Esy: Dystopia as Social Commentary: At What Cost Stability?

[Hypatia Agnesi]

Dystopia as Social Commentary: At What Cost Stability?by Renee ReavisIntroductionThroughout history, man has tried to find himself, to understand who he is and why he does what he does. From the Greek philosophers to the modern day, great thinkers have discussed the mystery that is mankind and observed the societies in which they lived. Some, such as Sir Thomas More of England, saw the problems in their societies and proposed solutions. In 1516, More published his book Utopia, which was written in Latin and outlined a rational society of shared property, little war, and complex social structure, all of which led to a stable and tranquil society (Book II). The name, coined by More, is a combination of two Greek words that mean "no place" and "good place" (Wikipedia "Utopia"). It is sometimes considered the first great piece of social writing in modern Western literature. Others, such as Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), wrote social satire (Gulliver's Travels, a fictitious travelogue, and A Modest proposal) as a way to comment on contemporary society, "to give Englishmen a critical point of view of their own society and habits" (Wikipedia "Gulliver's Travels", "Jonathan Swift"). Writers have continued to comment and satirize their surroundings through to the present day.Later, in the 19th century, social thinkers began to look at industrial life and dream up utopias, now seen as a way to fix it and cure the social ills industrialism and capitalism seemed to have caused. Utopias did not necessarily need to be based in reality, being more idealistic than realistic. Communism and socialism were devised at this time, by early sociologists such as Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, who wrote the economic analysis Das Kapital from 1867 to his death in 1883 (Wikipedia "Marxism"). Marx and Engles' The Communist Manifesto outlined a way to actually achieve their ideal of a communist society, their utopia. Around the same time, authors began to write fiction that used contemporary science and technology as a basis for the extrapolation of cautionary stories, now known as science fiction. The first science fiction novels were Frankenstein (Mary Shelly, 1818) and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (R. L. Stevenson, 1886), which launched the genre as we know it (Wikipedia "Science Fiction").In the late 19th century, John Stuart Mill coined the term dystopia, as an antonym to More's term utopia (an imaginary good place) (Wikipedia "Dystopia"). Dystopian fiction emerged around the turn of the twentieth century, which, like science fiction, extrapolated present situations into cautionary tales of the future. Dystopias are generally based in contemporary social trends, though they often make extensive use of technology to make their futuristic worlds plausible. At its core, a dystopia is a world gone wrong. The most obvious types of dystopias are post-apocalyptic or otherwise abjectly terrible worlds, but not all dystopias need to be like this. Perhaps the world or society the author creates seems perfect (a utopia), but something is very, very wrong. This "false utopia" would be classed as a dystopia as well. Dystopian worlds serve to show the negatives an author wishes the reader to consider, as a sort of expanded parable. Authors draw from the groundwork of social analysis and satire, as well as the method of extrapolation, to formulate their imaginary worlds and draw the reader in. Some works that epitomize this genre are Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, George Orwell's 1984, and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Dystopian literature has been written throughout the 20th century as a form of social commentary, warning readers about the possible implications of social tendencies, and focusing especially on the loss of such things as individuality, critical thought, culture, freedom, and equality. This leads ultimately to questioning what it means to be human and exploring the proper role of the individual in society, forcing the reader to think.Loss of individuality, thought, and passionIndividualityPerhaps one of the most widespread themes in dystopian fantasies is the loss of individuality, thought, and passion. Most conspicuous of these is the loss of individuality: if there exists an oppressive government or rigid society, the individual becomes distinctly second to the society at large. Brave New World (Huxley, 1932) explores the loss of individuality in a false utopia set approximately 600 years in the future (that is, 600 years from the time the book was written). In this society of mass production and happiness, social predestination, euphoric drugs, and heavy conditioning of the young have created social stability at the cost of individuality. As two major hypnopaedic statements (words repeated during sleep to condition the subject) put it, "Everyone belongs to everyone else," and "Everyone is happy now" (Huxley 29, 50). This belief system is ingrained through extensive conditioning, and adults are destined to behave like infants, succumbing to all carnal urges happily, and using Soma (the perfect euphoric drug) to spare them from dealing with any painful thoughts or feelings that might arise. Rigid social (and intellectual) castes predetermine the type of work an individual