Soma Induced???

Hallelujah we are done with another novel. For this essay I want to address the idea of what is "normal". Throughout the course of reading it, there have been many opinions tossed around about the sanity of the "brave new" and the conditions under which the people live. Along with this comes the argument of conditioning a normal or its original establishment. Although the new world and the world of "savages" hold their own depictions depending on the point of view, the world we live in is just as "wrong" or "right" as theirs. I believe that there is no such thing as a "right normal", what determines what is normal and what is right all has to do on the society's morals and how they've established themselves. The people of the new world do not consider themselves as unhappy or in the wrong, only by our moral values do we. For instance the video we watched about our society's education system by Sir Ken Robinson draws some parallels that put into perspective that although our two worlds may appear complete opposites, they are not so different in certain aspects. In fact, the use of soma in the new world is used for similar purposes in the functioning of our education. Children are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD and as a result drugged to keep them focused. However there are millions of distractions in the world that are considered more worth wile than a boring lecture. Everything else in the world is advancing yet for education we are anesthetizing. Additionally parallels are too drawn from Technopoly. There is a focus on the advancement of technology and producing instead of emotions. As a result, there is not an emphasis on personal connection and instead is directed on advancing. Those are the points I would like to argue, my stance on them, and the parallels drawn from outside sources.     

Math should be Victimized over the Arts

There are many parrelles between the way Sir Ken Robinson characterizes the state of education today and the society of in Brave New World. The first one is using anestics to take control over the individual and get them to conform. In education this has been shown to be down through ADHD medication, in order to get kids to focus on school when they are not fuctioning as themselves but as zombies. Invertively they should reform the lecture or system instead of the students. Human nature will never change completely, however the school system can to become more effective. This compares with Brave New World in the sense that they use Soma in order to get over problems or numb themselves to the society in which they live. The text states that ,"Again twelve stanzas. By this time the soma had begun ... to work. Eyes shone, cheeks were flushed, the inner light of universal benevolence broke out on every face in happy, friendly smiles. Even Bernard felt himself a little melted". It has become a coping mechanism for them in correlation with the school systems use of ADHD medication to cope for the lack of focus and insuffiency. Additionally the way he described the school system as industrial draws a parallelism to Brave New World as well. There society is based off proficency and has an assembly line mindset similar to that of our education. The arts do not matter anymore instead all the focus has been on the proficentcy of standardized test. In theory the better the school's scores the smarter the kids, when in reality that is only aspect. Kids are being stripped of not necessarily their creativity but losing the ability to distinguish that the world is not all black and white, there is more than one answer. As a result the focus of proficecency in both worlds has doomed its citizens with the inablity to think past what is considered "right".

Evvvvrbody in the Club get TIPSY

     A new book appears to have redirected our attention, in short congratulations everyone we are done with blogging about the Tempest. However the new text associated with our discussions, Brave New World, appears by the first four chapters to be anything but pleasant. Nevertheless it is evident that partaking in this literary “artwork” will be interesting and mind harboring, therefore chapter three must be taken into account.

     In regards to chapter three, it provides the reader with a glimpse of Huxley’s Brave New World, pertaining to the drive of society and its social structure that constitutes this perceived utopia. In doing so, the population becomes manipulated and told what they should want instead of individual desires as motivation. For example, Mustapha Mond refers a world before Ford and the world in which they live, in correlation with the contrast of Ford and Freud. He emphasizes the people’s enjoyment of consumption as well as its negative counterpart. The world controlled by the consumption of goods and recreational sex, there is no real enjoyment or passion in this modern utopia. Unfortunately in order to replace or to fulfill these human needs, chemicals have been produced in order to supplement nature. Soma is used in order to dull the perception of emptiness with no after effects,  other than loss of individualism, human characteristics, and the ability to feel. With this drug dissatisfaction is numbed as well as rage. In doing so the chance of a revolution is eliminated and the utopia can continue to strive without question. Soma in short prevents an authentic human being. In fact Mond refers to a previous time as, “our ancestors were so stupid and short-sided that when the first reformers came along and offered to deliver them from those horrible emotions, they wouldn’t have anything to do with them.” This exemplifies the contrasting views about previous society to current. That is only a gist of what the Brave New World pertains to.   

