The United States Government was dealt a debilitating blow on September 11, 2001, when foreign terrorists carried out several deadly attacks on American Soil. Apart from killing nearly 3,000 American citizens, they exposed compromising flaws in the country’s national security policies and had an immediate impact on the country’s economy. It was clear to the United States Government that extreme measures would have to be taken to prevent such terrible events from occurring again and challenging the system upholds them. As a result, “US Patriot Act” was created on October 26 of 2001, according to the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU, with the intentions of giving the government an extensive amount of liberties that violate civil liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution. However, the government insists that this bill is necessary to ensure national security and protect the future prosperity of the country. On the other side, the opposition will argue that this is the beginning of the slippery slope of questionable government actions all in the name of national security, and begin to mirror those of fictional governments in famous novels, like George Orwell’s 1984 or Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 or exploratory films like A Clockwork Orange or Equilibrum. In the futuristic settings of these novels, the hegemonic governments institute outrageous policies for society in order to maintain the state of the society that maintains their dominance. Many will argue that the notion that the United States Government is heading in the direction of the governments in these famous novels is completely unfounded and their current actions are necessary to protect their citizens. The reality is that the complexities of the US Patriot Act, the era in which it was established, and controversial statements by high-ranking government leaders, could support the idea that government could be heading towards governmental dystopia. The theory that a modern government could control all aspects of a person’s life for the sake of securing its future was the basis of George Orwell’s most famous novel.
George Orwell’s 1984 has become an iconic cultural reference to government control in the 21st Century. In a time where the implemented system, like capitalism or socialism, is brought into question by social uncertainties, whether it would terrorist attacks or economic depressions, 1984 is brought out and held up to exemplify the argument for opposing extensive government involvement. The story of Winston’s life in the dystopian society known as Oceania shows the oppression and the lack of rights an individual has when a government has supreme control over a society. The intentions behind the oppressive actions of the totalitarian government in control, in 1984, were to protect the society from the perils of an emotional world and create the closest form of a utopian society. All forms of individualistic expression is seeing as a form of anarchy by the ruling Party and is strictly prohibited. In the novel, the everyday comforts and luxuries of life have taken a backseat to the government’s need to insure its future dominance and prosperity. This notion is very similar to the idea behind the US Patriot Act. Although many civil liberties are being directly violated by the government’s actions sanctioned by the controversial act, the argument is made that the loss of these basic civil liberties is a necessary sacrifice in order allow the government to do everything it needs to do to protect its citizens and pursue a more utopian society.
Regardless of what country you are in today, in one way or another, a government’s actions mirror those of the authoritative state in Orwell’s novel; protect their society by any means necessary and ensure its future prosperity. However, in doing this, a government must also assure its own future. Therefore, anarchy and resistance towards the system in place cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with swiftly, as seen in 1984 with the concept of the “Thought Police,” a force that arrest all those have made any kind “Thought Crime” that goes against the Party’s ideology and mirrored in the idea behind the Patriot Act. After September 11, the United States government was able to clearly view the extent of the extreme opposition and the danger they brought to the society of America; a society they worked hard to build and perfect, despite its many flaws. For the United States, this society is the closest there is to a Utopia. It was threat that had to be dealt with quickly and prevent at any cause. As a result, the “US Patriot Act” was created.
Some of the things that the “Patriot Act” allows the government to do is enable law enforcement to conduct “phone and internet surveillance,” unauthorized searches, access “personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records with minimal judicial oversight,” allow “FBI Agents to investigate American citizens for criminal matters without probable cause of crime if they say it is for ‘intelligence purposes,’” and expand “ terrorism laws to include ‘domestic terrorism’ which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy,” (“The USA PATRIOT ACT and Government Actions that Threaten Our Civil Liberties”). The Patriot Act also:
Permits non-citizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and to be denied re-admission to the US for engaging in free speech. Suspects convicted of no crime may be detained indefinitely in six month increments without meaningful judicial review. (“The USA PATRIOT ACT and Government Actions that Threaten Our Civil Liberties”)
According to the ACLU, the rights provided by the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eight, and fourteenth amendments were violated by the “Patriot Act.”
