Race/Class/Gender, Prejudice, Discrimination, and Power
1. Who are the women we encounter in BNW and Gattaca? From these examples, what, if anything, can be concluded about the role of women in both BNW and Gattaca?
2. What can you infer about the attitude towards the poor in Ireland when Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal? How is this alike or different from attitudes towards people of working class or lower socioeconomic classes today?
3. How are the attitudes toward the poor in A Modest Proposal similar to the attitudes toward the Epsilons in BNW?
4. The class conditioning that exists in BNW is very explicit. What are the more implicit kinds of class conditioning in our society?
5. Though Swift’s notion of “eating the poor” seems extreme and appalling, he says “I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children” (2). In what other aspects of society do we more metaphorically “devour the poor”?
18 comments:
Racism is only used when necessary. What constitutes necessary? Why does a person, community or country need to have an unlimited amount of power? Why do they deserve that authority? Through actions of history, or in this specific case, “Tempest in the Wilderness,” genocide is justified through religion – reason for taking the easy way out of a conflict. When the English arrived in the New World, the Indians noticed similarities between themselves and the English, “the tubes make a smoke that rises into the air just like the smoke from our pipes,” (25). Known in psychology as the confirmation bias, the English disregarded the outreach of Indians for peace and looked solely for information to support their statement that the Indians were savages. Their hypocrisy in this situation - they had just been run out of England for their religion- exemplifies their intolerance toward an inferior group. Their claim is that the Indians are ignorant to religion, which contributes to their savagery, “who as yet lived in the ‘darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God,’” (33). The English choose a simple black and white world, wrong or right. They refuse any middle ground or compromise, “the goal of the war was to ‘root out [the Indians] from being any longer a people,” (36). By replacing “Indians” with any group that has ever been persecuted, genocide is clearly described.
I responded to question number 1. I believe that the women we encounter in BNW (Lenina) and Gattaca (Irene) do play the same role in a sense. Lenina begins to have feelings that are stronger than what she is conditioned to, and Irene falls in love. Though they are both important characters, they arent as rebelious as the men. They act more like a lady "should" act, and let all the men do the work. I suppose I can relate the two by not having their own voice. They watch things happen around them and never really chime in their own opinion. Maybe it is because they do not feel they have enough power in society as a woman to voice themselves? Irene becomes more suspicious of Jerome throughout the movie, but never builds up the strength to actually ask him if he was the one who killed the director.
My silent discussion focused primarily on the question, “How does the cultural and social construction of race in the context of The “Tempest” in the Wilderness play a role in our history as well as contemporary society?” Obviously, race has been an issue in America ever since its settlement by the British in the early 1600’s. And race is still an issue today. What I took away from the silent discussion was that the issue of race and how it plays into our society today, and how it affected our history, is a very controversial topic, and there are many varying viewpoints on it. Mine is as follows. Although racism did play a part in the founding of America (driving out of Indians and the practices of slavery), it was critical in making our nation as it is today. America was founded in order to provide freedom and liberty to its citizens. On my silent discussion, someone raised the excellent point that many of the early colonists left for America due to persecution (mainly religious) in England. Thus when it came time to forge a new government after the colonists won independence from England, they wanted to ensure that America was a land of freedom and equality. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out that way. However, we have progressed so much. The slaves were eventually freed; blacks were given the right to vote, as were women. And 44 short years after the civil rights act was enacted, America voted for its first black president. This isn’t a small deal, it’s huge. This shows that although America started out on shaky ground, it has changed. And the atrocities toward the Native Americans that Takaki outlined (“During one of the raids, the English soldiers attacked an Indian town, killing fifteen people and forcing many others to flee” pg. 34) for example, as well as the deeply entrenched institution of slavery that permeated our country early on makes it so much more impressive that we will have our first black president. It makes Obama’s election meaningful. So in this regard, I would argue that the racism that occurs in “Tempest” connects deeply with our history and our present. It made us who we are, and the reminder of the evil of racism will continue to propel us into a future with more equality for all Americans.
