and alone. There is further unhappiness when these relationships deviate from our expectations of them, such as when a couple gets into a fight. Finally, this struggle comes full circle when these relationships end, whether through death or separation, which is evident in America’s 50% divorce rate. The society of “Brave New World” removes these issues by removing both the concepts of family as well as long term relationships. The government engineers children in a lab, so they grow up without parents or relatives to be attached to. This means the children do not have to be connected to the ideas of their parents, which Mond would describe as “clinging to the past”. Furthermore, people in this society are then raised to avoid long term relationships and simply move from partner to partner. In a society where couples are not responsible for reproducing and raising a child, there is little need for couples to remain monogamous for long periods of time. Once again, people don’t “cling to the past” by saying in a sexual relationship with someone for a long period of time. Without these relationships to worry about, people can live more simple, stable lives.
In America, children grow up learning that they can be anyone and do anything if they put their mind to it. While this attitude leads to some amazing stories of hard work and success, many people are left disappointed with their lower position in society. Some may argue that social mobility and the promise of the American Dream gives false hope to the unskilled and unintelligent. However, any society needs people to preform these undesirable tasks. In the society of “Brave New World”, this problem is solved by the genetic engineering of humans. Every person “born” has been assigned to a specific social class, labeled Alpha through Epsilon. The Alpha’s are the most intelligent and capable, while Epsilons are rather stupid. Not only is each class engineered to fit in to their role in society, but they are conditioned to be happy with their role. “I suppose Epsilons don’t really mind being Epsilons,” Lenina observes in the book, to which Henry responds “Of course they don’t. How can they? They don’t know what it’s like being anything else.” When reading this, we may find it unsettling, as we are accustomed to the idea that anyone can become wealthy and upper-class if they work hard enough. However, everyone has physical limitations, whether they aren’t strong enough or aren’t smart enough. The new society matches everyone up with a role in society they are fit for, which means nobody struggles to move above their class and nobody fails and falls below their class. Not only does this system keep people from being unhappy with their social class, but it keeps the society calm and orderly.
One feature of the Huxley’s futuristic society that is especially similar to our modern society is the prevalent culture of consumerism. Through conditioning and teaching, humans in this society have the need to be constantly consuming. Mond describes how a culture of consumption keeps the economy healthy and allows the government to provide the new products that people consistently desire. Mond even uses this logic to explain why old texts like Shakespeare are banned, stating that “we don’t want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones.” This culture parallels are current culture, where people are constantly purchasing new electronics, clothes and tools, even when the old products are fully functional and relatively new. In addition to stimulating the economy and providing manufacturing jobs, people game a consistent satisfaction by acquiring the new products they want. While these new technologies are not necessary for them to live their life, they have been conditioned to want new technologies. When the constant need for new products can be fulfilled by the government, it leads to a stable society.
To handle the emotional and physical burdens that humans face throughout their life, the government developed a drug called soma. Soma allows people to be more relaxed and content with their life. In our modern society, drugs often fill this same purpose. When people face problems and stresses in modern times, they often turn to drugs like alcohol, tobacco or marijuana to make them feel better. Use of these drugs has many health and legal issues, however soma has been perfected to the point where the government supplies it for free. Just like modern day drugs, soma provides an escape from reality by masking it in a haze. This drug is supplied by the government because they believe it is beneficial for people to regularly take these drugs. Soma clears people from their worries and problems, allowing them to be happy, functioning members of society. This allows individuals to clear their heads of their problems as well as keeping widespread discontent minimized.
The society portrayed in “Brave New World” is drastically different from our modern world, and almost no modern person would chose to live in this world. We can not envision ourselves living without our family, our freedoms and our values. However, Huxley’s world is one where people are consistently happy and are not burdened by many of the issues we face today. Like any society, it has it’s flaws, but that doesn’t mean that this society is inherit bad or wrong. This “brave new world” has implemented technology to correct almost all of the problems we face in life. Residents of this world don’t have to deal with maintaining relationships, succeeding in their career, or even getting sick and dying. It may be hard to imagine giving up the parts of our culture that we have grown accustom to, but we can’t ignore the benefits of a system in which everyone is happy with their place in the society.
