Cat’s Cradle and Postmodernism

Modernism was a period that searched for truth and meaning in order to maintain order.  The ideas of modernism can be reflected in modernist architecture as Jim Powell writes in his book Postmodernism for Beginners “This new architecture was to be rational… for by turning to mathematical calculations it would reveal universal law - the principles that govern our universe” (Powell).  As Powell introduces postmodernism, he questions, “What if the world was growing tired of failed Utopias? Then the utopian theories and the architectural projects would have to change” (Powell).  Postmodernism began after the failed attempts of making order based on truth and it started as pop collages and pop art were created. 

Cat’s Cradle is post-modernist because it is a response to modernism.  Vonnegut is satirizing the ideas of modernism and the pursuit of truth.  He does this through the creation of his fake religion, Bokononism.  The first line in The Books of Bokonon states that “All of the true things I am about to teach you are shameless lies” (Vonnegut).  Through Bokononism Vonnegut is able to emphasize the idea that there is no absolute truth.  Both architecture and writing from the modernist period focused on creating the perfect society based on the truth of science.   Vonnegut points out the flaws of such a philosophy by satirizing the idea of absolute truth.  Vonnegut also brings up the idea of a Utopia when he writes about the history of San Lorenzo.  He writes that “McCabe and Johnson dreamed of making San Lorenzo a Utopia” (Vonnegut).  The society of San Lorenzo was to be based on lies so that all of the people could be happy and be part of a perfect society.  As modernism came to its ending, people were tired of failed attempts at reaching a perfect state; therefore postmodernism came about and focused on blending culture.  Vonnegut gives a clear example through his religion Bokononism and the failed attempts of creating a utopia in San Lorenzo.  Cat’s Cradle can therefore be classified as a postmodern text because it seeks to satirize the idea of creating order through truth and science.

Brave New World Writing

For my Brave New World essay, I plan on using the video by Sir Ken Robinson to bring outside work into my argument.  As I wrote in my last posting, I like how Robinson compares today’s education to assembly lines.  He says that in today’s society, kids are being educated with a production line mentality, which limits the possibilities of critical thinking and going against the grain.  Students are assembled by age and educated by the batches based solely on their age.  Common interests are not acknowledged and students are not allowed to really expand on one each other’s thoughts.  And if kids are having a tough time focusing and staying on task, they are given dangerous drugs that force them to focus and become alert.

The comparison I see between today’s learning and the conditioning in Brave New World include the idea of educating or conditioning by the batches and not allowing teaching authority to be challenged.  Sir Robinson points out that during a longitudinal study researchers found that their subjects’ divergent thinking percentages decreases as they grow older.  Schools don’t allow these students to look for different possible answers.  They limit their thinking and teach the students to look for one correct answer without exploring many different potential answers.  Not being allowed to look at things differently really limits creativity and hinders the development of divergent thinking.  Within Brave New World, we see that once the young ones are conditioned in a certain area, they are pretty much useless in any other field.  This is evident when Linda exclaims, “There’s so much one doesn’t know; it wasn’t my business to know.  I mean, when a child asks you how a helicopter works or who made the world-well, what are you to answer if you’re a Beta and have always worked in the fertilizing room” (122).  Linda points out that she really had no other knowledge except how to do her job in the fertilizing room.  People from the “civilized society” have no ability to think critically.  They don’t even know any basic knowledge.  They are simply trained to do their job and that is it.  I plan on looking in to Sir Robinson’s video and really comparing today’s educational state to that of the one in Brave New World.

Brave New World and Education

One connection that I made between the video and Brave New World is the fact that kids are being medicated in order to help them stay focused and pay attention in class.  Around the five minute mark, the video states that more and more cases of ADHD have come about, and these children are given dangerous drugs in order “to get them focused and calm them down.  Although the kids in Brave New World are not necessarily taking drugs to help them focus, they are still taught that the use of soma can relieve all stress.  Linda makes this clear when she says to Bernard “why don’t you take soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours.  You’d forget all about them.  And instead of feeling miserable, you’d be jolly” (92).  Although soma is not used for educational purposes, it still can be compared to the drugs that are used to calm down learners and get them focused.

