Thumbing My Nose At You Know Who

Postmodernism can be defined as a rejection of the dogma of established modernism, a dogma that demanded a zealous progression towards idealistic standards of efficiency and mathematical perfection. Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, illustrates a postmodernist’s approach to the concept of truth. Before the actual story even begins, Vonnegut adds his own satirical disclaimer: “Nothing in this book is true. ‘Live by the foma that make you brave and healthy and happy.’” Vonnegut advocates a postmodernist belief that there are no absolutes, no standardized International Style of right and wrong. A postmodernist comrade would argue that truth should reflect the diversity of the environments and individuals in our world, each with their own effective system of beliefs, and therefore that there is no truth. Vonnegut accurately conveys this through the doctrine of Bokononism, and the motives of Bokonon: “I wanted all things/To seem to make some sense/ So we all could be happy, yes/Instead of tense. And I made up lies/So that they all fit nice/And I made this sad world/A par-a-dise.” Bokonon realized that the citizens of San Lorenzo could thrive in their squalid conditions if they had something to hope for and believe in- not the standardized Christianity, strategically required by the government, but the outlawed Bokononism, full of excitement and intrigue and pleasant principles that served as an acceptable form of morality. Though the citizens became devout in their Bokononist beliefs and practices, the disclaimer was ever-present: “All of the true things I am about to tell are shameless lies.” This shamelessly false religion was useful merely because it allotted people a sense of morality that they could take or leave as they saw fit, a morality that benefitted humanity not in the search for moral uniformity and perfection but in the search for contentment and acceptance in the midst of wonderfully drastic diversity.

Like Two Unhurried Compass Needles

In Technopoly, Neal Postmen explains that in this technopoly, which is, “driven to invent…an ‘unseen hand’ will eliminate the incompetent and reward those who produce cheaply and well the goods that people want.” This description perfectly characterizes the futuristic society in Brave New World. Incompetence does not even exist, as children are conditioned since infancy to devote themselves to the principles of efficiency and orthodoxy. They are also conditioned to want the right things, the things mass produced “cheaply and well.” And this society has perfected the art of mass producing what people should and, as a result, do indeed want. Factories and assembly lines work relentlessly to cheaply and swiftly manufacture key essentials such as clothes, happiness, and human life.

Additionally, Shakespeare’s The Tempest provides some insight on control and conditioning which can be applied to Brave New World. Caliban and John parallel each other in many ways. They are both considered savages, oddities, in their environments, and they both fight violently against the conditions they are thrust into. However, Caliban was born and developed in this environment. He has been conditioned to believe that he is inferior, that he must always be subject, and, though he knows he deserves more respect from Prospero- or at least more humane treatment- he is unable to entirely grasp the injustice of his slavery. In contrast, John spent his entire life to be conditioned by “savages” before being thrown into the “After Ford” society. Like Caliban, he fought against the perversions of this culture and what he inherently knew to be right. However, despite their differing backgrounds, they both reached the same demise. Caliban submits to Prospero, acknowledges his wrongdoings, and crawls back into his place of servitude. John, no longer strong enough to resist a society which flips his version of reality and morality upside down, finds escape in death. Ultimately, the cultures which they fought so passionately against subdued them, put them back in their place, and reminded them who exactly held the power before them, who holds it with them, and who will continue to hold it forevermore after.

Could It Be 200 Feet Tall And Made Of Foam Rubber?

Sir Ken Robinson is arguing against an educational paradigm built on two traditional pillars: economic and intellectual. These pillars were initially implemented due to the belief that they were the most efficient in advancing progress. Thus, these pillars became educational law, and the standardized movement began: standardized tests, standardized curricula. Robinson argues that education and its insatiable thirst for systemic efficiency has defined progress as a must-be-measured quantitative value for the child as a general homogenized entity, based on raising the bar “academically,” with no regard to children of different strengths and capabilities. In the same way, Brave New World illustrates a society in which efficiency, standardization, conformity are all held as sacred virtues. The progress of the population as a whole must usurp in importance the progress of individuals. In fact, the individual must be eliminated, and we must all work together in the same way for the same cause. “Ninety-six identical eggs working ninety-six identical machines!” (7), exclaims The Director while passionately preaching about Bokanovsky’s Process. The process of one bokanovskified egg producing ninety-six embryos signals “the principle of mass production at last applied to biology” (7). This directly parallels Robinson’s assertion that education is, “modeled on the interests of industrialization and in the image of it.” He describes how schools are “organized on factory lines, with ringing bells, separate facilities, specialized into separate subjects, and systemized by age group…as if the most important thing about them is their date of manufacture.” In Huxley’s futuristic society, the most important thing is the manufacturing of human beings. Individual countries race to be the first to mass produce the most. Mankind is given a few standard, simple goals, purposes, and desires, and conditioned to not want anything more. They are to desire orthodoxy, cheap, soma-induced, sex-crazed happiness, and an efficient work ethic. And this philosophy is applied to every individual equally. Bernard Marx epitomizes the problem Robinson claims exists in the education system. Bernard is not satisfied by this philosophy; he cannot adopt it unconsciously and religiously as the rest of his peers can. His mind rejects it because he is visibly different, and this physical difference has resulted in the shaping of a mental difference, causing a longing in him to value different things. In the same way, Robinson speaks for the children who are not what the institution classifies as “academic.” Maybe they are more right-brained, more artistic, and cannot keep up with educational standardizations. For this, they are penalized: failed, left behind, alienated. Similarly, Bernard is shunned, whispered about, alienated. 

