For you

I was told you would be the best teacher we would ever get, but I never fully understood the magnitude of what this statement meant until this year. You've taught me so much outside of literature (which is a lot seeing as how much you have taught us about language, and motifs, and novels) that I do not even know where to begin. You've taught me about myself and about others. I now know how to see both sides of the picture and how to enter the "on going conversation" of the world.

I don't think a day ever went by when we didn't complain about something in the beginning of the class, but you were always there to listen. Other students and I have decided you should change AP Language to Life Lessons 101 because what we learn transcends the classroom.

My mom wants me to be a teacher so I can be just like you and both of my parents have the upmost respect for you and your teachings. What they do not know, however, is that you are the AP Langers' mother away from home and that just like you have always been there for us, we'll be there for you!

Pleasure over Terror

There are arguably many similar characteristics between Brave New World and 1984—the characters, the divisions in the state, the destruction of the past, and the limits on scientific and technological advancements. However, these two dictatorships seek to control their people in two very opposite ways. The terror used in 1984 seemed to be proven as the driving force in any future dictatorship through the rise of Hitler and Stalin. The two men rose to world power through their use of fear and through the forced loyalty of their people. Nevertheless, the world saw the fall of both Hitler and Stalin Russia and the use of pleasure in Brave New World appeared to withstand the test of time. And now it seems that pleasure is the most likely source of any future dictatorship’s power.

With the rise of both scientific and technological advancements, the conditioning and genetic engineering of Brave New World are already being seen in today’s society. The brutality and atomic threats of 1984, meanwhile, have begun to decline.

From the perspective of 1948, the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four seemed very probable; but from the perspective of 1959, much less so. Soviet Russia after Stalin is no longer quite the brutal and terroristic state it had once been, and so, assuming that no atomic war intervened to destroy all calculations—and mankind—“it now looks as though the odds were more in favour of something like Brave New World than of something like Nineteen Eighty-Four” (13). (Conclusion: The Two Futures)

The end of the Cold War marked the decline of atomic obliteration, and although the U.S. is still threatened by nuclear advancements in North Korea and Syria, those threats are still drastically less than those of the Cold War. The real source of power seems to be coming from the area of science. Parents may screen their children for diseases such as cystic fibrosis and the debate of producing a completely genetically engineered child has begun. Governments have the knowledge needed to completely condition a person, but have morally refrained from doing so (at least publicly). The ability to completely rid the world of disease is on its way and with it travels a source of power—power from pleasure. Any future government will be able to harness that power to rid its country of pain, disease, and hardship. But Brave New World serves as a warning against any government using it to create a dictatorship.

Huxley argues it takes too much effort to fully produce terror within a population. He “makes the point that terror is a less efficient administrative tool than pleasure; the stick less a guarantee of stability than the carrot.” The inner party in 1984 works hard to produce fear within the outer party members. Thought police patrol throughout the city; the telescreens are always on and watching the party members, and the reader sees how long O’Brien must torture Winston before he finally submits himself completely to Big Brother. Despite all of this effort to produce terror within the population, it is still not completely effective. There are still people like Winston and Julia who purposely disobey party rules. There is this innate desire in them to rebel against the government that is trying to suppress them. And, yet, the government in Brave New World is trying to suppress its people, so why do not more citizens rebel? The answer is because the people of Brave New World do not know they are being suppressed. The Brave New World government has granted them pleasure; they are content with their lives because due to genetic engineering and conditioning they do not know anything else. Even Helmholtz does not purposely rebel against the government. Instead he is merely trying to find what else there is to life. He knows he has more potential, but just does not know where to find it. Because power from pleasure is more effective and easier to administer, a future dictatorship would use such pleasure over terror to control its people.

Additionally, any future dictatorship above all will want stability. Stability is key to how long a government will last and how much it will grow. Therefore, the search for power should be based upon what source will produce the most stabilizing effect. “The lust for power can be equally well satisfied by inflicting a humiliating pleasure rather than a humiliating pain; and the power of pleasure has the advantage of being more stabilizing.” Pleasure has this ability to be more stabilizing because the governed people will be content with what they have. They will not want more in their lives and will go through each day performing the same tasks over and over again without questioning their existence. The people of Brave New World find additional pleasure through sex and daily rations of soma. Sex is their outlet for their emotions and because they cannot stay committed to one person there is no fear of finding love. Soma on the other hand is an outlet from emotions and clouds any problems or worries the people may have. Today’s societies already have the scientific knowledge for contraception and hallucinogens and it is only a matter of whether a government decides to take advantage of these things, in addition to conditioning and genetic engineering, that they will be able to control an entire population.

While it appears because of scientific and technological advancements and because of a desire for stability that a future dictatorship would seek to use pleasure to control its people, there is still potential for the use of terror. It is important to realize, though, that the complete destruction of the past is necessary for either source of power to completely work. If a population has knowledge of the past, then there is the possibility of a rebellion for the way things were. The use of pleasure, however, would lower the risk of other rebellions due to contentment within the population, thereby making it a more desirable source of power.


Source:

Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984

Republican Party

Most children do not fall in love with politics at the age of seven. Even fewer associate themselves with a political party at the age of twelve. So how then did I become committed to the Republican Party? Perhaps, it was the political dinners at the age of four or the car rides listening to Rush Limbaugh. My family does, however, have differing political philosophies. My father does not believe in capital punishment. My mother believes in abortion. My grandfather is a registered Democrat. So what then keeps me committed to the Republican Party?