While we all wish to construct strong relationships with those around us, there is a tremendous burden associated with this. Humans constantly struggle to build and maintain the relationships that society says we should create, whether with family or spouses. When we are unsuccessful at establishing these relationships, we feel sad and alone. There is further unhappiness when these relationships deviate from our expectations of them, such as when a couple gets into a fight. Finally, this struggle comes full circle when these relationships end, whether through death or separation, which is evident in America’s 50% divorce rate. The society of “Brave New World” removes these issues by removing both the concepts of family as well as long term relationships. The government engineers children in a lab, so they grow up without parents or relatives to be attached to. This means the children do not have to be connected to the ideas of their parents, which Mond would describe as “clinging to the past”. Furthermore, people in this society are then raised to avoid long term relationships and simply move from partner to partner. In a society where couples are not responsible for reproducing and raising a child, there is little need for couples to remain monogamous for long periods of time. Once again, people don’t “cling to the past” by saying in a sexual relationship with someone for a long period of time. Without these relationships to worry about, people can live more simple, stable lives.
In America, children grow up learning that they can be anyone and do anything if they put their mind to it. While this attitude leads to some amazing stories of hard work and success, many people are left disappointed with their lower position in society. Some may argue that social mobility and the promise of the American Dream gives false hope to the unskilled and unintelligent. However, any society needs people to preform these undesirable tasks. In the society of “Brave New World”, this problem is solved by the genetic engineering of humans. Every person “born” has been assigned to a specific social class, labeled Alpha through Epsilon. The Alpha’s are the most intelligent and capable, while Epsilons are rather stupid. Not only is each class engineered to fit in to their role in society, but they are conditioned to be happy with their role. “I suppose Epsilons don’t really mind being Epsilons,” Lenina observes in the book, to which Henry responds “Of course they don’t. How can they? They don’t know what it’s like being anything else.” When reading this, we may find it unsettling, as we are accustomed to the idea that anyone can become wealthy and upper-class if they work hard enough. However, everyone has physical limitations, whether they aren’t strong enough or aren’t smart enough. The new society matches everyone up with a role in society they are fit for, which means nobody struggles to move above their class and nobody fails and falls below their class. Not only does this system keep people from being unhappy with their social class, but it keeps the society calm and orderly.
One feature of the Huxley’s futuristic society that is especially similar to our modern society is the prevalent culture of consumerism. Through conditioning and teaching, humans in this society have the need to be constantly consuming. Mond describes how a culture of consumption keeps the economy healthy and allows the government to provide the new products that people consistently desire. Mond even uses this logic to explain why old texts like Shakespeare are banned, stating that “we don’t want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones.” This culture parallels are current culture, where people are constantly purchasing new electronics, clothes and tools, even when the old products are fully functional and relatively new. In addition to stimulating the economy and providing manufacturing jobs, people game a consistent satisfaction by acquiring the new products they want. While these new technologies are not necessary for them to live their life, they have been conditioned to want new technologies. When the constant need for new products can be fulfilled by the government, it leads to a stable society.
To handle the emotional and physical burdens that humans face throughout their life, the government developed a drug called soma. Soma allows people to be more relaxed and content with their life. In our modern society, drugs often fill this same purpose. When people face problems and stresses in modern times, they often turn to drugs like alcohol, tobacco or marijuana to make them feel better. Use of these drugs has many health and legal issues, however soma has been perfected to the point where the government supplies it for free. Just like modern day drugs, soma provides an escape from reality by masking it in a haze. This drug is supplied by the government because they believe it is beneficial for people to regularly take these drugs. Soma clears people from their worries and problems, allowing them to be happy, functioning members of society. This allows individuals to clear their heads of their problems as well as keeping widespread discontent minimized.