snap!crap!pop! ... this preparation is a flop

In the discussions of George Will, Stephen Greenblat, and Aime Cesaire, one controversial issue has been the interpretations of literary readings. The right of whether to include political perceptions  and understand writing to be an art form  as an alternative to an objective reading of the material. On one hand George Will argues that the text in contact with should be approached with a conservative technique, only addressing the objective issues and internalizing the information presented as black and white. However on the other hand Stephen Greenblat perceives literary work as art. He takes a liberal stance on the issue and believes that the work can be interpreted as grey. Greenblat encourages individual opportunity to create own opinions on the material as well as welcome political viewpoints to be presented.  Others, Aime Cesaire, even maintain through his script of The Tempest that the underlining issues become apparent and obvious through it. This brings forth an objective view by providing what he believes should be gained through the work as well as allowing leeway for opinions. Nonetheless my opinions on this issue contrast from those presented in these articles. I believe that all literary work should be presented as a grey canvas and open to all perceptions. Authors have do have a purpose for creating their “masterpiece” however not everyone sees the world through the same light. In retrospect politics make any conversation more inviting to arguments as well as the opportunity to express individualistic opinions to shed light on the mindset of the reader. With that said literature in my opinion isn’t a black and white subject and cannot function with only objective intentions. Politics make it more controversial and open to freethinking but mustn’t over shadow the author’s purpose. Therefore it should convey all views and give room for all mindsets to be expressed. There are endless opinions to any one given question.

multiple perspectives are more beneficial than multiple partners/personalities

There is apparent controversy between the political journalist George Will and the Cogan University professor of the Humanities at Harvard University Stephen Greenblatt, over the politicization of literary studies.  George Will’s views can be expressed through, “as esthetic judgments are politicized, political judgments are estheticized: the striking of poses and the enjoyment of catharsis are central in the theater of victimization in academic life. Criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” Whereas Stephen Greenblatt opposes this with his contradictory perception shown through, “ 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 to grapple with, have no place in their curriculum.” Although they do argue a point, I disagree with the conservative view of presenting the information through one perspective and leaving out information that skews emotions. I believe that all views involved in the situation should be presented to allow the student to learn all aspects therefore resulting in an all rounded view of the event. Additionally this provides the student to connect with the information on real-life terms and emotionally, instead of a mere objective level of education. The viewpoints, although opposing, will allow the student to be given the opinion as to what side they agree with or which stance to take on the issue instead of a predetermined one. I believe in this article George Will is more open to this liberal approach to textbooks however I may of misinterpreted the article at hand. Nevertheless I feel it is unbeneficial to include only a one-sided argument or even an objective statement; for, it doesn’t provide the student with growth on the subject nor as an individual. The advantages in providing an audience with options should be intentional when constructing a textbook. George Will and Stephen Greenblatt each provide an impressive argument on the issue; however multiple perspectives should be supplied in textbooks to make them utmost efficient.

This Says It All...

White Man > Native = BullSH*T

Caliban is the Native American stereotype in Shakespeare’s play The Tempest. He represents those who are native to the area, have had their land (home) taken from them, are subject to serve their superior, and have been labeled as inferior. Although Shakespeare recreates Caliban as a representative of an “average” native, he doesn’t follow the trite formula mentioned in the video: How Hollywood Stereotyped Native Americans. In Acts II and III Caliban doesn’t remain passive to the “white man” or even physically gain power over his possessor. Instead Shakespeare redefines this model of “reality” by having Caliban manipulate one white man (Stephano) against another (Prospero). No longer is the native considered, “vicious killers all of them, not even human,” by the video, but instead a manipulator fighting the resistance with his words not a bow-n-arrow and a hatchet. He is sympathetic to the skewed image of the native to an extent and illustrates this by taking the initiative to rewrite a native’s course of action. However even though Shakespeare decided to change the ideal Hollywood formula, he still manages to keep a native stereotype to define Caliban with. For example, Stephano’s first impression of Caliban is, “What’s the matter? Have we devils here? Do you put tricks upon ‘s with savages and men of Ind, ha? I have not ‘scaped drowning to be afreard now of your four legs …” This enlightens the automatic assumption that Caliban’s presence is that of a devil or a savage and as the dialogue continues and the realization has been made that he is a native, he still bears the title monster. It is shown in the chapter of The Post-Colonial Studies Reader titled Cultural Studies: Post colonialism, African-American Criticism, and Queer Theory that, “these subhumans or ‘savages’ quickly became the inferior and equally ‘evil’ Others, a philosophical concept called alternity whereby ‘the others’ are excluded from positions of power and viewed as different and inferior.” In all three resources the same terms and course of action have been directed to the natives or “blood thirsty savages”. Shakespeare portrays Caliban as a stereotypical native: his land has been taken from him, he is considered a monster, evil, and a savage, and he must obey Prospero better known as the white man. Nevertheless he puts a spin on the stereotypical native story with the introduction of Stephano and Trinculo. Who knew that alcohol could be so powerful? There are an abundant of examples from not only the text but the other two resources as well that exemplify this; nonetheless Shakespeare is rewriting the native’s future he is rewriting the formula.