In America, when an issue as complex and sensitive as the loss of privacies protected by the United States Constitution is brought up, the American public usually makes itself heard and makes lawmakers aware of what it is they want and do not want. However, the public was not vocal because they were blinded by the events that occurred on September 11, 2001. For the first time, America’s enemy was clearly visible to people and they expected the government to act swiftly. Gregory M. Maney, Lynne M. Woehrle, and Patrick G. Coy wrote, “The attacks and the government's responses raised fears and unleashed a powerful but uncritical brand of American patriotism. Bringing to justice those responsible for the 9/11 attacks became widely understood as a just cause,” (“Harnessing and Challenging Hegemony: The U.S. Peace Movement after 9/11” 357). From that day, American patriotism was extremely high and nobody was questioning the government’s actions. The focus was the same: catch those responsible by any means necessary. The anti-war movement was almost silent while America supported the government’s actions to invade Afghanistan and capture those responsible, which is similar to the state of the society depicted in Orwell’s 1984, in which everybody basically accepts the slogan “War is Peace” and give their outright support to the Party. Those who opposed this view during this time were seen as unpatriotic and found it extremely difficult to get their voice heard by the masses. Gunder Frank stated:
When the leader of the democratic majority in the Senate voiced only the mildest doubts about Bush's military moves, he was immediately reprimanded by his republican majority leader counterpart Lott, for “how dare he criticize the president in time of war!” (“Coup d'etat in Washington: Silent Surrender in America and the World” 3358)
Essentially, the government was given everything they needed by congress because they were afraid to challenge them. Gunder Frank also referred to example in which congress granted the FBI “breathtaking authority to obtain an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court… requiring any person or business to produce any books, records, documents, or items” and states that Congress, “has been intimidated into passive acceptance of virtually everything …the executive proposes and demands. It passed the Patriot Act that severely restricts civil liberties virtually without reading it,” (“Coup d'etat in Washington: Silent Surrender in America and the World” 3358). The abuse of power by the government, all in the name of national security, extended to every facet of the system. In trying to prevent another catastrophic event, even American citizens, deemed suspicious by the government, were being investigated for no other reason other than for their religion or ethnic background and the courts had no power to stop them or protect them. Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks stated that:
It is in the courts... that the distinction between "national security" matters and purely domestic matters has been most often elaborated, with courts fairly consistently affording greater deference to government decisions and findings when it comes to national security than when it comes to domestic affairs." (“War Everywhere: Rights, National Security Law, and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Age of Terror” 697)
The government felt the need to bypass all standard protocol because they believe they were doing America a great service by protecting them and all their many interests. And since American patriotism was at all time high, the government could conduct these actions and receive full support from Congress and the public. The goal of catching those responsible for 9/11 and preventing more attacks was the main focus of the government and the public; the ideology was the same.
The role of the dominant ideology is critically important to the effectiveness of the government. If the government wants to do something that does not coincide with the public’s wishes, then their ability to perform their desired actions are increasingly hindered. If they choose to go on with those actions, regardless of public approval, then the government runs the risk of alienating the public and creating more opposition to their authority; which would, again, lessen the effectiveness of the government’s current and future policies. However, if the both sides share a unifying ideology, then the effectiveness of the government increases and their dominance continues. Therefore, it is in the government’s best interest to sway public opinion if their favor. One way that could done is through propaganda, as evident in Winston’s job in the novel 1984. Winston’s job is to take existing stories that may draw any negative criticism towards the Party, and substitute it with a story that does not compromise the Party’s image and maintain public opinion in their favor. The purpose of propaganda is to influence or provide the public with certain views or information, whether they are factual or not, for the sake of whatever the government needs the public to believe. Louis Althusser explores this further with his theory on replacing ideology. In his essay, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus,” Althusser explores the theory of how ideology is created or manipulated. He states that ideas can disappear over time, while things like “subject , consciousness, belief, and actions,” survive. Eventually, the state apparatus can influence the appearance of new ideas that coincide with government’s preferred ideology. A radical example of this theory is explored in the film A Clockwork Orange.