The society portrayed in “Brave New World” is drastically different from our modern world, and almost no modern person would chose to live in this world. We can not envision ourselves living without our family, our freedoms and our values. However, Huxley’s world is one where people are consistently happy and are not burdened by many of the issues we face today. Like any society, it has it’s flaws, but that doesn’t mean that this society is inherit bad or wrong. This “brave new world” has implemented technology to correct almost all of the problems we face in life. Residents of this world don’t have to deal with maintaining relationships, succeeding in their career, or even getting sick and dying. It may be hard to imagine giving up the parts of our culture that we have grown accustom to, but we can’t ignore the benefits of a system in which everyone is happy with their place in the society.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The Role of the U.S. Government in Supporting Green Energy
Free-market capitalism is the central core of the U.S. economy. However, there are some cases in which the solution favored by the free market is not in the best interest of the country. Ever since the industrial revolution, America has been the leading consumer of fossil fuels. These energy sources are cheap and efficient, making them economically ideal. However, use of fossil fuels has many negative effects. Fossil fuels have a definite supply, which will eventually run out. Our need to purchase oil makes us dependent on many unstable regimes all over the world. Furthermore, burning fossil fuels releases dangerous pollutants in to the atmosphere, which causes many health problems and may be impacting global warming. There are many ways to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, such as renewable fuel sources or more energy efficient technology. However, these alternatives are often more expensive, leaving businesses and individuals no financial incentive to use them. The federal government needs to make it easier for Americans to switch to green energy providing financial incentives.
For the past century, America has been struggling with an unhealthy addiction to Fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are problematic both for the world’s reliance on them and for their effects on the planet. Fossil fuels such as oil and coal are non-renewable, meaning that once we deplete them, they will be so scarce that it will be too costly to retrieve what is left of them. When burned for energy, these fossil fuels also release harmful chemicals into the air including CO2, a major greenhouse gas [1]. Once the greenhouse gases that result from the combustion of fossil fuels are released into the air, they build up in the atmosphere. This buildup allows the heat from the sun to warm the surface of the earth, but doesn't let it leave the atmosphere. This “greenhouse” effect is known as global warming. The process is deemed by climatologists around the world to be a serious threat to planet earth; the more greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere, the faster temperatures rise, and the more humans contribute to global warming. The United States consumes more fossil fuels than any other country in the world, and fossil fuels make up over 85% of America’s total energy consumption [2]. If the U.S. can not reform it’s energy habits, there could be detrimental consequences four the country, as well as the world.
The largest source of energy in the United States is petroleum products, better known as oil. According to Walter Youngquist, “oil fuels the modern world,” and this could not be more true [3]. The United States takes advantage of this resource more than any other country. In the modern world, oil is the most convenient source of energy. It is readily available, safe and opportune to use, and quite versatile. Oil is able to generate huge amounts of energy, and is also easy to store and ship. These factors have turned oil into the central fuel source of America. While oil is cheap and convenient, the negative aspects of it’s use are becoming apparent. Science is showing that the use of oil has a drastic impact CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere, on global climate change. Combustion of oil releases depleting the ozone layer and causing the global temperature to rise [4]. Over time, this climate change may have a significant impact on future generations. Additionally, two thirds of necessary U.S. oil is imported from foreign nations. For example, the Middle East and Africa, two oil-rich regions, have become major economic partners with America over the trade of oil. However, these regions are both plagued by violence and instability. By importing oil from them, the United States has been supporting these unstable nations. Additionally, we run the risk of an energy crisis if we become unable to buy oil from these countries. Trading oil with these developing regions is not safe and is far too big a part of the country’s foreign policy. The United States needs to limit its use of oil so it can secure a more stable energy supply.