Twenty Piddling Little Fountains

In Alduous Huxley’s Brave New World, the natural fulfillments of human satisfaction are manipulated and replaced by cheap substitutes. The concepts of family and monogamy are now disgusting. The complexity of the relationships, the emotion one must expend to maintain these relationships, it is all seen as too many limitations on mankind. How can one get what they want when they want if they are tied down to a relationship? Things must come easy and fluidly, with no hardships or obstacles. The students have never even heard of the term insurmountable obstacle. They have been specifically designed to know what they want, to want simple things, and to know the exact way they should achieve this. They have been told what to feel since early childhood through a constant stream of brainwashing tapes played in their sleep. They have been conditioned to believe that all the impulses, feelings, and desires they have are indeed natural, but even more, they are to be expended as much as possible in the most basic and easiest ways possible. “Everywhere exclusiveness, a narrow channeling of energy and impulse” (40). Feelings and desires should never be channeled towards one person, or one group of people. When we all belong to everyone else, individuality is erased, and the ability to build special connections with people is made impossible. All of this is achieved through the shaping of society’s values. A nice, virtuous young girl let’s as many men have her as she can, so as to not appear strange and immoral. The government establishes these standards in an effort to leave humanity in a constant state of cheap, surface level, but still effective, satisfaction. They are left in a constant state of euphoria so that they never realize the depth of what is missing in their lives as intellectual thought and meaningful relationships are made impossible.

In Discussions Of ____, They Say ____, And I Say Something Else

In discussions of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, one controversial issue has been whether or not Shakespeare meant to convey a particular message on colonialism. On the one hand, George Will argues that by, “politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority. Criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt contends that the a exploration of, “the painful, messy struggles over rights and values, the political and sexual and ethical dilemmas that great art has taken upon itself to articulate and grapple with,” is the key to catalyzing progress and preventing cultural conformity. Poet, essayist, and playwright Aime Cesaire even maintains that The Tempest can be viewed as a direct parallel to his own experiences pertaining to France’s colonization of Africa. However, my own view is slightly less melodramatic and a bit more realistic. Great literature, that which withstands the test of time, is dynamic. It is valued for its beautiful and poignant construction, and for its daring attempt to convey a significantly relevant and impacting message. Many books present thought provoking messages, but they have been overlooked and forgotten because the way in which their message was presented did not affect society to the point of alteration. In the same way, Shakespeare’s The Tempest hints at imperialistic influences but also expresses commentary on many more slightly uncomfortable topics. Prospero is not merely symbolic of a slave owner, but a man in possession of unlimited power, the ability to manipulate anyone and anything. Thus, the ethics of his situation are expanded to encompass a broad range of societal topics. Additionally, Shakespeare’s plays are priceless examples of the success of the art of writing due to the complex yet fascinating plot structures and eloquent language he employs. To emphasize any one of these aspects while simultaneously abandoning the rest constitutes the real definition of devaluing literature.

The Breaking of the Virgin-Knot

George Will and Stephen Greenblatt both propose the obnoxious extremes of their opposition, attempting to paint their opponent as absurd and ignorant. Due to this technique commonly employed by most debaters, it is difficult for one to embrace either argument wholeheartedly. However, George Will discloses much enlightening commentary on the modern trend of our society to intellectualize literature to an overbearing degree. Will states, “Criticism displaces literatureand critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” Though it goes without saying that each individual will glean different insight from a piece of literature based on his own personal background and experiences, when other’s interpretations become the sole basis for truth and meaning, such that there is no truth and meaning, we forget that, at one point in time, and individual sat down with the intent of expressing himself through writing. He endeavored to write a letter to society, conveying whatever message he pleased, through whatever means he pleased. Though Greenblatt may be accurate in saying that, ‘Shakespeare’s imagination was clearly gripped by the conflict between the prince and the “savage” Caliban,’ Will is emphasizing the fact that Shakespeare was not necessarily taking a political stance on colonialism; he was merely conveying the complexities of human nature and morality, which is why Shakespeare remains so profoundly relevant even today. Shakespeare’s ultimate focus was less on the abuse of power pertaining  to ravenously colonizing imperial powers, and more pertaining to the abuse of power in general, pertaining to all aspects of life. He proposes the question: if one has the power to transform those around him into puppets, does that justify him doing so? When we hone in purely on the politics of literature, we lose sight of the “esthetics.” Literature is no longer appreciated for its sense of pure emotion and beauty, but rather its pure intellectuality, its possible theories of the oppressed and the oppressor. It is not to say that Greenblatt’s “painful, messy struggles over rights and values” and “political and sexual and ethical dilemmas,” cannot be acknowledged in literature. But they should not be acknowledged simply out of a feeling of obligation or necessity, out of a sense that literature could not possible express something other than the strife of a victimized minority so our defensive attitudes can serve as a form of disguised apology. There can be beauty in writing without the complete obliteration of influence and intellectually probing ideas, and there can be a central theme in literature without the complete oppression of individual interpretation.

But None Of Us Cared For Kate

“They’re not like us, and for that reason deserve to be ruled.” This statement, in which Edward Said dissects colonial mentality down to its core principle, depicts Prospero’s own justification in colonizing Caliban and branding him “the Other.” The chapter on Postcolonialism mentions hegemony, “dominant values…all people in a culture are consciously and unconsciously asked to conform to.” Every entity on the Island is forced to accept the culture Prospero has established, as he is the sole figure of authority. Caliban though, in particular, is oppressed to a more extensive degree. Not only has he experienced “a collapse of the ego,” the desecration of the I, or one’s personal sense of identity, but he has also been allotted an alternative identity, an identity based solely on his worth as a manual laborer. This situation parallels Britain’s colonization with uncanny similarity, as they too made, “them produce and then give up their countries’ raw materials in exchange for what material goods the colonized desired or were made to believe they desired by the colonizers.” Additionally, the chapter discusses how Britain, “justified their cruel treatment of the colonized by invoking European religious beliefs.” In the same way, Prospero condones his own behavior by referencing his history as Caliban’s savior, and relentlessly presents this argument to Caliban in an attempt to manipulate him out of a sense of obligation and inferiority. Prospero has created an image of Caliban that the all inhabitants of the Island have bought into, because Prospero’s conception is the only one they’ve ever known. They have all accepted Prospero’s hegemony as truth, rather than acknowledge his oppressive regime and dehumanizing treatment of Caliban as evidence of his, “unconscious desires for power, wealth, and domination.” Just as the Native Americans in the video were depicted by Hollywood as “blood thirsty savages,” and prevented from being proud of who they were, Caliban has beem depicted as monster for so long that he cannot remember not being called a monster, and therefore cannot feel any sense of pride or self respect.

Shakespeare clearly emphasizes a native stereotype with his representation of Caliban. Though Caliban recognizes Prospero’s treatment as cruel and unfair, his vision of freedom is not freedom from under a human authority, but freedom from brutality. Thus, when he meets Trinculo and Stephano and deduces that they are somewhat more civil than his current master, he swears to them, “to be thy true subject,” (Act II, Scene II). He has never considered being the master of his own life and destiny, Shakespeare paints him as a creature understanding and accepting of his own inferiority. He exclaims, “A plague upon the tyrant that I serve! I’ll bear him no more sticks but follow thee, thou wondrous man.” Caliban is content to be enslaved in servitude, as long as his master is gentle, never even considering the possibility that he may be in equal status to these noblemen. In fact, the only thing he considers is revenge. He tells Stephano, “I’ll yield him thee asleep, where thoust may knock a nail into his head.” Caliban is consumed only by pure spiteful, vengeance to wrong the man that has wronged him, so much so, his only pleasure is gained through anticipating these events. Shakespeare, allots few, if any, redeeming qualities: he is seemingly mean-spirited and frighteningly disfigured.  As a result, our judgments are somewhat biased due to Shakespeare’s own bias, a bias cultivated due to the fact that he was influenced by and grew up in 16^th century England.