The ideas presented in Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange are set in futuristic setting in which government has the technology to physically change an individual’s ideology. In the pursuit of a world free of violence and despair, the authoritative state depicted in A Clockwork Orange takes more drastic actions to ensure the prosperity of the society is maintaining that state. In the film, a young man named Alex, a troubled and “ultra-violent” young adult, becomes the focus of an experimental government project. The intention of the government is to remove an individual’s free will and freedom of choices and ideas, and replace his mentality with one that is more appropriate for their society. Essentially, Alex is brainwashed, or “treated,” into believing all sorts of lewd acts are terrible; becoming increasingly sick when he thinks of any kind of violence. Stanley Kubrick’s film is an example of where the slippery slope may lead a government. In the film, the government’s actions have move from prevention to controlling – all in the name of their society’s prosperity. By the end of the film, Alex is unable to make a decision for himself and is coerced by government officials into accepting his role in their system. His decisions are the government’s decisions; his ideology is the government’s ideology. The government robs an individual’s ability to question the authoritative state. Although the film’s events are still science fiction, the notions presented provide a disturbing window into the possibilities of future government control tactics. Other films have also provided glimpses into the possible future of what an oppressive government looks like.
Coinciding with the ideas in 1984, Kurt Wimmer’s 2002 film, Equilibrium, creates a setting in which the government’s plan to prevent any kind of war or conflict, after World War III, is to create a world without emotions. All the citizens under this particular authoritative state must take a drug called Prozium in order to prevent any king of emotional feeling. No feeling means no violence and no war. The loss of individualism ensures the government’s future. Similar to the idea of a “Thought Crime” in 1984, any kind of emotional display is categorized as “Sense Offense” and those individuals are immediately arrested. In this world, society is completely prevented from formulating any kind of opinion or feeling and willingly accepts the government’s message because they cannot register it emotionally. Though the events are, again, based in a very distant future, the ideas presented capture the dystopian society. The purpose of the fictional government was to oppress their citizens by destroying individuality and forcing everybody to be the same. Equality was heavily enforced in order to remove any difference that may instigate problems for the government. This concept is also explored in Ray Bradbury’s famous novel.
In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, the ruling system removes book from society, by burning them, in order to prevent society from getting any kind of information that will provide them with views that are not in accordance with the ruling system. The lack of knowledge makes society more accepting of the ruling system because they are not aware of other views that may influence their ideology. Therefore, everybody’s mindset is the same. The main character, Montag, begins to rebel against the system after he be begins to read books, which have instilled in him a new sense of priority. However, he is an outsider because the system has everybody else under control. The idea of book burning, along with the other ideas presented in 1984, A Clockwork Orange, and Equilibrium, are drastic depictions of future techniques of severe governmental oppression.
People in the United States, and in most countries around the world, would see the notions presented in these works as outrageous portrayals of government tyranny and impossible in this generation. However, the reality is that this type of extreme mindset has already begun in our world. In his essay, Randy Martin stated that in 1983:
Then Secretary of Education William Bennett issued the polemic “A Nation At Risk” which fingered low test scores among public school children as a threat to national security via compromised market competitiveness. A new regime of discipline and punish, with tightly controlled content standards, turned education into a battlefield that now buries its dead (before they survive to become fully grown threats) in a cemetery called “No Child Left Behind.”(“Where did the Future Go?”)
The intention behind the “No Child Left Behind” is to reward schools for efficiently teaching every student how to become a productive member of society. The hope is that they will continue to produce in the economy once they are adults. The government has inserted themselves into the lives of young people through education, ensuring that they are prepared to continue the prosperity of the current state that maintains the government, similar the plot of A Clockwork Orange. Event though the notion that what happened in that film could happen in our time is somewhat irrational, it is this kind of government mentality that should worry Americans about the future state of their society.