does, and the lowest castes consist purely of groups of twins, essentially removing any possibility of individuality.In a different vein, George Orwell creates a futuristic nightmare of what a socialist world might be like in his classic novel, 1984 (1948). It is in this book that readers first meet the personality known as "Big Brother", who has become iconographic of any oppressive regime that ignores privacy and invades the life of the individual. Regulations are strict far beyond the point of absurdity, surveillance is complete, and historical revisionism is active and constant. The individual is forced to conform to survive, and propaganda is used extensively in an attempt to fool people into believing this is the way the world -must- be in order to function properly. In these books as in others not mentioned, dystopian authors may use an oppressive government or social structure as a way to suppress individuality.ThoughtIn a similar way, an oppressive society can serve to minimize thought. The individual might be discouraged from thinking of what might be, as in Brave New World, 1984, and The Giver (Lowry, 1993) The society outlined in The Giver is a false utopia that is set up to work smoothly by eliminating differences that might cause strife, and offering simplistic answers to any questions that might arise. By offering ready answers, members of the community are discouraged from thinking of what might be or what should be. In fact, community members are totally unaware of what exists outside their community, and are not encouraged to think critically at any point. Brave New World employs a similar tactic, providing hypnopaedic answers (the society's "morality") for any questions that arise regularly and pushing Soma at any time that serious (and therefore potentially destabilizing) concerns arise, to force down any real reflection.1984's historical revisionism and legal rigidity serve to force down individual thought for the sake of simple survival. The government in 1984 has also instituted huge revisions of the English language in a way that reduces the overall vocabulary significantly (46). Anthropologists have theorized about how language can reflect cultural reality. The theory of linguistic relativity (Saphir-Whorf hypothesis) proposes that language guides individual thought and creates a "cultural reality" (Haviland 106). In a similar way, the loss of language actually reduces the ability to think certain thoughts in the society of 1984. These books show readers, among other things, that they should not take for granted their right to think as they wish, or indeed, the ability to think at all.PassionClosely tied in with the right to think is the ability to feel passion and express it. The same three books--The Giver, 1984, and Brave New World--all touch on this important point. In 1984, permission is required for even such personal decisions as marriage, and passion has been removed from life in its various forms, such as sexual passion, passion for life, passion for work, passion for anything that our society values, all in the name of a stable society and the way it "has to be". Brave New World, in spite of its emphasis on sex and other pleasures, ignores deep passion, and all real emotion is supposed to be subverted and blunted by soma. Medical knowledge has even progressed to the point where doctors know that human physiology requires passion, and thus simulate it at regular intervals. Bernard Marx, the main character, even pontificates that he wants to feel, and he is answered with another piece of hypnopaedic wisdom, "When the individual feels, the society reels" (Huxley 62). The architects of the current regime decided that happiness was far more important to a stable society than actual passion, and the morals and actions of the book's characters reflect this. Far more than the others, The Giver addresses the loss of passion and emotion as its primary focus. Emotions such as love are lost, and life is designed to be predictable, stable, and essentially boring. When the main character, Jonas, receives memories of the distant past, he discovers just how much his society is lacking in terms of music, art, variety, pain, joy, and love, and he goes so far as to sacrifice himself to give memories of these things back to the community. This is a rare instance of actual societal change, but it underscores how important passion is. Passion, thought, and individuality are vital parts of what makes us human, and Brave New World, The Giver, and 1984 underscore this by showing the reader what life might be like if they were removed almost entirely.Censorship and the loss of cultureCensorship and its various formsAlthough many dystopian works focus almost entirely on what a terrible world can do to individuals, many others deal with the culture at large as well. In addition to highlighting what an individual might lose out on, such as individuality or the ability to feel passion, there are things that an entire society can lose out on. In The Giver, for example, there is no mention of art anywhere, and literature and music are mentioned specifically as novelties that are not available to the average person (94, 157).Much of this loss of culture exists as a result of censorship in one form of another, either external, as might be imposed by an oppressive government, or self-imposed. Self-imposed censorship can resemble brain-washing, as