Cock-A-Diddle-Dow

Prospero, though infused with unfathomable powers of sorcery, seeks absolute sovereignty over his sparsely populated island. In accomplishing this supremacy, his most favored and effective technique consists of ruthlessly preying on the dependence of those around him.  Because Prospero has been the sole figure of authority and knowledge in their lives, the others are forced to rely on him out of necessity, a sense of indebtedness, and the fact that this way of living is all they have ever known- and Prospero revels in the opportunity to take advantage of this. For example, Prospero begins to manipulate Miranda, first by defending his actions on the grounds of his love and devotion to her, “I have done nothing but in care of thee, of thee my dear on,” (Act I Scene II). He then proceeds to capture her attention with suspense and intrigue, and thus the trap has been set for him to elaborate in full on the narrative of his tragic history. Innocent, unsuspecting Miranda drinks in his poignant recollection of Antonio’s jealous deceit and betrayal, of their own miraculous survival, and of the noble and priceless schooling Miranda has received. Additionally, to maintain his superior position over the enslaved Ariel, Prospero constantly reminds her of, “the foul witch Sycorax,” under whose horrific authority Ariel stayed until her death, and that it was him, “when arrived and heard thee, that made gape the pine, and let thee out.” Because of this, Ariel feels she owes her service to this man whose rule, though only slightly more bearable than Sycorax’s, is her daily sustenance. She, like the naïve Miranda, is also taken into a false sense of security and hope by Prospero’s meaningless promises that after however many days doing whatever tasks, he will, “discharge thee.” Unfortunately, Prospero’s influence is not complete, as he requires it to encompass every living creature in his vicinity. Caliban, the, “abhorred slave,” is enslaved as well under Prospero’s merciless rule. Though, being, “not honour’d with a human shape,” (Act I, Scene II). Caliban is considered even more inferior and undeserving of human sympathies. Caliban remembers his childhood, the time when he was most impressionable, as a period of tender interactions between himself and Prospero, who instantly became a father figure in his life. However, all tenderness has vanished and now been replaced with biting hatred and resent, as Prospero imprisons him within a miniscule perimeter, and forces him to bend to their every whim through violent threats of physical harm, attempts at igniting guilt upon recollecting all that he did for him, and relentless insults and forcefully degrading speeches that have become a sort of ever present mantra that even Miranda engages in. In this way, Prospero utilizes the power of a single story being established as absolute truth to manipulate the emotions, desires, and actions of others and to maintain his tyrannical control over the “subjects” in his limited “kingdom.”

Apples And Mangos Are For All Races! (can I get an amen...)

What is the danger of a single story?


I have a fairly powerful hunch that if I were to sit down with four-year old Adichie, crayons and pencils flying through the air as she created little western society-based masterpieces, and divulged to her that I have always, in fact, preferred a juicy, yellow mango to an apple, she would hesitate to believe me. In fact, she would probably react with violent surprise and twisted facial expressions, revealing her inner turmoil upon suddenly realizing that everything she had known about the world, her world, was a lie. The single story had lied to her, and consequently robbed her of a certain paradise--a paradise that would come from knowing my Caucasian self as someone more dynamic than a blue-eyed, apple-eating, ginger beer-drinking American. And in this way, the single story has also robbed me of dignity. By reducing myself to a simple, generalizing stereotype, I am no longer an individual with a unique history, mindset, and hope. My culture is no longer a special entity of society working towards a multitude of goals in a multitude of ways due to the range of abilities these people possess. My country is no longer a diverse sea of colorful faces and stories that has endured both pain and triumph and has yet to be defeated. The story is sacred and terrible all at once because it is all we have connecting us to the rest of the world. I cannot be in Clovis while simultaneously visiting Iran. The closest I will ever get to this is turning the news on and experiencing the words and images of the country as perceived by others. In many circumstances, pertaining to many things, I am a blank slate waiting to have written on me knowledge of places and people I have not seen. These stories that fill my slate may be inaccurate, biased, or entirely false, and in most cases I have no way of discerning the valid information from the invalid. Though I am one person, and my opinions will most likely not create a massive tidal wave ripple effect, an entire nation or world of partially blank slates, involuntarily ingesting a single story, will turn the story into a stereotype, and the stereotype into a fact until the story has been engrained into our minds so forcefully, we are unable to reshape the knowledge in our minds that we have held as truth for so long.

What is the remedy for a single story? Seize hold of the ignorance repressing the growth and development of your global understanding, and use the body and mind you were given to explore individuals, cultures, and nations that may be under a single repeating conception in your mind, use it to read other stories. Or better yet, spread your own piece of hidden insight, and write your own.

how many bananas can you eat in a minute?