Some reactions to Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut

Tomorrow, I am going to discuss Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut with my Japanese university students for the first time. It should be an interesting discussion, and I am looking forward to hearing what reactions they had and what themes they connected with.



Credit: Some of the questions below have been borrowed from other teachers who shared them on the net. Thank you to the original authors.

1. What is the state of U.S. society as described in the first paragraph of the story? How has “equality” been achieved?

In 2081, everyone is equal, not only before God and the law, but in their characteristics such as physical appearance, intelligence, and talents. This equality is achieved by giving people with ability certain handicaps. For example, for intelligence (like in the case of George, Harrison's father), people with higher than average intelligence have to wear an earphone that breaks their thoughts.

2. Consider the character of Harrison in terms of both his physical qualities and personality traits. What is he like?
 
Harrison is 7 feet tall, physically strong, attractive, and intelligent, and so the Handicapper General has worked hard to get him down to average in all of those areas by putting on weights like a "walking junkyard" and making him look like a clown. To hinder his intelligence, he wears headphones that interrupt his thoughts. He says "I am the Emperor" and that makes him sound like he has gone mad--He is launching a futile revolution on the TV stage. He throws off his handicaps, chooses an Empress and frees her as well, and sets the orchestra free

 3. What is the significance of the dance that Harrison performs with the ballerina? In your opinion, what does it mean?

To me, the dance is a rebellion against repression of freedom of expression. They have cast off their chains of handicapping and perform with their whole potential. When they kiss the ceiling and each other at the climax of the dance, they are expressing the powerful joy humans can feel when they are free to express themselves. When the Handicapper General kills them with a shotgun, they

4. What do you consider to be Vonnegut’s purpose for writing this story? 

 Vonnegut wrote this in 1961, but I think the significance of his story is timeless in terms of several important themes.

To me, the strongest theme is the meaning of equality. For equality to exist in society, do some people have to be held back or hindered in their abilities? The reference to socialism is obvious, but all societies may have a "handicapping" element to some extent. So, in what ways does human society try to keep some people "handicapped" in order to achieve a sense of security? Do we do this when the rich pay more taxes or when talented children are kept in the same group as students who struggle so that the fast kids can help the slower kids. To what extent is "holding back" necessary, and should it ever be imposed in a mandatory way. Or, should it always be voluntary, so that those with talent or ability hold back of their own free will in order to help those who struggle. The handicapping done in HB is obviously a systematic, compulsory, government policy and it seems ridiculous to us in the way it is portrayed, but it is interesting how Hazel and George express their support of it. What type of "handicapping" is actually good handicapping? Is there any possibility that our societies are doing it?

There are certainly many other interesting themes such as freedom of expression, the effect of media, and rebellion against established laws and government. I'll look forward to the ideas my students bring.

5. In your opinion, how is the world of 2081 similar to that of your own society today? Also, what does the story mean to you?

In what ways does "handicapping" mirror US society or Japanese society? Does US or Japanese education have such characteristics? Definitely. And my instinctive reaction is that Japanese society mirrors it in a much stronger way--but ironically, that is one aspect of Japan that I really like and respect. The key question, which I hope we can discuss tomorrow, is: To what extent is it desirable, and at what point does it become excessive and a violation of individual freedom to pursue their full potential.

In Japan, the education system, especially after WWII, has emphasized equality very strongly. Some manifestations of this emphasis on equality are:

1) teachers efforts to keep the class moving at the same pace, regardless of ability, with little or no differentiation of instruction (I assume this is still true),

2) the rejection of any system that allows students to repeat a grade or skip a grade, and

3) the idea that all schools in the country of Japan should have similar curricula imposed in a top-down fashion from the central Ministry of Education, with very little room for flexibility or innovation by individual instructors or principals.

4) The use of school uniforms and other school rules in Japan such as prohibitions against make-up, jewelry, hair color etc. that prevent students from standing out. There are horror stories of teachers forcing students to straighten their naturally curly hair.


 Extra: Any other reactions or ideas or discussion questions?