Another connection I can draw between the video and the book is as the video puts it, the production line mentality.  He talks about how schools are still organized based on “factory lines” and also points out that “we still educate children by batches.”  I thought this was an interesting point, and it does go right along with Brave New World.  In the novel, all the children are educated by the batches, and not given any chance to express individuality.  As Mr. Foster continues his tour of the conditioning center he tells the people on the tour “I’d like to show you some very interesting conditioning for Alpha Plus Intellectuals.  We have a big batch of them on Rack 5” (17).  Mr. Foster’s statement goes to show that the members of the different groups are conditioned in large batches.  They are all taught the same thing and in large bunches.  This fits well with the videos idea of the factory line education.

The video does make a solid point about education today.  Education is being narrowed down, and less individualistic ideas are allowed to be expressed.  Kids are simply taught one way to do things and that is that.  I think this video definitely make us wonder, is today’s education foreshadowing a future education system similar to the one present Brave New World? I think this video poses a debatable argument that challenges us to review our public education system.

First Brave New World Posting

Mustapha Mond’s words make up a fitting quote that sums up the basis for the society in Brave New World.  There society is solely based on efficiency and productivity.  What Mond is saying is that in order to increase efficiency, there has to be men in society that are willing to take the lower end jobs.  These men have to accept their role or position and learn to find contentment in their work.  Therefore the entire society has become focused on breeding humans in a way that predetermines their profession.  These people are also programed to love what they do and enjoy their workplace.  The general philosophy is that if one is happy in his workplace, he will become more productive and therefore benefit society.  Thus, the government takes it upon their own hands to breed and create certain people for certain jobs and positions in the workplace.

With the creation of infants in an artificial and mass production manner, the feeling of family life is taken away.  Most of the youth in existence does not have any knowledge of what a family is.  Mustapha Mond gives an illustration of family life and explains that “The world was full of fathers-was therefore full of misery; full of mothers-therefore of every kind of perversion…full of madness and suicide” (39).  The youth is not exposed to the true meaning and feeling of a family.  Mond’s description of family life is blown out of proportion.  Rather than clarifying what a family is, Mond goes about manipulating the minds of his listeners.  He describes families as dangerous and ultimately bad for society because they are not as productive.  Mond is able to manipulate the minds of these people because they do not know any different.  None of them have experienced a family themselves, so all they know about a family is its unproductivity as described by Mond.  This is against the principles of the Henry Ford worshiping society, so the youth takes the position that family life is bad.  In taking this action, they prove themselves loyal to the government and do not challenge the beliefs of society.

The Ongoing Tempest Debate…. and preparing to write

When it comes to interpreting Shakespeare’s work, The Tempest, there are many different ways in which the meaning of the text can be looked at.  From one point of view, columnist George Will maintains that looking into The Tempest and interpreting the text as a message about imperialism is looking too deeply into the meaning.  Will speaks for the common reader and claims that the “academics that interpret Shakespeare in the light of colonialism…are rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary reader” (110).  However, on the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt believes that The Tempest is without a doubt making reference to colonialism.  Greenblatt states that “it is very difficult to argue that The Tempest is not about imperialism” (114).  Greenblatt uses the conflict between the savage, Caliban, and the prince, Prospero to show that Shakespeare’s intentions were to raise awareness on the issue of imperialism.  Extending upon Greenblatt’s views, Aime Cesaire also looks at The Tempest in terms of colonialism.  Aime was active in restoring the cultural identity of black Africans.  He rewrites the play and emphasizes the dialogue between Prospero and Caliban.  He also includes dialogue to show a plot that Ariel and Caliban discuss about getting back at Prospero for making them suffer.  Therefore, after looking at the text in all of these different lights, we can see that Shakespeare’s text, The Tempest, does make reference to colonialism.  There are several instances where Caliban is portrayed as a savage, and even Stephano says that he “is some monster of the isle with four legs” (98).  Stephano and Trinculo both think that Caliban is some kind of a monster and even state that he looks like a fish.  This instance definitely relates to imperialism; outsiders coming in and passing extreme judgments on the natives.  In Prospero’s case, he feels that he is helping Caliban and doing him a favor by teaching him language.  Caliban, on the other hand, feels that he is mistreated and enslaved.  Without a doubt, I feel that The Tempest makes reference to colonialism.