I responded to question 5, about Swift's metaphor of devouring the poor. Besides discussing the functions of this metaphor specifically in the context of A Modest Proposal, I discussed another example of one group "devouring" another from Tempest in the Wilderness:
Swift’s metaphor describing the rich eating the poor is significant because of its versatility. The idea of entitlement, power, and superiority appears not only within conflicts of differing socioeconomic classes, but between issues of race, religion, ethnicity, and gender. An excellent example would be the colonization of America. Starting in the late 1600s, Europeans made their way west to discover the New World, which, they found, was already inhabited by indigenous peoples. Rather than attempting to coexist peacefully, the land-hungry Englishmen pushed Native Americans out by means of force, violent war, and disease. Their justification for the take-over was rooted from the idea that they were more deserving of the land than the Indians. The natives were considered lazy savages who did not use the land to its full potential. In addition, the English thought themselves more deserving because of their religion and sense of superiority. When the Indians died from European diseases that their immune systems were not capable of fighting, the English considered this religious intervention, and believed that they had been given a great power: “God was ‘making room’ for the colonists and ‘hath hereby cleared out title to this place’… when the Lord decided to transplant His people, He made the country vacant for them to settle” (Takaki 40). This presumption strengthened English confidence of their superiority over the indigenous people.
Throughout history, wealthier, financially stronger people have found a way to dehumanize the poorer, fiscally weaker, people. Throughout my silent dialogue one of the main themes I found was that the poor, most of the time, were not responsible for the financial situations they found themselves in. Obviously some did, but many were born into their lot in life. Some wealthy people have found ways to set up barriers and stereotypes keeping the poor from achieving success or rising above their ominous positions. For example, they create an education system which is expensive and therefore not attainable for those poor families. Also, they label many of these poor people as stupid, lazy, and useless. As a result of this labeling and stereotyping, the richer people have produced an environment that continues to perpetuate itself. Some people continue to believe these stereotypes and even some poor people begin to believe that they will forever be destined to be poor and uneducated.
From the beginning of civilization, the importance of race and socioeconomic class positions have been fostered and nurtured in society. For the homeless or poor black Americans it is such a struggle, or even nearly impossible, to attain any kind of common wealth. The system has kept this race of people down for so long they don’t even know where to start digging themselves out. In both A Modest Proposal and The Tempest in the Wilderness this is illustrated vividly. For instance, in A Modest Proposal the author dehumanizes the poor by stating that besides eating them, there is really not a need for them. He is using satire, but he is also explaining in an extreme way how the English, the wealthy at the time, feel about the Irish, the poor. The English allege that because the Irish are “supposedly” lazy, then their value to the English is negative.
Also in the Tempest we see the power of the settlers versus the Indians, and the Irish. For example, the Tempest states, “The English colonizers established a two-tiered social structure: Every Irish man shall be forbidden to wear English apparel or weapon upon pain of death. That no Irishman, born of Irish descent, and brought up Irish, shall purchase land, bear office, be chosen for any jury or admitted witness in any real or personal action.” (Takari, 27) From this quote, it can be concluded that social class hierarchy and its significance started in the 1600’s. Already then certain people claimed to be stronger and better than others. The English made these “laws” because they claimed that the Irish were lazy, “naturally” given to “idleness” and unwilling to work for “their own bread”. (Takari, 27) The English also acted this way towards the Indians. The English automatically thought they were better and higher up on the social ladder. They knew they were stronger because they had the money, trade, and weapons that the Indians didn’t. The English took the Indians’ land because they said the Indians weren’t using the land properly and also because the English thought they had the right and power to do that. The English stereotyped the Indians and said “They are very lying wretches, and they are very lazy wretches; and they are out of measure indulgent onto their children; there is no family government.” Because of these stereotypes and the qualities they “supposedly” lacked, they lost their freedom and right to succeed.
On top of this, the English turned the Indians’ so called savagery into an issue of race. The English came to the conclusion that the color of their skin was made to be “bad and brutes”. They explained that it was a nature conflict not nurture. With this being said, the English said there was no way they could civilize the Indians. They used their racial background as an excuse to take their land away.
All through history powerful people have dehumanized the poorer classes. They have made them feel like nothing and set up impossible barriers to keep them away from success. The powerful elitist society made up of the rich felt as if they kept the other less worthy, poorer individuals, didn’t deserve the right to attain success. If they continued to keep these groups down, they would acquire and keep all the power, both physically and financially.
The topic of my discussion was the similarities between the attitudes towards the poor in A Modest Proposal and the Epsilons in “Brave New World.” People responded saying that the rich and upper classes like to believe that the lower classes are happy to serve them in society. It was also stated that the upper class tries to find the most efficient way for the lower class to serve them, regardless of the consequences. The comment that stood out most to me, however, was that the rich/Alphas seem to use the poor/Epsilons to justify their actions, just as the Europeans did to the Indians in “The Tempest.” It is interesting to connect all three texts in terms of how the groups in power try to rationalize the way they treat the other people in society.