As a response to our dependence on fossil fuels, the U.S. has been pursuing the use of renewable energy sources. These are sources that can never run out or be completely used up. They also emit far fewer pollutants into the air than do fossil fuels. Renewable sources include solar power, wind power, geothermal, and many more [5]. Many scientists warn that if we continue to exhaust the world’s oil supply and to use harmful fossil fuels, then “future economic and humanitarian disasters are inevitable” [3]. Therefore, the United States, the country responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, needs to increase its energy independence from oil and shift to an energy supply that focuses on renewable energy (Wald,2009). However, many view the use of renewable energy as impractical. Renewable energy sources typically cost more money and are more difficult to use. To help overcome these obstacles, the federal government needs to create incentives towards the use of renewable energy. “The U.S. government would be wise to allocate federal funds to the development of renewables” [4]. Supporters of alternative energy say that if the United States government doesn’t find a way to replace oil, and continues to consume as it does now, then, according to scientist Alan Betts, “the cost of doing nothing will be far higher than the cost of using our technology to fix a problem that was generated by our technology in the first place.” [4]. The scientific community is clearly stating that the U.S. government needs to start taking action before it is too late.
If renewable energy sources are to compete with fossil fuels as major sources of energy, then they require serious government funding. There are many different means of doing this. First, there is a method called “cap-and-trade.” This method caps, or puts limits on greenhouse gas emissions for companies. Permits that allow companies to emit these gases are then auctioned off. This method would stop pollution from companies while promoting new cheap and clean forms of energy. While critics argue this could lead to job loss, it could actually lead to profit from the auctioned caps, and a much cleaner environment [5]. This process has already proven to be successful in an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol. Many European countries have joined it and already there has been a 3% reduction in emissions since it was started in 1990 [4]. Another potent method is government incentives. Often in the form of tax breaks, these incentives offer companies money if they are willing to use any renewable sources. These are a way to help companies and limit the effects of global warming. If many companies were to take these incentives, it would help to further develop alternative energy, thus making it more affordable and leveling the playing field between fossil fuels and renewable energy[2].
Clearly, action needs to be taken to decrease the U.S.’s dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil. These harmful resources are nonrenewable, contribute to global warming, and are imported from unstable regions of the world. Renewable resources are much more favorable in the long run; they cannot be depleted, they are much cleaner than fossil fuels, and they ultimately are more dependable than oil. In order to increase the use of these renewable sources, the United States government must take steps towards making this happen. Providing financial rewards for those who use green energy and penalties for those who refuse to adapt is necessary to get our country back on the path towards a cleaner future. If the government does not provide these opportunities, businesses and individuals will be forced to stick with fossil fuels. Spending money on green energy may be a difficult action to take now, but it is an investment in the future of our country.
For the past century, America has been struggling with an unhealthy addiction to Fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are problematic both for the world’s reliance on them and for their effects on the planet. Fossil fuels such as oil and coal are non-renewable, meaning that once we deplete them, they will be so scarce that it will be too costly to retrieve what is left of them. When burned for energy, these fossil fuels also release harmful chemicals into the air including CO2, a major greenhouse gas [1]. Once the greenhouse gases that result from the combustion of fossil fuels are released into the air, they build up in the atmosphere. This buildup allows the heat from the sun to warm the surface of the earth, but doesn't let it leave the atmosphere. This “greenhouse” effect is known as global warming. The process is deemed by climatologists around the world to be a serious threat to planet earth; the more greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere, the faster temperatures rise, and the more humans contribute to global warming. The United States consumes more fossil fuels than any other country in the world, and fossil fuels make up over 85% of America’s total energy consumption [2]. If the U.S. can not reform it’s energy habits, there could be detrimental consequences four the country, as well as the world.
