David, Veronica, Aryn, and Serena
Friday, October 19, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
EXTRA CREDIT MEETUP DISCUSSION
Where we can continue this discourse without confusing the heck out of people who are reading the other thread.
So far:
So far:
- Veronica WicksOctober 16, 2012 10:28 AMI will be commenting ASAP, but I wanted to ask y'all if y'all would be willing to meet 20 minutes before class so that we can take our extra credit picture!? Does Friday work for y'all? I feel that would be the most convenient if y'all don't have class between 11-12, I'll make sure to see if I can remind everyone on Wedneday, if this works! I can bring cookies and the camera of course. :)Reply
-
Sorry, but I've got class all the way up to class and immediately after. I can meet on Friday anytime after 2:00PM, but not before.ReplyDelete
-
-
Yeah I am available after 2 but I have work at 5 but I do work at chili’s where food is present so maybe we can do it there??
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Phase 3, Prompt 3: Is BNW Applicable Today?
What do you think?
As
a child of the digital age, the prospect that someone might seek to control me
through the technology I’ve come to love (facebook, internet searches, Netflix,
etc.) really disturbs me. Margaret Atwood argues that A Brave New World is applicable today because we continue to be a consumer
state (Atwood). She talks about the “Ministry of Love” and “Soma” in
generalities, but I think her article holds a few shortcomings in analyzing why
We, the future of America, should
consider Huxley’s dystopia as more than just a neat read: Specifically, how the
technology we love can be used against us.
When
we surf the web, check facebook, or subscribe to something on tumblr, we don’t
really think about what we’re doing aside from whatever need we’re satisfying
at the time. In Brave New World, the
downfall of society is that no one thought about what was given up in order to
achieve happiness, entertainment, and peace (Huxley). Aren’t we doing the same
thing? I think the danger we face, a danger that is addressed in Brave New World, is that the people have
allowed themselves to be distracted by gratification and failed to see methods
of control. I’ll give you an
example.
How
many of us use Google? I’ll bet you didn’t know this. I didn’t, until I was
made to learn about it Media and Society: EMC 3300.
Google’s
databases save every user query for up to three months under your specific IP
address. After three months, the data is “anonymized,” but reporters, users,
and the FBI has proved that they can de-anonymize data in order to identify
individuals by name, physical address, and often by phone number (since we
often use the internet via phone). All of us in this class have a Google
account since Google owns Blogger. If you have Googled anything while still
logged in, Google now has saved your query and has attached it to your account.
Think about all the things you’ve googled lately. What does google know about
you that you wouldn’t tell anyone else? Have you searched the symptoms of an
affliction you’re experiencing? Have you looked up something out of curiosity
that could be misconstrued? Have you researched something for class that would
raise eyebrows or have the FBI knock on your door, if they knew (Auletta)?
I’m
sure all of us have looked up something we wouldn’t tell anyone else about, or
wouldn’t want someone drawing the wrong conclusion about. Since the enacting of
the Patriot Act, the federal government has engaged in talks and law suits
against content aggregates like Google, AOL, and Yahoo for information about
their users (Barbaro). Google, as far as we know, has yet to yield. But AOL gave up the
game a long time ago, and not even to the government (Auletta).
In
2006, AOL released anonymized user data on the Internet. The New York Times took the data of a
specific user and traced it back to one woman. They found her name, her
address, her searches, and compiled an accurate profile on Ms. Thelma Arnold, a
woman who “researches her friends’ medical ailments and loves her three dogs” (Barbaro).
And although AOL removed all the data from their release point, once it’s on
the web, millions of people have it. No one knows how many people have that
“anonymized” data.
The
fact is, we’ve been giving up rights and privacy to the internet for a long time.
And I think we’ll continue to do so. Is this not similar to what the people of Brave New World did? They traded free
choice for happiness, convenience, and constant entertainment (Huxley).
I
think we are in serious danger of allowing ourselves to be overcome with being
entertained, like the society in Brave
New World. I think we’re apt to let the benefits of technology outweigh the
dangers of letting Big Brother or Our Ford into our lives. How much don’t we
know? How much have we allowed ourselves to be distracted from? What’s really
going on behind the scenes? What did that last line of that user agreement say? Will there be a day when someone takes advantage of our entertainment and uses that against us?
I
think the danger with our generation, and the point of reading Brave New World, is that we aren’t sure
how we’re being used in the machine. Yes, we all love our smart phones and laptops
and instant gratification, but whom are we serving with our use? Ourselves?
Corporations? The government? I don’t know, and that scares me. The point, I
think, isn’t that there’s soma, or zippicaminicks – we see examples of drug
use, consumerism, and promiscuity every day. Atwood says that those are things
we should compare our society to. That’s all way too literal, I think. The
point, I believe, is that Brave New World
shows us what ignorance begets. And what are we, when it comes to the things we
love, but blind?