in 1984, Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 (1954), and Brave New World. It is achieved by constant bombardment with propaganda and can force a change in behavior, as in 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, or by conditioning, as in Brave New World. In The Giver, censorship is not even a recognized issue, as those things censorship would seek to suppress, such as subversive writings or dissidence are utterly removed from the community consciousness, essentially, making the censorship complete and unseen. Similarly but to a lesser extent, the world of Fahrenheit 451 extrapolates 1950s American culture, full of materialism and uninterested in the life of the mind. This is shown through the utter absence of literature in the lives of the general culture, which apparently reached that culture voluntarily by moving toward television and other vacuous distractions (89). Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, and The Giver show clearly that censorship need not take the stereotypical top-down, "Big Brother" form most often conjured in discussions of censorship and outlined in 1984, but rather can take the far more insidious form of cultural self-censorship.Loss of high cultureCensorship, as used by the authors of the books referenced above, can point clearly to what amounts to a larger problem: the loss of culture. In Fahrenheit 451, books are not only illegal, but taboo and burned on sight by everyday citizens, as popular culture has shrunken to pure spectacle. Inane, very short, television shows full of loud music and bright images, lacking any substance whatsoever, are the order of the day. This demonstrates an extreme lack of what is sometimes called "high culture", which consists of art, literature, music, and a general interest in these things shown by the general population. Brave New World shows a lack of such classically defined high culture through something like the early workings of 20th century popular culture: "feelies", as opposed to the "talky" movies introduced in 1927 with The Jazz Singer (Wikipedia "Talkies"), large gatherings for dancing to popular "synthetic" music with nothing to say, and scents as entertainment (50-51). Any high culture that might have existed in the past in 1984 has been ground down to nothing, through sweeping cultural and historical revision that formed the culture into a bleak wasteland. Whether it happens from the top or from the bottom, culture can easily be lost when censorship takes hold and destroys those things that remind us of what is important.Relationship breakdownThe loss of true substance, as shown in the entertainment of Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World as well as in the bleakness of 1984, is not only present in popular culture, but in interpersonal relationships as well. When apathy and lack of substance take hold, it can lead to interpersonal disconnectedness and the breakdown of relationships. After all, if one is constantly concerned about being watched or about being stomped down for saying or thinking the wrong thing, suspicion becomes rampant, and relationships become superficial. This is a major theme of 1984, as the surveillance of everyone's lives breads distrust among family members, neighbors, and coworkers. At the end of the book, the relationship between Winston and Julia is changed irrevocably when they are each forced to sell the other out in order to survive (240). In Fahrenheit 451, the very distractions of entertainment have caused a loss of relationships among friends and members of families. Individuals are forgotten when they leave one's sphere of awareness. The very integrity of a relationship can be destroyed by suspicion or distraction, as the focus is taken away from the other person and placed on one's self.It is not only friendships and marriages that suffer from cultural breakdown, however. Brave New World takes a very different approach from 1984, as false intimacy is pushed. Sex is everywhere, but close romantic relationships are taboo, since "Everyone belongs to everyone else," and since the advent of artificial production of children at centers designed to fertilize, grow, "decant", and raise children, the concept of a family has become taboo as well, to the point of involuntary disgust at the very mention of anything family-related (29, 23-28).Taking a very different view on family life, The Giver manages to present a breakdown of deep relationships nonetheless. In order to remove pain from life, love among family members and true closeness and understanding among friends have been removed as well. The lack of love is exemplified in two different scenes. In the first, Jonas receives a memory of Christmas in a family, a family of biologically related individuals of various generations and full of love and intimacy, and realizes what his own family life lacks (122-126). In the second, shortly thereafter, he asks his parents if he is loved and is rebuffed for using imprecise language; pride in accomplishments and such are acceptable thoughts, but love is not (127). Even erotic love is suppressed entirely through the use of drugs in The Giver, removing love from marriages and turning them purely into partnerships meant to raise children, which will eventually be dissolved when those children become fully adult and form families of their own. The children are also not born to their