The largest source of energy in the United States is petroleum products, better known as oil. According to Walter Youngquist, “oil fuels the modern world,” and this could not be more true [3]. The United States takes advantage of this resource more than any other country. In the modern world, oil is the most convenient source of energy. It is readily available, safe and opportune to use, and quite versatile. Oil is able to generate huge amounts of energy, and is also easy to store and ship. These factors have turned oil into the central fuel source of America. While oil is cheap and convenient, the negative aspects of it’s use are becoming apparent. Science is showing that the use of oil has a drastic impact CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere, on global climate change. Combustion of oil releases depleting the ozone layer and causing the global temperature to rise [4]. Over time, this climate change may have a significant impact on future generations. Additionally, two thirds of necessary U.S. oil is imported from foreign nations. For example, the Middle East and Africa, two oil-rich regions, have become major economic partners with America over the trade of oil. However, these regions are both plagued by violence and instability. By importing oil from them, the United States has been supporting these unstable nations. Additionally, we run the risk of an energy crisis if we become unable to buy oil from these countries. Trading oil with these developing regions is not safe and is far too big a part of the country’s foreign policy. The United States needs to limit its use of oil so it can secure a more stable energy supply.
As a response to our dependence on fossil fuels, the U.S. has been pursuing the use of renewable energy sources. These are sources that can never run out or be completely used up. They also emit far fewer pollutants into the air than do fossil fuels. Renewable sources include solar power, wind power, geothermal, and many more [5]. Many scientists warn that if we continue to exhaust the world’s oil supply and to use harmful fossil fuels, then “future economic and humanitarian disasters are inevitable” [3]. Therefore, the United States, the country responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, needs to increase its energy independence from oil and shift to an energy supply that focuses on renewable energy (Wald,2009). However, many view the use of renewable energy as impractical. Renewable energy sources typically cost more money and are more difficult to use. To help overcome these obstacles, the federal government needs to create incentives towards the use of renewable energy. “The U.S. government would be wise to allocate federal funds to the development of renewables” [4]. Supporters of alternative energy say that if the United States government doesn’t find a way to replace oil, and continues to consume as it does now, then, according to scientist Alan Betts, “the cost of doing nothing will be far higher than the cost of using our technology to fix a problem that was generated by our technology in the first place.” [4]. The scientific community is clearly stating that the U.S. government needs to start taking action before it is too late.
If renewable energy sources are to compete with fossil fuels as major sources of energy, then they require serious government funding. There are many different means of doing this. First, there is a method called “cap-and-trade.” This method caps, or puts limits on greenhouse gas emissions for companies. Permits that allow companies to emit these gases are then auctioned off. This method would stop pollution from companies while promoting new cheap and clean forms of energy. While critics argue this could lead to job loss, it could actually lead to profit from the auctioned caps, and a much cleaner environment [5]. This process has already proven to be successful in an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol. Many European countries have joined it and already there has been a 3% reduction in emissions since it was started in 1990 [4]. Another potent method is government incentives. Often in the form of tax breaks, these incentives offer companies money if they are willing to use any renewable sources. These are a way to help companies and limit the effects of global warming. If many companies were to take these incentives, it would help to further develop alternative energy, thus making it more affordable and leveling the playing field between fossil fuels and renewable energy[2].
Clearly, action needs to be taken to decrease the U.S.’s dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil. These harmful resources are nonrenewable, contribute to global warming, and are imported from unstable regions of the world. Renewable resources are much more favorable in the long run; they cannot be depleted, they are much cleaner than fossil fuels, and they ultimately are more dependable than oil. In order to increase the use of these renewable sources, the United States government must take steps towards making this happen. Providing financial rewards for those who use green energy and penalties for those who refuse to adapt is necessary to get our country back on the path towards a cleaner future. If the government does not provide these opportunities, businesses and individuals will be forced to stick with fossil fuels. Spending money on green energy may be a difficult action to take now, but it is an investment in the future of our country.
References
- Clemmitt, M. (2006, January 27). Climate change. CQ Researcher, 16, 73-96. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
- Cooper, M. H. (1997, November 7). Renewable energy. CQ Researcher, 7, 961-984. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
- Youngquist, W. (n.d.). Alternative Energy Sources. Retrieved from http:// www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm
- Global Warming. (2009, October 12). Issues & Controversies On File. Retrieved from Facts On File News Services database.