About a year after the September 11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush made a statement that mirrors the mentality that dominates the text in George Orwell’s 1984. On 18th of June in 2002, President Bush made a speech, regarding homeownership, at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In speaking about terrorist and how they affect America’s home-buying market, Bush said, “Let me first talk about how to make sure America is secure from a group of killers, people who hate -- you know what they hate? They hate the idea that somebody can go buy a home,” (Remarks by the President on Homeownership). He cited that as one of the reasons for why they were at war with these terrorist and continued on to say, “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace,” (Remarks by the President on Homeownership) which, in essence, is the same as one of the iconic slogans from the Ruling Party in 1984: “War is Peace.” This was during the time where American patriotism was at an all time high and nobody paid any attention to that quote. When it comes to the novel 1984, the readers is plunged into the middle of this society without knowing how they got to this point. However, one can imagine that the downfall of their society began with small ideological changes that seemed irrelevant, like President Bush’s comment on war.
The future of America, as is with every other country, is uncertain. Each country strives to create the most efficient state to maintain their society and maintain the system that upholds their authority. The Roman Empire was able to rule for thousands of years while the Soviet Union was unable to maintain its power for more than a century. Eventually, a system looses its effectiveness. The result could be the dystopian societies that depicted in George Orwell’s or Ray Bradbury’s novels or in films like Equilibrium or A Clockwork Orange. It could all begin with a major event or policy change or it could begin with a simple statement.
Works Cited
A Clockwork Orange. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Warner Bros., 1971.
Brooks, Rosa Ehrenreich. “War Everywhere: Rights, National Security Law, and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Age of Terror.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 153.2 (Dec. 2004): 675-761. JSTOR. 27 Nov. 2009 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150665
Coy, Patrick G., Gregory M. Maney, and Lynne M. Woehrle,. “Harnessing and Challenging Hegemony: The U.S. Peace Movement after 9/11.” Sociological Perspectives 40.3 (2005): 357-381. JSTOR. 27 Nov. 2009 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4138759
Equilibrium. Dir. Kurt Wimmer. Dimension Films, 2002.
Frank, Andre Gunder. “Coup d'etat in Washington: Silent Surrender in America and the World.” Economic and Political Weekly 38.32 (Aug. 2003): 3356-3359. JSTOR. 27 Nov. 2009 <>
Martin, Randy. "Where Did the Future Go?" Logos 5.1 (2006): 1-12. Logosonline. 5 Oct. 2009 <http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.1/martin.htm>
Orwell, George. 1984. New York: New American Library, 1961.
“Remarks by the President on Homeownership.” HUD.gov. 2002. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 28 Nov. 2009 http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm
“The USA PATRIOT ACT and Government Actions that Threaten Our Civil Liberties.” American Civil Liberties Union. 9 Nov. 2009 <http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf>
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Patriotic Duty (WebCT Post)
Everywhere in the world, the collective ideology of a specific region is different than the next region. However, the ideology in a specific region is not the ideology that is chosen or learned, it is the ideology that is almost mandatory with a specific culture. As I read the essays by Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Walter Benjamin and their analysis of the differences in production and what goes into a particular system, I could not help but to think about how the ideology of a certain “apparatus” could take control of whole state.
As an example, we can go back to the production modes during World War II. As everybody knows, the men went off to war to fight for their beloved country and the women stepped up and filled their shoes in the factories; producing materials essential to the war. The government made it known to women that it was their patriotic duty to work in the factories, as opposed to the idea that the government was desperate for their labor; which they most definitely were. However, the preferred ideology was instituted and thus it became the ideology of women during this time. When the men returned and began to seek the jobs that the women were holding, the government’s ideological approached changed to fit the current state; imploring women to go back to their homes, become homemakers, and let the men do the work. The women of course resisted but eventually, the government’s preferred ideology won over the society and within a few years, it was accepted once again.
As an example, we can go back to the production modes during World War II. As everybody knows, the men went off to war to fight for their beloved country and the women stepped up and filled their shoes in the factories; producing materials essential to the war. The government made it known to women that it was their patriotic duty to work in the factories, as opposed to the idea that the government was desperate for their labor; which they most definitely were. However, the preferred ideology was instituted and thus it became the ideology of women during this time. When the men returned and began to seek the jobs that the women were holding, the government’s ideological approached changed to fit the current state; imploring women to go back to their homes, become homemakers, and let the men do the work. The women of course resisted but eventually, the government’s preferred ideology won over the society and within a few years, it was accepted once again.