In A Modest Proposal, the author attempts to explain that by giving the rich the poor peoples’ babies as nutrition, the lives of the poor would be enriched. It proposes the argument that instead of these poor babies living lives “wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands” (1). In this situation, the people in power (the rich) are rationalizing their actions by showing how much better the world would be if this proposal actually occurred.
The Epsilons in “Brave New World” live under very different circumstances. In this case, the Alphas are conditioned to appreciate the Epsilons, while the Epsilons are also conditioned to be happy with their jobs and position in life. The upper-class justifies the Epsilons’ poor lifestyles with a hynopedic chant, “We can’t do without any one. Even Epsilons are useful. We couldn’t do without Epsilons” (74). While no one in BNW society would ever want to be an Epsilon, they are conditioned to appreciate them.
In “The Tempest”, the Europeans had to find a justification for killing and torturing the Indians. Since the Europeans were the ones in power, they were able to treat the Indians as they pleased. To excuse their behavior, they claimed that “the Devil was portrayed as dark completed and Indian” (41). By determining that the Indians were actually the devil, the Europeans created a rationale to continue killing and taking over their land.
In all three texts, the groups in power live their lives as they see fit. Once they run into a moral issue or “bump” in their easy lives, they find an excuse or reason to get what they want from the people with less power and authority in their society.
Malia, in response to your post, I completely agree with most of your comparisons between the people in power and the people without power. Your connections from the Tempest and A Modest Proposal are very feasible. However, I believe the comparison between the Epsilons and the Alphas has more to it. You state, “no one in BNW society would ever want to be an Episilon”. This might be true if the people in the BNW society had our mindset. However, the beauty of the BNW society is that none of the people have desires, and they are conditioned to be happiest with whatever class they are in. The Alphas have no need to justify their actions because they feel no guilt or remorse for living a more comfortable lifestyle. Justifications are shown in the Tempest and A Modest Proposal because the people in power knew morally that their actions/ideas were wrong. In conclusion, due to the absence of emotion (desire, guilt, etc.) in the BNW society the people in power would feel no obligation to justify their actions towards the people without power.
Even more so than just the fact that the people in BNW have no desires, emotions, or guilt, I don’t think the alphas are really responsible for what is occurring in their society. Why should they feel remorse or need to justify their actions when they aren’t even the ones causing the situation? In the “Tempest” and “A Modest Proposal”, the people in power are directly oppressing those groups that are seen to be as lower than them. It’s really the World State in BNW that should be held responsible. The alphas are simply born into a society with a caste system already made and they are so brainwashed that they have no chance of thinking about the possibility of changing the system. The people in BNW don’t think for themselves. And those that try to are quickly removed.
Malia, in response to your statement, I’d like to point out that while I do like your connection between Epsilons and the poor people in Modest Proposal, Epsilons do enjoy their work because they are conditioned to enjoy it. For example, on page 59, when the Epsilon make the elevator go to the roof, he is very happy to see the roof. The Epsilons don’t have a chance to dislike their positions or think about their positions in society because of the decanting process that denied them intelligence by not giving them as much oxygen. I do agree that it is the upper class that justifies making the Epsilons inferior, but I don’t believe they do it out of spite; it’s simply the way that they’re conditioned. You can’t really blame them.
And while the in BNW, every caste appreciates one another, the same can’t be said for the poor in Modest Proposal. I think it can be reasonably inferred that the upper class did not appreciate the poor at all, but rather sought to eradicate them. I do believe, however, that no matter how bad the situation got, no person would think of eating the children of poor people, demonstrating how Modest Proposal is an excellent example of satire. In normal circumstances though, I don’t think the rich would ever think of needing a justification to get rid of poor people.
I do agree with you that the English used racism as a justification to kill Native Americans stemming from the amount of power they had as technologically advanced imperialists.
I’d also like to say that I don’t think that the people in BNW are inherently emotionless. It clearly says that Lenina has emotions at many times. The point is that soma inhibits these emotions, but only after the citizen in particular has started to feel them. They take soma in order to stop feeling, meaning that they do have the capacity for emotion.
Alice, I agree with your point about the epsilons enjoying their working compared to the poor in modest proposal. I think part of the satire in BNW has to do with how the lower class in seen as enjoying their work and having no complaint about having less power in society. It is unrealistic to think that people in a lower class in our society now, or even in Huxley's time were happy in their situations and I think that is where the satire/irony comes in. In BNW, their predetermined intelligence, paired with their conditioning makes it impossible for them to feel inferior, or to want to climb the social latter. In our society today, it could be race or education that decide who is in what class. But the main this it goes to show is that no matter what the time period, or in the story is fact or fiction, the idea of social class always turns up and there is always a reason why someone is in a lower class than another person. Whether its their DNA, their education, or their race, there is always a reason to discriminate and find a way society to be unequal.
Haley brought up the issue of who is really responsible for the oppression of the lower castes in Brave New World. While in the context of our society, we see the Epsilons as being mistreated, I don't believe any oppression is going on the Brave New World. When society switched over to the caste system, one thing was ensured: everyone would be happy. Through the eyes of our culture, we look at the Epsilons as having made a sacrifice to help society function better. However, in the reality of BNW, what did the Epsilons really sacrifice? No, they don't get to play Obstacle Golf, but if they're conditioned to be just as happy without playing it as an Alpha would be while playing it, nothing was lost, no one was hurt. Perhaps no one is being oppressed in the Brave New World at all. True, this may not have been Huxley's intended message when writing the novel, but it is most definitely something to consider.
In agreement with Anna and Haley’s claims that the alphas cannot be blamed, I suggest that we must still recognize their roles as a metaphor for oppressors in “A Modest Proposal” and “The Tempest.” Huxley may be illustrating a new point of privilege. While colonials justified acts of domination and cruelty by recognizing Native Americans as “devils” and Swift argued the necessity of devouring poor Irish babies based on their threat to society, Huxley proposes a society where no justification is needed. Brave New World may serve as a warning for a class system based on the ideas of divine right and Darwinism. As class gaps increase and social mobility decreases, people may find their finite place in a society and soon become reluctant to achieve greater things. In such a place, people will be content, causing a stagnate community without advancement or equality.
in question number 3, i think that they are treated quite simialarly. that is in BNW the epsilons are doing things that no one else wants to do. and so do the poor in a Modest Proposal, but the biggest diffrence that i see in the two is that the epsilons dont mind doing that work. in fact they actually enjoy it! this is because they are trained to like doing it, and not born into it like the poor people. though both (im sure even the epsilons) would rather be in a better position than they are. they are looked down upon buy the rest of society. though, epsilons are also viewed as necicary. where as the poor dont except for making "food".
I would like once again relate to my research topic, "defining happiness" Brave New World is full of characters who do everything they can to avoid facing the truth about their own situations. The almost universal use of the drug soma is probably the most pervasive example of such willful self-delusion. Soma clouds the realities of the present and replaces them with happy hallucinations, and is thus a tool for promoting social stability. But even Shakespeare can be used to avoid facing the truth, as John demonstrates by his insistence on viewing Lenina through the lens of Shakespeare's world, first as a Juliet and later as an “impudent strumpet.” According to Mustapha Mond, the World State prioritizes happiness at the expense of truth by design: he believes that people are better off with happiness than with truth.
Going along with Yein by relating to our research topics, my research is on drugs, alcohol, and of course..soma. I completely agree with Yein as using soma to replace bad times with happier halucinations. Soma gives people the opportunity to feel good about themselves and everything around them with the risk of becoming addicted to a drug and hurting the people that surround their lives the most. How do you guys think our world would be without constantly using and abusing drugs to be selfish and use it to make themselves feel better?
I agree with Ellie because I also believe that racism is never necessary, and that nobody has earned the right to put someone or any gender or race down. It's just annoying how a group of people can just pick out a specific race and act like they are better than them. No one is better than anyone, so hopefully people will stop with racial slurs.
Going along with yein and lauren's, my topic is about happiness and the american dream but in the story BNW people of the society don't show their true emotions. I agree with yein in that Soma is a loophole to get away from the life they are living. People resort to drugs for a quick relief and to avoid the life they are living. To answer laurens's question about how our life would be without drugs. I think the world would be a more calm and relaxed place because people will not feel the need to resort to a drug to hide from their problems, because now they can have a chance to solve what is wrong rather than just avoiding it and hiding behind drugs. Or do people think that without drugs everyone will just go crazy because they have nothing to hide behind and they will just take their problems on others?
Post a Comment