- Wald, M. L. (2009, March 28). Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html
America's Television Addiction
Obesity. Violence. Irrational Fear. All of these are major issues with Americans, and they all have one root cause. In millions of homes across the country, the casual desire for entertainment has developed into a full on addiction. The molding and conforming of Americans to the ideas expressed on television as a serous issue for our society to overcome.
Our society values uniqueness and originality, however the widespread use of the television is homogenizing Americans at a rapid rate. Technology allows the same shows to be broadcast across the country, coast to coast, and throughout the country people are watching the same exact thing. In every home, people absorb the messages and biases of the show they are watching. Corbett Trubey pointed out that television has become "a 24-hour ad-plastered, brainwashing, individuality bleaching, stereotyping, couch-potato product." When every person receives the same information with the same messages expressed, we begin to lose the diversity that makes America the great country it is.
This repetitive message broadcast throughout the United States is not even a beneficial one, but rather a defiance of American morals. To create exciting and interesting programs, networks enjoy pushing the limits. A perfect example of this trend is the popular TV show Gossip Girl. In 2008, the show came under intense criticism for its provocative show that featured teens consuming alcohol and engaging in sexual relations. The show used this criticism to drive it's advertising by putting quotes from the Parents Television Council on advertisements. Lines such as "Mind-Blowingly Inappropriate" became positives for the show and ultimately drove their ratings up. This sent a large message to the television industry: making shows inappropriate does more good than harm.
The messages sent by these shows often have a large impact on how we handle situations in our own life. Steven Johnson argues that the complicated plots of television acts as a brain exercise and forces us to think more. However, shows will often force us to to think irrationally based on the dramatized events on television. Amid the constant plot twists on the show "24", there is a constant theme of terrorists on that have reached domestic soil, ready to blow up innocent Americans. The reality is that thousands government officials work night and day to keep America save, and actual incidents are rare. Shows like this create a paranoia in the minds of citizens as well as strong feelings of distrust towards Muslims.
All these factors of Television lead to a population addicted to television. Where children would once play outside after school, they now sit down and zone out for hours while they eat. Television creates unhealthy habits that Americans are suffering from. Obesity results from the long term viewing habits in front of TV, and the unhealthy food advertisements worsen the habits. While senators argue about health care, our biggest health problem comes from at home.
If Americans wish to continue as the most intelligent country in the world, we need to remove ourselves from TV. Healthier lifestyles will lead to healthier lives.[1][2]
Our society values uniqueness and originality, however the widespread use of the television is homogenizing Americans at a rapid rate. Technology allows the same shows to be broadcast across the country, coast to coast, and throughout the country people are watching the same exact thing. In every home, people absorb the messages and biases of the show they are watching. Corbett Trubey pointed out that television has become "a 24-hour ad-plastered, brainwashing, individuality bleaching, stereotyping, couch-potato product." When every person receives the same information with the same messages expressed, we begin to lose the diversity that makes America the great country it is.
This repetitive message broadcast throughout the United States is not even a beneficial one, but rather a defiance of American morals. To create exciting and interesting programs, networks enjoy pushing the limits. A perfect example of this trend is the popular TV show Gossip Girl. In 2008, the show came under intense criticism for its provocative show that featured teens consuming alcohol and engaging in sexual relations. The show used this criticism to drive it's advertising by putting quotes from the Parents Television Council on advertisements. Lines such as "Mind-Blowingly Inappropriate" became positives for the show and ultimately drove their ratings up. This sent a large message to the television industry: making shows inappropriate does more good than harm.
The messages sent by these shows often have a large impact on how we handle situations in our own life. Steven Johnson argues that the complicated plots of television acts as a brain exercise and forces us to think more. However, shows will often force us to to think irrationally based on the dramatized events on television. Amid the constant plot twists on the show "24", there is a constant theme of terrorists on that have reached domestic soil, ready to blow up innocent Americans. The reality is that thousands government officials work night and day to keep America save, and actual incidents are rare. Shows like this create a paranoia in the minds of citizens as well as strong feelings of distrust towards Muslims.