One Influence (A WebCT Post)
As I read Irving Howe’s assessment of the totalitarian society in George Orwell’s 1984 in his essay, "1984 - Utopia Reversed," and analyzed his many viewpoints, I could not help but think of North Korea; to me, the quick-essential modern totalitarian society. I recently saw a documentary on the national geographic channel about the people of North Korea, and their behavior highly resembles the culture established in the novel 1984.
First of all, the North Korean people are so oppressed by the government that most do not even know they are being oppressed. The amount of outside information that is available to the people is extremely limited or non-existent. Therefore, the people really do not question the higher power and there many actions to extend their control. Like Howe implied, the society is believes that they are living in the best conditions in the world and the government is looking out for their best interest. The people show their extreme devotion to their leaders and believe them to be God-like. With the people clearly under their spell, the government shapes the ideology of the North Koreans. It was said that the people of North Korea are taught from a very early age to hate the United States and continuously reinforced with propaganda.
Just like Winston, there are those in North Korea who are able to see the truth and willing to risk their lives to gain their independence, but most importantly, their individualism, instead of being another tiny piece of the system that is the totalitarian nightmare.
First of all, the North Korean people are so oppressed by the government that most do not even know they are being oppressed. The amount of outside information that is available to the people is extremely limited or non-existent. Therefore, the people really do not question the higher power and there many actions to extend their control. Like Howe implied, the society is believes that they are living in the best conditions in the world and the government is looking out for their best interest. The people show their extreme devotion to their leaders and believe them to be God-like. With the people clearly under their spell, the government shapes the ideology of the North Koreans. It was said that the people of North Korea are taught from a very early age to hate the United States and continuously reinforced with propaganda.
Just like Winston, there are those in North Korea who are able to see the truth and willing to risk their lives to gain their independence, but most importantly, their individualism, instead of being another tiny piece of the system that is the totalitarian nightmare.
Friday, November 13, 2009
By Any Means Necessary
George Orwell’s novel, 1984, has become an iconic cultural reference to government control in the 21st Century. In a time where the implemented system, like capitalism or socialism, is brought into question by social uncertainties, whether it would terrorist attacks or economic uncertainty, 1984 is brought out to exemplify the argument for those in favor of the opposing position. The story of Winston’s life in the dystopian society known as Oceania shows the oppression and the lack of rights an individual has when a government has supreme control over a society. The intentions behind the oppressive actions of the totalitarian government in control, in 1984, were to protect the society from the perils of an emotional world and create the closest form of utopian society. Regardless of what country you are in today, a government’s actions mirror those of the authoritative state in Orwell’s novel; protect their society by any means necessary and ensure its future prosperity. However, in doing this, a government must also assure its own future. Therefore, anarchy and resistance towards the system in place cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with swiftly, as seen in 1984 with the concept of the “Thought Police.”
After September 11, the United States government was able to clearly view the extent of the extreme opposition and the danger they brought to the society of America; a society they worked hard to build and perfect, despite its many flaws. For the United States, this society is the closest there is to a Utopia. It was threat that had to be dealt with quickly and prevent at any cause. As a result, the “US Patriot Act” was created on October 26 of 2001, according to the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU. Some of the things that the “Patriot Act” allows the government to conduct unauthorized searches, access “personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records with minimal judicial oversight,” detain American citizens and non-citizens indefinitely without charges, and expand “ terrorism laws to include ‘domestic terrorism’ which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy,” (“The USA PATRIOT ACT and Government Actions that Threaten Our Civil Liberties”). According to the ACLU, the rights provided by the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eight, and fourteenth amendments were violated by the “Patriot Act.” However, the United States may make the point the abilities given to them by this act ensures that they can keep the public safe from another terrorist attack. Perhaps some rights will be violated but it will be for America’s greater good. On the other side, the opposing view may declare this to be the start of slippery slope in which the government partakes in questionable actions – all for the sake of national security.