Atwood, Margaret. "Everybody Is Happy Now." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Nov. 2007. Web. 14
Oct. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/nov/17/classics.margaretatwood>.
Auletta, Ken. Googled: The End of the World
as We Know It. New York: Penguin, 2009. Print.
Barbaro, Michael. Zeller, Jr., Tom. "A Face Is Exposed for AOL
Searcher No. 4417749." The New
York Times.
The New York Times, 09 Aug. 2006. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?pagewanted=all>.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperPerennial, 1998. Print.
Phase 3: Prompt 2
Aldous Huxley, in the Propaganda under a Dictatorship defines
Herd Poisoning as, “an active, extraverted drug, [that allows] the
crowd-intoxicated individual [to]
escape[s] from responsibility, intelligence and morality into a kind of
frantic, animal mindlessness.” While
intellectuals are defined as those who “have a taste for rationality and an
interest in facts”, and also recognized for “their critical habit of mind makes
them resistant to the kind of propaganda that works so well on the
majority”. There are various attempts
within the story that illustrate Bernard’s numerous efforts to deny herd-poisoning,
and fight to express intellectualism. In this case, I think Huxley would
recognize Bernard for his attempts, but not necessarily label him as heroic. But what caused his fight to start off so solid and
potent, and later sink back into a powerless and guinea pig-like state? Heroes
withstand; he did not.
The Dictator?
Let’s define the Director in
Brave New World. Who is he? He is one that is attempting to separate those from
individuality. For example, he says “Community, Identity, Stability” (pg. 7)
when we are first discovering the characters and their roles. But are their
roles truly theirs? Community is the Brave New World’s Society, identity is the
generated role within that community, and stability is the ability for the
higher power to preserve control over those generated beings. This statement by
the director creates a powerful euphemism, almost creating inspiration.
However, upon further examination it is truly sickening; a veritable chorus of
drones.
Let’s look Further:
Through implied negative language many would find these examples
of rising as undesirable. In the scheme of things, upsetting the “dictator” is
a form of expressing individuality. Although negative words are used within
these examples, do not be mislead, those who ostracized are those who the
higher power is attempting to discourage, in order to maintain control.
The Rise
Against Power:
The director dictates Bernard’s
character as an “ex-colleague, subverter, and an enemy of society” during their
meeting in Chapter 10. I want you to think deeper, why is Bernard given these
belittling labels? Directly prior to this meeting, Bernard is said to be
telling Lenina, “ I want to know what passion is, I want to feel something
strongly”. This expression produced by Bernard was considered to be
“incomprehensible and dangerous nonsense” to Lenina. But why?
In this instance, Lenina is a
representation of the majority, she will not question the higher power or rebel
from the society that has created her. Lenina is also an example of what the
dictator strives to assemble. One who
considers thoughts beyond the majority to be forbidden.
Where He Fell
Short:
Bernard did not have the ability to continue to be the key
protagonist. As unsophisticated as it may sound he was to the point of genetic
predisposition. He had the feelings of an intellectual, but how could he pursue those thoughts while imprisoned in a mind that was manipulated and crafted to perform
in a specific way? He never had a chance. How can a man stray away from
propaganda, let alone a society that had control over him in glass-bottle utero.
In The Brave New World, there is not
a definite hero, because all of the characters at the end of the story, do not
completely stray away from the demise of the crowd. Though, there is one
character that exemplifies the traits Huxley defined as necessary for defeat of
dictatorship. In a society filled with control, passion is unknown, due to the
fact what the characters within Brave New World are experiencing a controlled,
phony, and scientifically skewed world. Bernard Marx rises to the highest point
of intellectualism, but in the end, unfortunately, is unable to ultimately separate himself
from the crowd.
Huxley, Aldous.
“Propaganda Under a Dictatorship.” The
Way of Wisdom. Ed. William Brugger, Darrell Hammond, M. Kip
Hartvigsen, Anne Papworth, and Rhonda Seamons. Rexburg: Brigham Young
University, 2010. Print. 1-5.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: Harper Perenial, 1969.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Phase 2: Prompt 1
In "Brave New World" there are not only events that have multiple meanings, but Huxley also blankets his characters with names that employ a great deal of historical and political connotation. Huxley packs so much symbolism and implication into every aspect of his story. He never forgoes a chance to make an impression on the reader, not even when labeling his subjects.
Throughout this story, the reader is constantly reminded that in the world we live in, happiness in only a pursuit. Unless there is a major change to society (like Huxley's), this will always be so. When looking at the names of the characters, we almost always see similarities in names of people who either tried to have, or did have, an impact on society. Bernard Marx, Helmholtz Watson, Fanny Crowne, Benito Hoover, Lenina Crowne, Pope, Henry Foster, and of course Our Ford all elude to a historically renowned individual. Although I would love to talk about each one mentioned above, length limits me to a select three. But if you are feeling curious, just pay a quick visit to Google and you will find something interesting on almost every name! So, the three I have chosen are Helmholtz Watson (who can resist a well-educated man like himself?), Bernard Marx (he can't help it that he's a little. . .well. . .little), and Our Ford (Built Ford Tough). Here goes!