All these factors of Television lead to a population addicted to television. Where children would once play outside after school, they now sit down and zone out for hours while they eat. Television creates unhealthy habits that Americans are suffering from. Obesity results from the long term viewing habits in front of TV, and the unhealthy food advertisements worsen the habits. While senators argue about health care, our biggest health problem comes from at home.
If Americans wish to continue as the most intelligent country in the world, we need to remove ourselves from TV. Healthier lifestyles will lead to healthier lives.[1][2]
References
- Catlin, Roger . "Bad Reviews Make Good Ads for 'Gossip Girl'". The Hartford Courant. 3/7/2010
http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2008/08/bad-reviews-make-good-ads-for.html - Johnson, Steven. "Watching TV Makes You Smarter". New York Times 2005.
The Crucible & McCarthyism
In the 1940s, America was living in fear. Hiding in plain sight, Communists were infiltrating the country. Everyone from government employees to actors were being subpoenaed to testify before congress. However, the truth behind this story is that an ambitious Senator named Joseph McCarthy had scared the country into alienating large groups of innocent Americans. The paranoia that ensued lead to a congressional committee accusing and in some cases imprisoning these citizens only for their alleged beliefs. Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible explores a similar time period, a period of great fear and meritless accusations. Miller explores the similarities between The Salem Witch Trials and the House Un-American Activities Committee and the damage which they inflicted on their communities.
One key element to both the Salem Witch Trials and the House Un-American Activities Committee was punishment for refusing to confess. This system essentially rewards those who falsely confess, perpetuating the cycle of fear and accusations. This is evident when Tituba is being interrogated by Hale. “No, no, don’t hang Tituba!” she cries, “I tell him I don’t desire to work for him.”(44) She continues to name Sarah Good and Goody Osburn as witches, continuing the witch hunt. According to Puritan ideology, confessing to witchcraft means you wish to return to God, and therefore are not punished. A similar situation occurred in congress during the McCarthy era. In 1947, the HUAC subpoenaed a number of members of the Hollywood film industry concerning suspected communist activities. When ten witnesses refused to cooperate with the committee, citing First Amendment freedoms, they were charged with contempt of congress and sentenced to prison time. Others who cited Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination could often avoid charges, but many still lost jobs by doing such[1]. When one is faced with public humiliation or even death if they refuse to confess, they will often say anything to clear their name. Both systems encourage lying and lead to further false accusations.,
Both witchcraft and communism and were extremely serious accusations in their respective time periods, and simply being suspected could drastically alter one’s life. In the highly religious community of Salem, Massachusetts, witchcraft was a hangable offense. In the process of sorting out the wicked from the worthy, nineteen people were hung, countless lives were ruined and an entire town plunged into infamy. While nobody died as a result of the Red Scare, the careers and reputations of many important and influential Americans were ruined. The drastic outcomes of these situations show the consequences of a paranoid and xenophobic society.
It is difficult to think that in modern America, the leaders of our country would not stand up against the persecution of men simply for their beliefs. However, Joseph McCarthy and other congressmen worked hard to make sure that anyone who questioned the threat of communism were seen as communist emphasizes and un-American. Miller brings attention to this by showing the similar situation in Salem. Anyone who publicly questioned the validity of the witch trials would automatically be suspected of Witchcraft. As Judge Danforth describes, “a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between.” (58) It is possible that those with doubts about the accused witchcraft, such as Hale, could have prevented the executions had there not been such pressure to agree with the court.