Is there really a right way to read?

After reading through the article and looking at the issue from both George Will’s and Stephen Greenblatt’s positions, there seems to be no conclusion.  George Will supports the side that authors already have a predetermined meaning and that literary critics and teachers look too far into the text.  Stephen Greenblatt feels that to only look at the surface level of a book and not look for an underlying meaning would be taking away from the text.

George Will believes that, “All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political” (111).  However, Will suggests that “the academics who reinterpret Shakespeare in the light of colonialism, feminism, and other current preoccupations are rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary reader and playgoer” (110).  Although George Will acknowledges the fact that literature can always be interpreted in the political light, he feels that if these plays or works are reinterpreted to address the issues of feminism or colonialism then the ordinary reader would not look at the meaning of the plays as the author intended.  He feels that “Criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning” (112).  Will feels that criticizing works of literature takes away the author’s intended meaning.  Therefore Will is an advocate for not critiquing the works of author’s and letting the original meaning of the text stand.

On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt believes in looking for underlying meanings and searching for possible interpretations of a text.  He says in terms of interpreting Shakespeare’s text The Tempest that “these are among the issues that literary scholars investigate and encourage their students to consider” (114).  Greenblatt feels that it is critical to look at all the potential issues addressed within the text and expand upon the author’s initial meaning.

After reading the article, I still find it hard to find a conclusion.  Is there really a correct way to read?  I agree with Will in that it is important to understand the author’s intended meaning.  However, how will we completely identify the author’s purpose?  Therefore I agree with Greenblatt in that we need to be aware of the possible interpretations of the text.

Caliban=Imperialism

After looking deeper into The Tempest, it becomes clear that Shakespeare is making a point about imperialism.  During British colonization, we saw Great Britain as a country looking to imperialize many nations and teach these nations their ways.  British leaders looked down on these nations and saw their people as nothing more than savages.  Within The Tempest, Caliban represents the natives and those nations colonized by the British.  Caliban was among the first to inhibit the island in which he now works as a slave.  He is the only true native to the island, and he feels that Prospero has taken the island from him.  When Caliban first comes on scene he tells Prospero that “This island belongs to me because Sycorax, my mother, left it to me” (Shakespeare  43).  Caliban also familiarized Prospero with the island by showing him all the freshwater springs along with all the fertile places.  This relates to the colonization period because as nations came in to gain control, they took over the natural resources and used them for their own benefit.  They also put people to work, in the same way Caliban is forced to labor for his master, Prospero. 

Going along with the article about postcolonialism, we see how Caliban was manipulated and forced under Prospero’s control.  Postcolonial theorist Frantz Fanon observed the circumstances of the blacks under French control.  He noted “that as soon as the colonized were forced to speak the language of the colonizer, the colonized either accepted or were coerced into accepting the collective conscious of the French” (Ashcroft 239).  Once Caliban was taught language, he was able to communicate with Prospero and Miranda.  With this he was able to show them around the island and teach them about the nature of his birthplace.  However, Caliban did not readily accept the ways of his colonizer.  Once the relationship between him and Prospero turned sour he regrets learning language at all and says, “You taught me language and all I can do with it is curse.  Damn you for teaching me language!” (Shakespeare 45).