Eventually, in the pursuit of a world free of violence and despair, the authoritative state may take more severe actions to ensure the prosperity of whatever society is maintaining that state. Stanley Kubrick’s film A Clockwork Orange is an example of where the slippery slope may lead a government. In the film, a young man named Alex is brainwashed, or “treated,” into believing all sorts of lewd acts are terrible. The intentions of the government portrayed in the film have moved into preventing and controlling for the security of their society. Although the film’s events are still science fiction, the notions presented provide a disturbing window into the possibilities of future government control tactics. Coinciding with the ideas in 1984, Kurt Wimmer’s 2002 film, Equilibrium, the government’s plan to prevent war is to create a world without emotions. All the citizens under this particular authoritative state must take a drug called Prozium in order to prevent any kind of emotional feeling. No feeling means no violence and no war. The loss of individualism ensures the government’s future. Again, though the events are based in a very distant future, the ideas presented capture the Dystopian society.
It may seem that these concepts of government control in the Orwell’s 1984 are still farfetched but the reality is that they have already been introduced into our society in more subtle ways. In his essay, “Where did the Future Go?” Randy Martin stated that “In 1983, then Secretary of Education William Bennett issued the polemic ‘A Nation At Risk’ which fingered low test scores among public school children as a threat to national security,” which lead to higher standards comprised in the act known as “No Child Left Behind.” The government inserted themselves into the lives of young people through education for the reason of ensuring that they are prepared to continue the prosperity of the current state that maintains the government, like the plot of A Clockwork Orange.
Works Cited
A Clockwork Orange. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Warner Bros., 1971.
Equilibrium. Dir. Kurt Wimmer. Dimension Films, 2002.
Martin, Randy. "Where Did the Future Go?" Logos 5.1 (2006): 1-12. Logosonline. 5 Oct. 2009 <http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.1/martin.htm>
Orwell, George. 1984. New York: New American Library, 1961.
“The USA PATRIOT ACT and Government Actions that Threaten Our Civil Liberties.” American Civil Liberties Union. 9 Nov. 2009
After September 11, the United States government was able to clearly view the extent of the extreme opposition and the danger they brought to the society of America; a society they worked hard to build and perfect, despite its many flaws. For the United States, this society is the closest there is to a Utopia. It was threat that had to be dealt with quickly and prevent at any cause. As a result, the “US Patriot Act” was created on October 26 of 2001, according to the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU. Some of the things that the “Patriot Act” allows the government to conduct unauthorized searches, access “personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records with minimal judicial oversight,” detain American citizens and non-citizens indefinitely without charges, and expand “ terrorism laws to include ‘domestic terrorism’ which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy,” (“The USA PATRIOT ACT and Government Actions that Threaten Our Civil Liberties”). According to the ACLU, the rights provided by the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eight, and fourteenth amendments were violated by the “Patriot Act.” However, the United States may make the point the abilities given to them by this act ensures that they can keep the public safe from another terrorist attack. Perhaps some rights will be violated but it will be for America’s greater good. On the other side, the opposing view may declare this to be the start of slippery slope in which the government partakes in questionable actions – all for the sake of national security.
Eventually, in the pursuit of a world free of violence and despair, the authoritative state may take more severe actions to ensure the prosperity of whatever society is maintaining that state. Stanley Kubrick’s film A Clockwork Orange is an example of where the slippery slope may lead a government. In the film, a young man named Alex is brainwashed, or “treated,” into believing all sorts of lewd acts are terrible. The intentions of the government portrayed in the film have moved into preventing and controlling for the security of their society. Although the film’s events are still science fiction, the notions presented provide a disturbing window into the possibilities of future government control tactics. Coinciding with the ideas in 1984, Kurt Wimmer’s 2002 film, Equilibrium, the government’s plan to prevent war is to create a world without emotions. All the citizens under this particular authoritative state must take a drug called Prozium in order to prevent any kind of emotional feeling. No feeling means no violence and no war. The loss of individualism ensures the government’s future. Again, though the events are based in a very distant future, the ideas presented capture the Dystopian society.
It may seem that these concepts of government control in the Orwell’s 1984 are still farfetched but the reality is that they have already been introduced into our society in more subtle ways. In his essay, “Where did the Future Go?” Randy Martin stated that “In 1983, then Secretary of Education William Bennett issued the polemic ‘A Nation At Risk’ which fingered low test scores among public school children as a threat to national security,” which lead to higher standards comprised in the act known as “No Child Left Behind.” The government inserted themselves into the lives of young people through education for the reason of ensuring that they are prepared to continue the prosperity of the current state that maintains the government, like the plot of A Clockwork Orange.