parents, but assigned to them after being born to specially selected "birth mothers" (21-22).In Fahrenheit 451, families have lost all importance whatsoever, as individual apathy and general relationship breakdown take their toll on parent-child relationships as well. The phenomenon of television as babysitter reaches the absurd extreme, as parents take no interest whatsoever in their children's lives. Even the act of having children has lost its importance, as one woman talks casually about the dozen-odd abortions she's had over the years (96-101). Cultural breakdown in its various forms, as shown in these examples, can utterly decimate interpersonal relations as we know them.Social inequality and economic stratificationSeparation and stratificationDystopias typically feature not only personal losses such as the loss of individuality, or cultural losses, but often feature overwhelming inequalities and stratification as well, both social and economic. In some cases, social stratification takes place as relationships and overall culture breaks down, as shown to some extent in 1984, or it might take place as an imposed condition instituted by a ruling power, shown clearly in Brave New World, 1984, and the film Metropolis (1927). In both real and dystopic worlds, a lack of communication makes it easier to stop seeing a fellow human being as a person and to start to think of that being as no more than the role they perform in society. Interpersonal ties become strained, appreciation for others' significance wanes, and disregard for others naturally follows. This paves the way for social stratification, inequality and exploitation, which play huge roles in many dystopias.Before inequality can easily take hold, it is important to change the way people live, in the form of social separation. In Brave New World for example, generations brought up in a rigidly controlled caste system have brought about total social separation among the five constituent castes. The higher the caste, the smarter, taller, and more privileged the individual. The leaders of Brave New World use strict conditioning to bring about total class consciousness and maintain the stable, though highly stratified and unequal, society. In 1984, through extensive use of propaganda and force, a society of Party members and "proles" (short for proletariat) is maintained. All power rests with Party members, who are highly controlled and monitored, and much of the labor comes from the proles. Metropolis maintains a society reminiscent of industrialist nightmares, of a totally separated society of owners and workers, whose social lives never meet. As the societies outlined in these books show, the less one individual actually interacts with another, the less consideration he needs to employ and the easier it becomes to disregard others.Social inequalityOnce individuals in a society have great disregard for their fellow man, those who would seek to exploit the situation frequently do. Those who seek power can typically gain it with enough hard work and manipulation, pushing aside any who get in their way. Whether it is institutionalized from the top, as in the way Alphas hold power in Brave New World or the Party's control of 1984 society, or economic as in Metropolis, those in power can do terrible things. In Brave New World, the various factors of genetics, predestination, and conditioning, have brought about not only power and privilege for the higher castes, but also total powerlessness and mindlessness for the lower castes, who function as little more than human machines and are built and conditioned to like it. Individuals in Brave New World cannot help living out their destined caste role, so Huxley is able to portray the inequalities and such as continuing indefinitely. The irony, of course, is that Alphas, with all of the power they hold over the society and privileges they enjoy, are just as much slaves to their fate as any of the lower castes, being bound by their obligations to the happiness and stability of everyone else. In a different twist of irony, Party members in 1984 hold the more privileged positions in Oceania, but they are utterly subject to surveillance and government control, far more so than any prole on the street. The proles, though subject to laws and political tides, are far more free in their day-to-day living than any closely controlled Party member. Unlike the proles of 1984, the workers of Metropolis lead controlled and subjugated lives, with no power whatsoever. In all three instances, the distributions of power, freedom, and authority, are unequal.Economic inequalityAs with those who seek power, those who seek wealth will frequently acquire it through hard work and manipulation of others. Economic inequality goes hand in hand with social inequality, as well, since it is easier to gain wealth when one already holds some power. Wealth need not be only monetary, either: luxuries provided based on one's position or influence can produce material inequality. Economic inequality in a monetary system comes down to purchasing power, but in a system where monetary differences among individuals are unimportant, other material goods and luxuries come into play to determine economic power. 