So there you have it, just three of the multiple names that have much more meaning than what it seems on the exterior. But why? Why does Huxley use this literary device to stupefy his readers? To represent changes made to society in the past, maybe?
-Jordan Inge
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermann-helmholtz/
http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycwed/history/watson.htm
http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventors/a/HenryFord.htm
Throughout this story, the reader is constantly reminded that in the world we live in, happiness in only a pursuit. Unless there is a major change to society (like Huxley's), this will always be so. When looking at the names of the characters, we almost always see similarities in names of people who either tried to have, or did have, an impact on society. Bernard Marx, Helmholtz Watson, Fanny Crowne, Benito Hoover, Lenina Crowne, Pope, Henry Foster, and of course Our Ford all elude to a historically renowned individual. Although I would love to talk about each one mentioned above, length limits me to a select three. But if you are feeling curious, just pay a quick visit to Google and you will find something interesting on almost every name! So, the three I have chosen are Helmholtz Watson (who can resist a well-educated man like himself?), Bernard Marx (he can't help it that he's a little. . .well. . .little), and Our Ford (Built Ford Tough). Here goes!
Helmholtz Watson (Hermann von Helmholtz/John B. Watson)
In the story, Helmholtz is a very noble character, at least on the exterior. He has good intentions and is a likable guy. He's educated. He's handsome. And, by goodness, he's an Alpha-Plus! In a forcible emphatic way, he was handsome and looked, as his secretary was never tired of repeating, every centimetre an Alpha-Plus (page 66-67). He, however, is a little to "able" as Huxley continues. He's not interested in the things he should be. This sets him apart. As far as profession goes, Helmholtz is a lecturer at the College of Emotional Engineering and is an Emotional Engineer (page 67). Hermann von Helmholtz was a German physician and physicist. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he participated in two of the most significant developments in physics and philosophy of science in the 19th century: the proof that Euclidean geometry does not describe the only possible visualizable and physical space, and the shift from physics based on actions between particles at a distance to the field theory. Okay, so pretty deep right? That's why his name fits Huxley's Helmholtz so well. He was such a clever man that he was a scientific threat to Mustapha Mond's utopia. Then we have Mr. John B Watson. Get excited: this fits even better! Watson was an American psychologist. Emily Watson says ". . .he wanted to use his scientific theories of behaviorism and the emotions of fear, rage, and love to improve the effects on advertising on the "animal" or what we know as consumers." Behaviorism! Consumers! Ironic? Yes. Coincidence? No.
Bernard Marx (Karl Marx)
Oh, Bernard! So insecure and small. Although he is an Alpha, he has very little pride. When Fanny refers to Bernard as small to Lenina, she replies with, "I think that's rather sweet. One feels one would like to pet him. You know. Like a cat." (page 46) Not the thing males in our society would want the girl pursing him to think. There is also much reference to there being alcohol put in Bernard's blood surrogate. Not only is he physically challenged, he also dreads things most people in the utopia enjoy: soma, casual sex, rejection of natural beauty. He is set apart, just like Helmholtz. Karl Marx was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. As stated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Marx's later writings have many points of contact with contemporary philosophical debates, especially in philosophy of history and the social sciences, and in moral and political philosophy." He is also known for his writings on class struggle, a factor in "Brave New World" that has been kept under constant regulation.Our Ford (Henry Ford)
Our Ford is the god of the utopia. He is the religion of the society and is very esteemed. But why Ford? Well, obviously it rhymes with Lord. But that can't be all. Ah, Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford was its founder back in 1908. He was also an engineer, but not just any old engineer. Oh, no! According to About.com, he revolutionized manufacturing. Using a constantly-moving assembly-line, subdivision of labor, and careful coordination of operations, Ford realized huge gains in productivity. Read carefully, for these are all of the things that Huxley builds his story upon (at least in the hatchery). Clever, if you ask me. "All hail Henry Ford, the creator of the assembly-line and the father of all this is functional!" (Just kidding.) Oh, and almost forgot! The Model T, one of the first automobiles ever on the road. Wait, wait. . .THE CHARING-T TOWER! In the midst of them, thin-stalked, a taller, slenderer fungus, the Charing-T tower lifted toward the sky a disk of shining concrete (page 61). Aldous Huxley sure has a knack for making things fit.So there you have it, just three of the multiple names that have much more meaning than what it seems on the exterior. But why? Why does Huxley use this literary device to stupefy his readers? To represent changes made to society in the past, maybe?
-Jordan Inge
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermann-helmholtz/
http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycwed/history/watson.htm
http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventors/a/HenryFord.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)