Works Cited
A Clockwork Orange. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Warner Bros., 1971.
Equilibrium. Dir. Kurt Wimmer. Dimension Films, 2002.
Martin, Randy. "Where Did the Future Go?" Logos 5.1 (2006): 1-12. Logosonline. 5 Oct. 2009 <http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.1/martin.htm>
Orwell, George. 1984. New York: New American Library, 1961.
“The USA PATRIOT ACT and Government Actions that Threaten Our Civil Liberties.” American Civil Liberties Union. 9 Nov. 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Correcting for the Future: Analysis of A Clockwork Orange
Stanley Kubrick’s film A Clockwork Orange no doubt raised some eyebrows and turned some heads when it first premiered in 1972. The brutal nature of the future depicted in the film provided as a social commentary on the possibilities of the extended control of the established authority. Thirty-seven years later, A Clockwork Orange continues to speak for the many controversial issues that exist between the government in control and the established society in many different parts of the world. Randy Martin’s essay, “Where did the Future Go?” and Louis Althusser’s essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” discuss the notions of the government’s role in improving society for the intention of maintaining the current system and creating future prosperity.
Randy Martin’s idea of the government’s plans to improve the future economic market can be seen in the events that occur to the main character Alex of A Clockwork Orange. In his essay, Martin states, “No longer divided between labor and capital, society’s central cleavage would be played out along the lines of risk–the prospect of a return in excess of expectation,” meaning that the government invests in the present society with the expectation they will perform efficiently in the future. Martin’s theory is exemplified in Secretary of Education William Bennett’s comments about the lack of decent test score in America’s children being a “threat to national security.” In the film, Alex, a troubled and violent young adult, becomes the subject of a governmental experiment to rid him of his “ultra-violent” ways. The intentions of the government that is portrayed in the film is to create a Utopian-like society, free of violence and corruption by robbing those deemed hazardous to society, like Alex, of the freedom of choice and ideas, as evident when he becomes physically ill anytime he thinks about lewd acts. The government is deciding what choices he will make and that is what Althusser discusses.
In another perspective on the matter of government control for improvement of the future, Louis Althusser looks at the influences of the governments into the ideology of an individual. As he discusses the theory that certain ideas disappear, certain notions, like “subject, consciousness, belief, actions,” survive, and new rituals and an ideology coherent with the apparatus (the state) appear, all are heavily influenced by the government in place to the benefit of the desired society. During his “re-education” through the forced film watching, Alex was essentially hypnotized, or “cured,” into believing that all types of lewd acts were wrong. His brutal, yet confident, character was replaced was a compliant, gullible, and weak mindset that left him defenseless. Basically making Alex a drone of the government for whatever they needed him to do, which is visible in the end of the film when he agrees with the experiment’s director, the same man who put him through the misery that landed him homeless, defenseless, and hospitalized, to help him and government. Alex may not have wanted to help him but the reality is he is no longer in a position to bargain or make decisions for himself. His decisions are the government’s decisions; his ideology is the government’s ideology.
It is evident in today’s world where government has begun working towards securing the future of themselves and their preferred society, as seen with the high standards they have instituted for the performance of schools, according to Randy Martin. Regardless of its growing age and changing viewership, Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange will continue to be a relevant piece of work, coinciding with the ideas of Randy Martin and Louis Althusser.
Works Cited
Althusser, Louis. "Ideology and ideological State Apparatuses." La Pensee (1970): 1-42. Monthly Review Press. 5 Oct. 2009. <http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm>
A Clockwork Orange. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Warner Bros., 1971.