1984, which is set in a socialist and therefore purportedly equal society, illustrates the effects of non-monetary differences in economic standing. Privileged members of the Party are treated to more luxuries than others, and in turn Party members are treated to more guaranteed necessities than proles (138-147). These examples show that those with influence or favored status can achieve luxuries inaccessible to those beneath them on the social and economic ladder. This favored status is shown even more clearly in Metropolis. The sons of the owners and leaders of Metropolis never work or interact with those beneath them, but simply enjoy their idyllic retreat above the city, created for them by their fathers, unaware of what goes on in the city below. This sort of continuation of inequalities occurs both in the dystopic worlds and in the real world, and it has prompted sociologists to ponder what sorts of real world conditions actually bring about and perpetuate this state of affairs.What makes us human?DehumanizationA common theme in dystopian literature is the exploration of what makes humanity human, a question which touches on all areas discussed above as well as many others. What is it that is so special about humanity, and how much can you take away from that until that essential humanity is gone? How far can we carry the process of dehumanization until there is no humanity left? Authors may ask this in such specific contexts as the replacement of humans with robots, the loss of cultural meaning for life, and uniformity, among many others. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Phillip K. Dick, 1968) and the movie adaptation, Blade Runner (1982), illustrate post-nuclear war, post-emigration Earth, where androids begin to replace humans in human colonies, and sometimes seek to pass as humans on Earth itself. Through encounters with these androids, Dick uses the bounty hunter protagonist, Rick Deckard--who may or may not be an android himself--to question just what it means to be human. 1984, as mentioned above, addresses the loss of culture as a result of propaganda and censorship. Through the personalization of the story itself, Orwell is able to lead the reader to ask how much of an individual's human identity is wrapped up in the surrounding culture, and how the loss of culture affects this identity. 1984 and Brave New World both question the importance of individuality, and therefore its effect on the inherent humanity of the individual, when that individual is no different from those around him. These aspects of human identity, when questioned, are fundamental to the effectiveness of the stories.Perhaps an even more resounding aspect of human identity is the power of self-determination and initiative. Books such as 1984, with its government control, and Brave New World, with its predestination and social order, show what life might be like if self-determination were removed society-wide. On a far more individual note, however, The Truman Show (1998) questions what happens when only an individual is controlled by outside forces. It follows Truman Burbank, raised from birth by a corporation to be the star of a television show of his life. This corporation controls every aspect thereof, from the climate-controlled "set" in which he lives, to the actors hired as the people he interacts with, to the very major events which shape his perspectives and beliefs. Through the constant control, Truman grows up the person the corporation wants him to be, living his little predictable insurance-salesman-life with his pre-selected wife and best friend, until he notices irregularities in the world around him. Through a great deal of ingenuity and determination, he unveils the true nature of the "world" in which he lives, and ultimately he escapes to lead a presumably free life, unhindered by outside control. The Truman Show, unlike Brave New World and 1984, shows a protagonist defeating and escaping the control over his life, but all three stories examine and underscore the importance of initiative, especially the negative effects of its absence. The removal of self-determination, ultimately, becomes just one more agent of dehumanization and one more way to question what it is that makes us human.Power of the motivated individualTruman's pattern of curiosity and discovery is similar to that found in other dystopias, where a single, curious individual takes notice of one or another aspect of the society or world around him and ultimately reveals the underlying problems in the society. In The Truman Show, the underlying problem is the obvious corporate control of Truman's life, and Truman is able to reveal this and eliminate that threat. In Fahrenheit 451, on the other hand, Rayford Steele unveils the social vacuum and the problems with censorship in his society but does not reverse them single-handedly. Although he ultimately does his part and escapes his doomed city with a book memorized, to join the ranks of remaining intellectuals on the run, it is only with the hope that maybe, some day, they might be able to change their culture. Similarly, Jonas from The Giver escapes his community in the hope that his memories of the past might leave him and be transmitted back to the other members of that community, in order to bring passion and understanding back to their lives. He wishes to upset the status quo in favor of a more painful but ultimately deeper and richer future, and Lowry leaves the reader with the sense that he has most likely succeeded, when he dies in the snow at the end of his flight. This kind of "rugged individualism", paired with drive and curiosity, can form the backbone of a dystopian plot, and it proves quite effective for these pieces of literature and film.Human potential, good and badPhilosophers, ancient and modern, have often held up the drive to achieve great things as a vital part of human nature, perhaps the most important part of that nature. Dystopian fantasies often play off of that belief, by showing both the good and the bad that can result from the great things mankind accomplishes, both large and small. On a grand scale, authors often show grand scientific or social breakthroughs, or predict the same, in order to address what might come of them. Huxley describes great leaps and bounds in bioengineering and mass production, as well as advances in psychology, simply as a way to show what evils might result from those changes. Orwell shows the extrapolation of 1940's Soviet life in 1984 to warn what might befall the world should Socialism be allowed to take hold. His book can be seen as a treatise on social control in general, showing the personal as well as societal effects of strict control, which is in itself a great human achievement. The Giver's world exists only because those in the distant past managed to unify and standardize at least a group of people and order their lives. Even if the individuals in the communities have no idea how their world came to be, the founders of their way of life achieved much in making that way of life possible and seemingly perpetual. Blade Runner shows a world where man has created androids so lifelike that they have threatened to blur the boundaries of human and machine. The Truman Show examines the great achievement of Cristof, the show's creator, in making Truman's world possible, and then outlines the personal devastation that that manufactured world has wreaked on Truman himself. Its characters actively discuss the moral and ethical issues of the show's existence and Truman's de facto imprisonment in it. No matter what it is mankind achieves, it seems an author somewhere, somehow, can show just what might befall those same achievers should their accomplishments and creations go awry.And yet, in spite of the terrors human achievements can wreak when perverted and allowed to run wild, dystopic authors can also outline the great bravery and nobility of the human spirit, through the actions of their protagonists and others. A single motivated individual can, indeed, change the world, or at least try. Rayford Steele in Fahrenheit 451, Jonas in The Giver, and Truman in The Truman Show, all show a great deal of motivation to change the world in which they live. They seek to at least understand what is wrong with it in the hope that they might influence others to change it in their own ways, if they themselves cannot affect that change. These protagonists represent the good and noble side of human nature, and what even those terribly flawed or frightened humans can accomplish. They show yet one more side to what it means to be human. Whether it is through the negative examples of dehumanization or accomplishments gone wrong, or through the positive examples of the noble and motivated individual, authors seek to challenge readers to understand themselves as members of mankind, to examine the very stuff that is humanity itself.ConclusionDystopian fiction explores many facets of human existence and society, constantly pushing the readers to understand themselves and the world they live in. What might have led various hypothetical societies to their proposed state of affairs? How important are those things the readers value, and is it acceptable to lose those things? At what point do the benefits gained come at too high a cost? The very types of dystopias created to prompt this discussion overlap to a great degree. Some false utopias are simply there, with no clue as to their origins, such as the idyllic Community setup of The Giver. Others arise as a result of some terrible event, as in Brave New World where the current social order was instituted after a world war, when the population at large no longer cared at what price their social stability came, as long as it was guaranteed. Then there are the societies that are obviously not utopic and are indeed quite flawed and sometimes unstable, but which try to convince the populace that they are, such as Fahrenheit 451 and 1984. Fahrenheit 451 has a fa?ade of happiness plastered over a world of nuclear war, and 1984 has a heavy layer of propaganda assuring the population that continual war is vital and is not there simply to maintain stability and control.These different types of dystopias all serve different purposes in bringing to the forefront different aspects of life and society, to question each in turn. The loss of individuality, critical thought, and passion, and the loss of culture through censorship, prompt the reader to consider how group life and individual life interact. Outside control leads to both the loss of richness in an individual's life as well as to a loss of substance in the society at large. Social and economic stratification then develop from and give back to these social ills, as a loss of substance and social cohesion can lead to stratification and exploitation, which then lend themselves to the oppression of the individual and the suppression of cultural expression, which then lead back to the unhindered existence of inequalities. These many individual and collective losses then draw a picture of dehumanization, the denial or suppression of that which encompasses human nature and determines good human values. The process of dehumanization gives readers a glimpse of the heavy costs at which these dystopic societies are created, and forces those same readers to consider what makes a person a person, deep down. The purpose of a dystopia, when all is said and done, is to prompt critical thought in its audience.The impetus for critical thought does not lie in dystopias alone, however, but is the core of all good literature. Good literature examines the human spirit, shows both the costs and the benefits of human actions, and is hopefully entertaining along the way. The best dystopian stories fit into this category perfectly, which is why they are widely used in schools and held up as classics. Their collective prophetic nature continues to underscore the importance of listening to what they have to say, even when it is uncomfortable, or more importantly, especially when it is uncomfortable. Aldous Huxley warned readers of Brave New World about what might happen when materialism and a new-found sexual freedom had taken their course, and the society described is more familiar now than it would have been in the 1930's, when the book was new. Similarly, Ray Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451 based on 1950's culture, predicting a lack of interest in the life of the mind, the rise of mass-media, and a major breakdown of families and friendships. His vision of the future, like Brave New World, seems more at home now than ever, especially now that self-censorship has gripped modern discourse under the guise of politically correct "free speech". George Orwell's austere warning about the great dangers of censorship and "Big Brother" social control in 1984 still sparks debate over the same influences in modern society. This is especially common now, with the rise of the Internet, a dearth of laws protecting privacy in all aspects of life, and the general atmosphere of suspicion that developed in the United States after September 11. Over and over, dystopian authors are able to latch onto a potentially dangerous social trend and roughly predict the future. The more these predictions come true, the more readers are forced, again and again, to reevaluate their world, reevaluate their values, and reevaluate their lives. Dystopian literature serves these vital needs as resounding social commentary and literature that maintains and increases its importance as the years go by. Works CitedBlade Runner. Videocassette. Ridley Scott. Warner Studios, 1999. VHS. 117 min. Based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Philip K. Dick, 1968.Bradbury, Ray, Fahrenheit 451. 1968. New York: Ballantine Books, 1991.Dick, Philip K., Blade Runner: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep 1968. New York: Ballantine Books, 1982.Haviland, William A., Cultural Anthropology. Jefferson City: Von Hoffman Press, 2002.Heinlein, Robert A., Stranger in a Strange Land. 1968. New York: Berkeley Publishing Group, 1991.Huxley, Aldous, Brave New World. 1932. New York: Bantam/Harper & Row, Publishers, 1966.Lowry, Lois, Giver, The. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Books for Young Readers, 1994.Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedriech, Communist Manifesto, The. 1848.Marx, Karl, Das Kapital. 1867.Metropolis. DVD. Fritz Lang. Kino on Video, 2002. 124 min. Restored authorized edition of Metropolis, first released in 1927.More, St. Thomas, Utopia. 1516. Ed. Edward Surtz, S.J. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.Orwell, George, 1984: A Novel. 1949. New York: New American Library of World Literature, 1962.Schaefer, Richard T., Sociology. San Francisco, McGraw Hill, 2003.Shelly, Mary, Frankenstein. 1818.Stevenson, Robert Louis, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. 1886.Swift, Jonathan, Gulliver's Travels. 1726.Swift, Jonathan, Modest Proposal, A. 1729.Truman Show, The. Videocassette. Peter Wier. Paramount Pictures, 1998. 103 min."Dystopia." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Nov 2004, 14:26 UTC. 28 Nov 2004 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia>. "Gulliver's Travels." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Nov 2004, 22:40 UTC. 28 Nov 2004 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver%27s_Travels>. "Jonathan Swift" Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Nov 2004, 10:43 UTC. 28 Nov 2004 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Swift>. "Marxism." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 26 Nov 2004, 17:30 UTC. 28 Nov 2004 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism>. "Science Fiction." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Feb 2002, 15:51 UTC. 28 Nov 2004 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Fiction>. "Talkies." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 28 Jun 2003, 19:05 UTC. 28 Nov 2004 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talkies>. "Utopia." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 16 Nov 2004, 21:37 UTC. 28 Nov 2004 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia>. *throws grenade for the hell of it*BO0O0O0O0/\/\!!!!!!Edited by: Ari Rahikkala at: 2/3/05 2:54

[Unknown]

(This post is missing and can not be restored)