I believe in the Republican philosophy that “government is responsible for national defense and that only a strong America can remain a free America.” A weak country can easily be overtaken, but a strong one poses a formidable force in the world. America has become a world leader because its strength discourages enemies from attacking it. And this strength comes from both its military and from the ideas of democracy that established the country.

Many argue, however, that the War in Iraq and our deep involvement in the Middle East is an infringement on the rights of a foreign people, and in the process we are, therefore, destroying the cornerstone of America—freedom. But our national defense is actually protecting our freedom and the freedom of others, while keeping America safe! The rights of the people of Iraq have been suppressed by a dictator for too long. We may not have the right or the responsibility to impose our ideals and beliefs on the country, but we do have a responsibility to give them the right to live. Hussein murdered at least 5,000 of his own people in the chemical bombings of Halabja and although we have not found weapons of mass destruction, Hussein certainly did have them (hence the genocide in Halabja) and it is possible that he would have had them in the future. Through the War in Iraq, our national defense has kept America safe, while protecting the right to criticize or support the war.

I believe in the Republican philosophy that “the right of the individual to achieve the best that is within him, as long as he respects the rights of others, is the source of our Nation's strength.” Every person is created equal and should have the opportunity to reach his or her highest potential. The government should not tread on individual rights unless an individual has tread on the rights of others. If a person becomes a murderer, the government has an obligation to the victim to prosecute the killer lawfully. The punishment may involve the death penalty, but because the murderer has acted deliberately and because he treaded on the rights of another, we are not taking away his right to live. He had already taken that right away when he murdered his victim. The strength of America comes from the government’s ability to reduce its involvement in the lives of its people, while still protecting their right to live.

I believe in the Republican philosophy because I believe in a strong military and less government regulation.

Republican Philosophies from:

http://www.gibsoncotngop.org/philosophy.shtml

The Ayn Rand in Ms. Hassenplug? or The Ms. Hassenplug in Ayn Rand?!

Ayn Rand explains in her lectures on the Art of Nonfiction,

"Remember that if there was no indecisiveness [in writing], there would be no pleasure in solving a problem, nor in writing anything. Therefore, take the bitter with the sweet (which is a bromide I would kill you for using in writing)."

hmm...I think we may have been threatened not to use cliches before. haha

Progress

Social Darwinism allows for human progress. Herbert Spencer argues mankind has an innate desire to move towards “individuation.” People compete for jobs, look to move up in social classes, and defend their lives when threatened. This individuation, which is a product of self-interest and survival of the fittest, creates progress and growth. Although there would be progress in the allowance of genetic engineering, that progress would ultimately be stopped through the destruction of Social Darwinism.

To prohibit genetic engineering would be to prohibit progress, but only in the sense that the progress of genetic engineering would be stopped. The evolution of mankind and, therefore, the evolution of technology and national governments would continue. However, these progressions would ultimately be halted in the allowance of genetic engineering. Social Darwinism, as developed by Spencer, states “that the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous, is that in which Progress essentially consists…” (Spencer). Mankind develops from the simple to the complex. Numerous ethnicities, religions, governments, and social classes have been created throughout the history of the Earth. Genetically engineering embryos, whether it be screening for disease, designing physical traits, or choosing intelligence and strength, would stop this development. The characteristics of humans would be chosen for them. Their successes in life (lifespan, income, intelligence) would no longer be a result of perseverance or drive. Instead humans would not strive for a higher level of progress because they have already been genetically engineered to be at the highest level.

As seen in Brave New World, the world population has been genetically engineered and conditioned. There is no movement from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous because there is no progressive movement at all. Social Darwinism has been destroyed through the removal of individuation. As Henry Foster explains, “We also predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialized human being, as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers” (Huxley 13). Humans of the New World do not strive for more because they cannot. Epsilons are denied oxygen as embryos; freemartins are made sterile, and rocket-plane engineers are created to only enjoy being upside down. They have been denied the freedom to chose their own future life styles. The destruction of Social Darwinism in the Brave New World is due largely to genetic engineering.

Social Darwinism also includes class structure. It is assumed that “the mass of the community has become segregated into distinct classes and orders of workers” (Spencer). It can be argued, therefore, that the Brave New World keeps with Social Darwinism in its divisions of Alphas, Betas, Gammas, and Epsilons. However, this segregation is artificial. A primary component of Social Darwinism is the limited influence of institutions, such as government, on individual lives. “For human beings to flourish and develop, Spencer held that there must be as few artificial restrictions as possible, and it is primarily freedom that he…saw as promoting human happiness” (Sweet). The Brave New World government creates these divisions through genetic engineering and conditioning. By predetermining the lives of its citizens, it is not only imposing major restrictions on the freedom of individuals but it is also stopping progress. Genetic engineering, today, would also produce major restrictions on human life. Parents or government could control an individual’s life before he or she is even born. By controlling the genes of a human, an artificial life is created and the future progress of that individual could be prohibited.

While genetic engineering allows for progress, the results of such progress would cause the destruction of Social Darwinism and overall growth. And with the destruction of Social Darwinism and growth, human freedom, the source of happiness, would also be destroyed. The benefit in the allowance of the progress from genetic engineering does not override the negative elimination of societal growth. It is necessary to stop the progress of one event to save the progress of mankind.

Works Cited

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.

Spencer, Herbert. "Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism, 1857." Modern History Sourcebook. 7 Mar. 2008 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html.

Sweet, William. "Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)." The Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy. 7 Mar. 2008 . http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm.