The Third Revolution

The study of humanity can be viewed from a great many standpoints, one of them being in terms of the human evolution of society. Many people have divided societal evolution into two “Revolutions”, or major changes in the underlying themes of human society. The author of "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984” addresses the third and final revolution of society, the abolishment of the desire to develop, a freeze in human evolution. For reasons of stability, it is predicted that this final revolution will occur, and is analyzed quite effectively through the use of Brave New World and 1984.

According to Will Focht of Oklahoma State University, human history has already been marked by two revolutions. The first of these came at the dawn of civilization, when humanity was attempting to rationalize its own existence. This first revolution established the existence of religious devotion as an explanation for humanity itself. The second revolution was the age of enlightenment, during which the sciences came to become the dominant driving force in society. However, even then the sciences were unable to stop the human quest to determine the nature of their own existence, something that no amount of empirical evidence seems to be able to quell. Many individual have predicated that a final revolution must come, one that abolishes the need to follow this quest, in order for true order to reign over the world. In this third revolution, the sense of individuality will be destroyed and will cause people to seek knowledge of their existence, thus causing much more stability and safety as individual desires become deadened, a major theme of Brave New World and 1984, as is noted in "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984”:

Huxley’s and Orwell’s future states are alike in abominating nothing more than the individual, and the plots of both noels are fundamentally accounts of how individuals or potential individuals are destroyed, exiled, or made to conform. (126)

This excerpt notes how both theses novels contain the fundamental goal of the third revolution, and are thus prime examples of its outcome.

The books Brave New World and 1984 both address the potential outcomes of this third revolution, each predicting a totally different futuristic world. In Brave New World, marriage, love, and devotion, the most basic of human ideologies, have all been done away with. In Huxley’s World State, all the citizens of the world are conditioned to love their positions in life, thus ensuring that they will be content with whatever job they are given and will not desire anything greater. Likewise, these individuals are given total sexual freedom, which thus allows people to indulge solely in the moment. They have no concerns with regards to the nature of their existence or of the existence of a higher being, and thus become slaves solely to the state, without any other possible ambitions. To cite "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984”, it was state that “…Huxley makes the point that terror is a less efficient administrative tool than pleasure; the stick less a guarantee of stability than the carrot” (120). What this essentially states is that the use of pleasure is powerful enough to deprive human beings of all their other innate desires.

The future created by Orwell is quite different from that of Huxley, but the end result of his false utopia is exactly the same. In 1984, the citizens of Oceana are subjected to brutal repression in which one is conditioned to fear everything and never speak a word of blasphemy against the party. The party represses all independent thought and sexual desire, and alters the pas constantly to meet its own needs. In the end, this society once again forces a person to give up their personal ambitions, thus causing utter stability as the individual itself is slain. It is stated in "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984” that “O’Brien’s aim, in other words, is to produce ‘neurologically’ and by means of intense conditioning a ‘new man,’ a man almost as new as the genetically engineered and scientifically conditioned new man of Huxley’s novel” (125). This excerpt shows how the aim of Oceana is simply to recreate humanity via a third revolution and kill every sense of individuality.

The third and final revolution of society is said by some to be only a matter of time. As society continues to advance, it moves only towards the destruction of its inhabitants. Whether this should be done through pleasure, pain, or some other detestable method is the only thing left to be seen.

Source:

http://environ.okstate.edu/staff/wfocht/Porch_11.pdf

The Freedom of Speech

In the western world, people have been given a great many rights that they take for granted, the most common of which is the freedom of speech. This right, which is considered to be inalienable as per constitutional law, is by far the most valuable right that a human being can have, and one that I could not live without. Likewise, without the right of free speech, no justice or change could ever be enacted in this world. In order to defend my own freedom to speak my mind, there are very few ends that I would not go to.

Despite my outward “icicle” appearance, I do tend to be a rather outspoken person. My moral views are quite different, my political views are rather extravagant, and my sense of humor has been described by some as one of the worst things that has happened to humanity in the last two decades. And though some people would rather than I keep to myself, there’s very little that can be done to silence my unusual personality so long as I don’t commit slander. That simple fact, though unfortunate for some, is a beautiful thing that I would never surrender. Though my ideologies may be considered to be somewhat exotic, basic human sensibilities demand that they still be spoken regardless of their nature. Without that ability to speak one’s mind, a person would lose their own personal identity; they would cease to be an individual. And without that right, I myself would most certainly go insane.

In addition to the personal expression that comes through free speech, the benefits to society as a whole are undeniable. In order for any change to ever come in this world, in order for improvements to be made and wrongs to be made right, people must be given the right to express their own views. In today’s society, people have been raised to think as individuals and freely express their own wants and needs, and consequently these individuals are enabled to enact changes upon the world in which they live. Were it not for the desire for the freedom of speech, the world in which we live in today would never have come into existence. In the 1700’s, the American colonies lived in a world where free speech was stifled as often as was deemed necessary by the British crown. This massive injustice sparked a revolution that changed the world, and so was born a new age of free speech and thought. Since then, free speech has come to reign over much of the western world. Though this opens the door for a great many conflicting views, it allows for a much freer expression of majority opinions, which in the end ensures a much higher level of stability to the world than any absolute monarchy ever could.

The expression of free speech is an integral part of the human spirit that cannot be denied. Without it, people would lose their own identities and would inevitably harbor feelings of repression that have such a negative effect on the human spirit. The inalienable right of free speech should never be denied to anyone, regardless of how extreme their views may be. Without these extremes, no change would ever be able to come to this world.

A Not So Perfect World

In recent years, science has provided humanity with the ability to literally design the future generations of its race. New developments in technology have brought humanity to the brink of being able to eradicate genetic diseases and a wide variety of mental disorders, achievements that were only far off dreams a decade ago. And yet despite these seemingly glorious developments as a result of human genius, a not so glorious future is looming over the human race. Despite the arguable benefits of genetic engineering, the threat that it poses to free will is too great to chance.

At first glance, a future without disease, mental retardation, and any other sort of mental illness would seem to be utter bliss. No longer would humanity be a slave to chance during conception; instead each individual would be a set of perfect genes in the eyes of their parents and society, with every new life exhibiting the exact traits desired by their creators. Superficially this would seem to be a golden age for humanity, an era that would allow mankind to elevate itself to God-like status and dominate over every aspect of their environment, including the make-up of their own bodies. But yet, would such a world really be so grand? Is that ultimate power truly something that humanity deserves to wield?

At the core of the western world lays the concepts of individualism and self-determination, and it has been engrained in the minds of most members of western society that they can become whoever they want to be through their own efforts. Naturally one could make the argument that, through genetic engineering, people would be designed to lack diseases and disorders that could limit their ability in the world. Consequently one could argue that because of genetic engineering human beings would be much more capable of achieving their life goals and ambitions. And in a world where human beings knew the limits of morality and playing God, this would hold true. But the intentions of some people have been and always will be flawed, thus destroying the delicate equilibrium of this ideal world.

Unfortunately, as happens with so many great ideas, this perfect world gets thrown into flux when one takes the nature of humanity into account. Initially genetic engineering would probably be used simply to filter out genetic disorders that could be harmful to a child. A few years down the road the industry would probably begin to market services that would also allow parents to design the physical appearance of their child. Next, naturally, would come the engineering of the mind of a new life, determining their level of intelligence, their potential for interest in certain fields, and essentially how they live out their lives. Over the span of a few decades, the concept of free-will would be annihilated. Genetically engineered children would be subject to the desires and feelings that were programmed into them by their parents, eradicating the sense of mystery and wonder that surrounds one’s own life. Now for arguments sake one would have to concede that not everyone in the world would choose this route for their child. But those who could afford to certainly would. After all, who wouldn’t want to have a child that was truly everything that they had hoped for?

To cite one potential outcome of genetic engineering, one could easily look to Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Despite the fact that this book is fictional, the world that he creates is one that could easily be created using the technology available to humanity today. In the futuristic, post-apocalypse world ruled by One State, Huxley has created a realm in which every member of society is engineered for the position that they will fill in life. A person’s size and intelligence is designed so that they can adequately perform their job, but have no hope of achieving anything more in life. From the moment of conception, the fate of every human being on Earth is already determined. In order to repress feelings of discouragement and malcontent at their position in society, all citizens of One State are conditioned to love their social and occupational status. However, as is the case with all man-made systems, there are occasional flaws. One malformed citizen, Bernard, attempts to look beyond the stability of One State and questions the merits upon which it is built, saying: “Yes, ‘Everybody’s happy nowadays.’ We begin giving the children that at five. But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else’s way” (Huxley 91). Bernard illustrates a fatal flaw in the One State system. Regardless of how “perfect” their system may appear, it’s repression of self-determination prevents people from discovering happiness, which in turn would lead one to question whether or not the citizens are truly happy at all. Though these people live in a world without disability or disease, they are incapable of determining their own fates or discovering their own pleasures in life. Their happiness is but a mask for the torturous existence that they really live.

The ability to play God has been sought by many for centuries, and now lies within the grasp of the entire world. Though the use genetic engineering for the purposes of creating a better, healthier world are noble, the true potential of this technology is much too dangerous to even be toyed with.

Family and Friends

When I look at my life, I don’t think I could ever stop making a list of the things I could be thankful for; my life itself, a good home to live in, a reliable car, and a college to attend in the future. But this year, more than anything else, I’m thankful for my friends and family. Without them, I don’t think I could have retained any trace of my sanity this year.

Summer vacation brought me to the brink of a very deep abyss. My mom was in and out of the hospital several times, and the doctors just couldn’t seem to figure out what was wrong with her. Both my dogs acquired an unspecified disease and died two weeks apart. I was trying to balance a full time job, a night class at the community college, and getting together the necessary paperwork to apply for early decision at the college of my dreams. My life had become a cycle of waking up, running myself into the ground, coming home, crashing in my bed, and praying to God that something else didn’t go wrong. And I was pretty sure that he had stopped listening.

I was in over my head. I knew I was in trouble, but I wasn’t able to bail myself out. But luckily I wasn’t entirely alone. My family was going through the struggle with me, taking the blows that came to our household as best we could. That simple companionship helped to at least quell the feelings of isolation that were brewing inside me. My greatest fear in life has always been being left entirely alone, without anyone to turn to. My family helped me to dodge that bullet.

My small circle of friends really was my saving grace. Over three months, I had almost forgotten how to laugh, but they managed to keep me going. I lived for a chance to escape my own life and spend a few precious hours with my friends, because in those brief moments I was able to be me again. For those brief spans of time, I could forget everything that was going on and simply laugh. And it was that laughter, that simple release, which really kept my mind going. And I really owe my friends the world for it.

Without my family and friends, I wouldn’t have gotten through the summer in one piece. They showed me the power and strength of love and caring, and how much it can really help another person. I really couldn’t thank these people enough for all they’ve done for me, and I only hope to be able to give back just as much as they’ve given to me.

Religion - What's The Problem?

Religion in America has long been one of the centerpieces of society, but as of late the standing of many religious institutions has been declining. Though the actual number of people who have declared themselves as atheists still remains relatively low, the number of people who do not actively practice their declared religion has risen greatly. With this rise in secularism has also come a sort of disdain for people who do openly and actively practice their religious beliefs, thus isolating them from the bulk of society. In Jeanette Wall’s The Glass Castle, this sort of stance is clearly illustrated, but likewise the book also places a great deal of stress on righting this current injustice.

We’ve all heard the term “Jesus Freak” before, and it’s never really used as a compliment. It’s a description used to single out a person who essentially wears their religion on their sleeve; they put their beliefs out there for the entire world to see. And in many cases, such people are either looked down upon or isolated by society. They almost seem to get sorted into their own social group much like jocks, nerds, techies, and the countless other social factions that exist in the world. But is such treatment right? Is it justified? I think that most people would say, “Of course not. I don’t feel that way at all.” But then why is such treatment so prevalent in today’s society?

In the modern world, there is a great deal of fear with regards to religious extremism. Naturally, as recent history has showed us, there are times when the followers of a religious sect can cross forbidden lines and commit massive atrocities. But should these instances be used as a precedent towards fearing religion as a whole? It would seem that in today’s world, it’s alright to say you believe in a God, but you’re not allowed to believe “too much”. People are expected to show a certain amount of restraint when it comes to such matters, almost as though they’re expected to keep their beliefs behind closed doors. In my mind, if you really are a devout follower of your religion, then you should show it. And no, I’m by no means advocating the violent expression of one’s faith that is actively practiced in certain areas of the world. But I do think that if a person wants to actively and peaceably express their religious beliefs to the general population, then they should be able to do so without being frowned upon as though they had violated some sort of taboo.

In The Glass Castle, this sort of religious phobia is clearly illustrated in how Jeanette and Brian deal with their sister Maureen. Maureen begins to take a sincere interest in the beliefs of her Pentecostal neighbors, whose beliefs seem somewhat outlandish to her siblings, as is made evident in this passage:

Under their influence, Maureen developed a powerful religious streak. She got baptized more than once and was all the time coming home proclaiming that she’d been born again. Once she insisted that the devil had taken the form of a hoop snake with its tail in its mouth, and had rolled after her down the mountain, hissing that it would claim her soul. Brian told Mom we needed to keep Maureen away from those nutty Pentecostals, but Mom said we all came to religion in our individual ways and we each needed to respect the religious practices of others, seeing as it was up to every human being to find his or her own way to heaven. (207)

Maureen was isolated by members of her own family because of her expression of her own religious views. She was quite devout, and she wanted the world to know about it. And because of this, she was viewed by her brother and sister as being borderline insane. However, in this instance, their mother acts as a stronghold of virtue. She encourages her children to accept each other’s religious views. After all, one’s religious beliefs are an immensely personal thing, and realistically they should be respected and accepted by everyone. Maureen wanted to make her religious affiliations a centerpiece in her life, and her mother recognized that the rest of the family would really have no choice but to accept those views. At the end of the day, Maureen herself should be the only person passing judgment on her own ideologies. Simply because they do not conform to those held by the bulk of the people around her is no indication that her views are incorrect or unjust.

Religion, like race, ethnicity, gender, and the vast number of attributes that people use to define themselves as individuals, should be treated with simple respect. Do people need to conform to a set of religious beliefs? No, if they want to be non-religious then that’s simply their own choice in how to express themselves. But everyone does need to respect the existence of each other’s views. Simply because a person may show a good deal of devotion is by no means an indication that they are or should be social outcasts. They just happen to have faith in something. And I sincerely doubt that anyone could argue that faith in and of itself is a terrible thing.

Masculinity, War, And Whatever Else Comes To Mind

There seems to be a consensus amongst the members of humanity that men are supposed to be simple and primitive. They’re supposed to be big, burly, and exhibit only basic intelligence, which in some cases may certainly be the case. But most of all, a man is never supposed to show fear. It’s just not supposed to happen. Regardless of the reason, be it thousands of years of conditioning, the pressures of society, or the distinct possibility that guys just really aren’t all that bright, men have accepted this opinion as fact, and most use it as the basis for their existence. This worldwide stereotype pushes many to act without reason, to do things they’d never do if they took the time to think about it. The sad truth of this situation cannot be made any clearer than it is in The Things They Carried.

Quite simply put, the entire concept of war is more than a little idiotic. Yes, I accpet that there are situations where war is deemed necessary by the bulk of the population, but just look at it this way for a moment. You always have at least two factions of people led by individuals who happen to have a dispute. When these individuals decide that they can’t tolerate the existence of one another, they send off their soldiers to kill each other. These young men, and now young women as well, head out to battle to kill people they’ve never met. Arguably, if they weren’t born in different countries many of these people would probably get along perfectly well. But they weren’t, so instead they’re just supposed to wipe each other out. And why? Because they were told to do so. They were given a gun, and they were told that the enemy had to die. Does this make sense? No. But then why do people do it? Why leave your home to kill a stranger? Why head to a foreign land so that a stranger can kill you? Whether or not you can answer these questions is a matter of personal opinion. But to the men in The Things They Carried, openly contemplating such ideas equated to social suicide; it was one of those things you just don’t do.

In the theater of war, there seems to be only one rule: be a man. Don’t ask questions. Don’t complain. Just try to survive, and if you’re not good at that then it’s your own fault. These statements summarize the essence of Tim O’Brien’s pseudo-fictional comrades, shedding more light on the reasoning behind their actions. O’Brien, like tens of thousands of other young men at the time, finds himself in Vietnam because he was unable to go against the will of society. If he had followed his inner voice, O’Brien would have found himself safely in Canada, safe from the physical and mental scaring of war. But O’Brien was a young man, and when Congress calls up the youth of America to go to war, you’re expected to go. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, your only other alternative is to declare yourself a coward and flee. The fact that you’re a human being, the notion that you have your own consciousness, simply does not matter. Essentially, O’Brien and so many other youth were caught in the rip currents of society, forced against their will to fight for ideals that were not their own.

And how did these young men feel? Were they content with simply bending to will of the masses? Maybe some were, but most certainly not all of them felt this way. O’Brien himself had massive personal doubts about the war. He wasn’t born to be a soldier, certainly didn’t fancy himself a killer, and harbored a very strong urge to flee to Canada and escape the hellish land he was about to be thrown into. And yet he still found the pressure of society too great; he ran the risk of losing too much by following his heart. Unfortunately, he isn’t content with his decision. In his own words, “I was a coward. I went to war” (O’Brien 61). O’Brien isn’t happy with his choice; in fact he really seems to look down on himself for it. In the instant that he chooses not to go to Canada, he submits himself to the aforementioned war machine. O’Brien stops believing in himself, stops standing up for his own ideas, and becomes another cog in the world machine. He can no longer afford to show fear, because doing so would be another violation of society’s standards, and since he’s chosen to uphold the ideals of others, he has no choice but to uphold all of them. The soldiers who unwillingly went to Vietnam had to act like “men” because it was just another step in submitting to society. They had gone to war because their people expected it of them. Then they had to act like supermen because that was expected of them as well. And the cycle goes on and on, a series of concessions in which the individual gives up pieces of themselves in exchange for stereotypes. We see it throughout The Things They Carried in the lives of every soldier O’Brien knew or invented (a whole other argument I’d like to avoid). None of them wanted to be there, but they were there all the same. In acting like automatons, they were simply continuing along the road society had paved for them.

A man is a “man” because that’s what society wants him to be. Likewise, in times of war, soldiers are expected to be super-human figures, mere pawns with no concept of self and an indifference to death. Is it fair? No. But it’s a part of the world that society has built. These injustices to the self are just a part of the social fabric of the world, complex patterns that all are expected to follow. Sadly, the men in The Things They Carried simply became another stitch in society, assuming the roles that were expected of them because they had no where else to go.