Martin, Randy. "Where Did the Future Go?" Logos 5.1 (2006): 1-12. Logosonline. 5 Oct. 2009 <http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.1/martin.htm>
Randy Martin’s idea of the government’s plans to improve the future economic market can be seen in the events that occur to the main character Alex of A Clockwork Orange. In his essay, Martin states, “No longer divided between labor and capital, society’s central cleavage would be played out along the lines of risk–the prospect of a return in excess of expectation,” meaning that the government invests in the present society with the expectation they will perform efficiently in the future. Martin’s theory is exemplified in Secretary of Education William Bennett’s comments about the lack of decent test score in America’s children being a “threat to national security.” In the film, Alex, a troubled and violent young adult, becomes the subject of a governmental experiment to rid him of his “ultra-violent” ways. The intentions of the government that is portrayed in the film is to create a Utopian-like society, free of violence and corruption by robbing those deemed hazardous to society, like Alex, of the freedom of choice and ideas, as evident when he becomes physically ill anytime he thinks about lewd acts. The government is deciding what choices he will make and that is what Althusser discusses.
In another perspective on the matter of government control for improvement of the future, Louis Althusser looks at the influences of the governments into the ideology of an individual. As he discusses the theory that certain ideas disappear, certain notions, like “subject, consciousness, belief, actions,” survive, and new rituals and an ideology coherent with the apparatus (the state) appear, all are heavily influenced by the government in place to the benefit of the desired society. During his “re-education” through the forced film watching, Alex was essentially hypnotized, or “cured,” into believing that all types of lewd acts were wrong. His brutal, yet confident, character was replaced was a compliant, gullible, and weak mindset that left him defenseless. Basically making Alex a drone of the government for whatever they needed him to do, which is visible in the end of the film when he agrees with the experiment’s director, the same man who put him through the misery that landed him homeless, defenseless, and hospitalized, to help him and government. Alex may not have wanted to help him but the reality is he is no longer in a position to bargain or make decisions for himself. His decisions are the government’s decisions; his ideology is the government’s ideology.
It is evident in today’s world where government has begun working towards securing the future of themselves and their preferred society, as seen with the high standards they have instituted for the performance of schools, according to Randy Martin. Regardless of its growing age and changing viewership, Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange will continue to be a relevant piece of work, coinciding with the ideas of Randy Martin and Louis Althusser.
Works Cited
Althusser, Louis. "Ideology and ideological State Apparatuses." La Pensee (1970): 1-42. Monthly Review Press. 5 Oct. 2009. <http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm>
A Clockwork Orange. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Warner Bros., 1971.
Martin, Randy. "Where Did the Future Go?" Logos 5.1 (2006): 1-12. Logosonline. 5 Oct. 2009 <http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.1/martin.htm>
The Fire Brigade: Fahrenheit 451 Group Project
After reading the book Fahrenheit 451, and viewing the film version, I was able to see the many different aspects of this brilliant story and went into the group project with the frame of mind that each person in the group would be assigned a particular part of the film and they would do the research on their own. After the first meeting, I was able to see that was not going to be the case. Unlike other groups I have worked with in the past, this was the epitome of a group effort.
Everybody involved introduced an instrumental theme or idea that is now part of the group presentation. Now, I can not tell which idea came from which member and what I introduced because everybody collectively elaborated on every suggestion and aspect of the film. By the end, one idea was completely different from its starting point and everybody had left their mark on it. Essentially, this was the process while organizing the presentation.
Finally, I volunteered to take the first part of the presentation and using the ideas and suggestion from my group members, I elaborated a little more and did a little more research to expand the notions about the director’s techniques in the film. Also for the presentation, I will introduce how the director rearranged critical elements of the film, and discuss a bit on why, and talk about the concept behind the title of book. I was also a part of the re-creating the parlor scenes from the movie for our presentation, which was the most fun part of the project.
Everybody involved introduced an instrumental theme or idea that is now part of the group presentation. Now, I can not tell which idea came from which member and what I introduced because everybody collectively elaborated on every suggestion and aspect of the film. By the end, one idea was completely different from its starting point and everybody had left their mark on it. Essentially, this was the process while organizing the presentation.
Finally, I volunteered to take the first part of the presentation and using the ideas and suggestion from my group members, I elaborated a little more and did a little more research to expand the notions about the director’s techniques in the film. Also for the presentation, I will introduce how the director rearranged critical elements of the film, and discuss a bit on why, and talk about the concept behind the title of book. I was also a part of the re-creating the parlor scenes from the movie for our presentation, which was the most fun part of the project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)