After these various witch hunts had ended and their damage done, those who persecuted the innocent saw their own downfall. In an epilogue, Miller notes that Abigail would become a prostitute in Boston, while Parris “was voted from office, walked out on the highroad, and was never heard of again.” (146) Senator Joseph McCarthy suffered a similar fate after the Red Scare era ended. After being formally condemned by the Senate for his tactics, McCarthy left public office. He continued to rally against communism, with little support, and eventually died of an inflamed liver [2]. These endings are symbolic of the nature of these characters. Parris, Abigail and McCarthy all accused others to gain power, and destroyed lives in the process. Ironically, these actions would come to destroy their own lives and define them as people.
We are told to learn from the mistakes of history or else we are destined to repeat them. We would like to think that our society has advanced to an age in which a witch hunt could never happen, and yet the McCarthy era shows us that we are still capable of irrationally accusing innocent people and forcing them through a broken system. Arthur Miller’s portrayal of the Salem Witch Trials shows us how a quickly a witch trial can escalate and forces us to think twice before condemning others based upon hearsay or perceived beliefs.
One key element to both the Salem Witch Trials and the House Un-American Activities Committee was punishment for refusing to confess. This system essentially rewards those who falsely confess, perpetuating the cycle of fear and accusations. This is evident when Tituba is being interrogated by Hale. “No, no, don’t hang Tituba!” she cries, “I tell him I don’t desire to work for him.”(44) She continues to name Sarah Good and Goody Osburn as witches, continuing the witch hunt. According to Puritan ideology, confessing to witchcraft means you wish to return to God, and therefore are not punished. A similar situation occurred in congress during the McCarthy era. In 1947, the HUAC subpoenaed a number of members of the Hollywood film industry concerning suspected communist activities. When ten witnesses refused to cooperate with the committee, citing First Amendment freedoms, they were charged with contempt of congress and sentenced to prison time. Others who cited Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination could often avoid charges, but many still lost jobs by doing such[1]. When one is faced with public humiliation or even death if they refuse to confess, they will often say anything to clear their name. Both systems encourage lying and lead to further false accusations.,
Both witchcraft and communism and were extremely serious accusations in their respective time periods, and simply being suspected could drastically alter one’s life. In the highly religious community of Salem, Massachusetts, witchcraft was a hangable offense. In the process of sorting out the wicked from the worthy, nineteen people were hung, countless lives were ruined and an entire town plunged into infamy. While nobody died as a result of the Red Scare, the careers and reputations of many important and influential Americans were ruined. The drastic outcomes of these situations show the consequences of a paranoid and xenophobic society.
It is difficult to think that in modern America, the leaders of our country would not stand up against the persecution of men simply for their beliefs. However, Joseph McCarthy and other congressmen worked hard to make sure that anyone who questioned the threat of communism were seen as communist emphasizes and un-American. Miller brings attention to this by showing the similar situation in Salem. Anyone who publicly questioned the validity of the witch trials would automatically be suspected of Witchcraft. As Judge Danforth describes, “a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between.” (58) It is possible that those with doubts about the accused witchcraft, such as Hale, could have prevented the executions had there not been such pressure to agree with the court.
After these various witch hunts had ended and their damage done, those who persecuted the innocent saw their own downfall. In an epilogue, Miller notes that Abigail would become a prostitute in Boston, while Parris “was voted from office, walked out on the highroad, and was never heard of again.” (146) Senator Joseph McCarthy suffered a similar fate after the Red Scare era ended. After being formally condemned by the Senate for his tactics, McCarthy left public office. He continued to rally against communism, with little support, and eventually died of an inflamed liver [2]. These endings are symbolic of the nature of these characters. Parris, Abigail and McCarthy all accused others to gain power, and destroyed lives in the process. Ironically, these actions would come to destroy their own lives and define them as people.
We are told to learn from the mistakes of history or else we are destined to repeat them. We would like to think that our society has advanced to an age in which a witch hunt could never happen, and yet the McCarthy era shows us that we are still capable of irrationally accusing innocent people and forcing them through a broken system. Arthur Miller’s portrayal of the Salem Witch Trials shows us how a quickly a witch trial can escalate and forces us to think twice before condemning others based upon hearsay or perceived beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)