I'm very curious how the discussion will go, especially considering the fact that my students were the top students in their high schools and may have been like HB in some cases, held back for the sake of imposed equality, in some aspects of their education.

One thing I fear and want to avoid is that my students will look for "correct answers" in terms of interpretations of the story.  I hope they will take the story and make it their own, and try to discuss, among other things, what the ideal balance in Japan should be for uniformity and individuality, for equality and competition, and how our society can aim for that.

Other questions:

1) To what extent are we "handicapper generals" of ourselves? What weights do we put around our own necks to make ourselves as average as possible?

2) How is television or other mass media used in the story, and how is that similar to media in your own society?

3) "Pretty soon we'd be back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else."  Where is the balance of too much competition and too much imposed equality?

4) Are all humans "equal"? What does that mean? What should it mean? In what ways should people be equal, and in what ways should equality not be aimed for?

Very powerful. I enjoyed this 1) as an inspiring film based on a true story in the history of American civil rights that needs to be told, and1 2) as a teacher of "argument" in my college writing and presentation classes. My Japanese university freshmen are going over the basics of argument structure and persuasion this week, and I hope I can introduce this film to inspire them to use their ideas and words as weapons for making a difference in our world.

The "Comfort Women" Monument in NYC

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/nyregion/monument-in-palisades-park-nj-irritates-japanese-officials.html?_r=1

I am confounded by Japan's attempts to stop the comfort women monument.

Why does Japan officially try to oppose these monuments (this one and the one in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul)? It is very hard to understand that mentality of trying to ask groups to "not remember history". The Japan of the past is the Japan of the past. Japan today should fully support monuments for remembering the tragedy of the mistakes made in that era.

When there are thousands of victims, many still alive, how can it possibly help Japan's image to oppose monuments to remember the tragedy?

When a mistake has been made in history, and people suffered, it is natural to leave a monument to remember and not repeat similar mistakes.

One of the most important points in this article is when the Korean group who built the monument for the comfort women explain that Japan's opposition is "helping" the monument. That is only natural. Nobody is going to support Japan's attempt to stop a monument for people who suffered.

In fact, Japan is going to completely embarrass itself when people around world (based on articles like this) see it as a country that is unwilling to accept the mistakes of its past as lessons for the future.

As a long time resident of Japan, I love the "new Japan" that strives to build a culture of peace. Just as the future children of the USA need to know the past mistakes of the USA, Japanese children need to be taught the tragedies brought about by the mistakes of the military government. Through history classes and monuments in and out of Japan, the mistakes should be brought to light as clearly as possible so that future generations do not repeat them.

When you study argument, propaganda and media manipulation this term...

Check out this article regarding the possible failure of Japan's mainstream media to investigate the flaws in the government's plans for dealing with the radiation incident.

How true is it? You be the judge:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20120108x3.html?fb_ref=article_japantimes

As part of our unit on critical thinking, argument analysis, and propaganda, I usually introduce Herman & Chomsky's Propaganda Model to my students and make sure they are familiar with the forces that can shape media content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

How will Japan reinvent itself? NYT article

Declining as a Manufacturer, Japan Weighs Reinvention (April 15, 2012)

“It is time for Japan to find a new model for its economy,” said Masatomo Onishi, a professor of business at Kansai University. “We can follow the United States into a more postindustrial economy, or we can follow Germany into high-end manufacturing, but we shouldn’t be trying to compete with China in mass production.”

I wonder how much my college students are aware of and considering this issue...In general, I think Japan society may be a bit over-optimistic or insensitive as to how quickly it is losing ground, and how quickly factors of economic instability may reach a tipping point. Or, perhaps they are aware, but detached. Perhaps they have philosophically detached themselves from being part of an economic rat-race and decided to pursue other things of value in life? If it is intentional and philosophical, perhaps it is admirable. But if it is from a refusal to look around them and figure out what is going on, it feels dangerous, like some will be shocked beyond recovery when they find out their world isn't going the way it was supposed to.

Unfortunately, it may turn out to be true that sustained periods of affluence and stability, coupled with a tendency to isolate itself from immigration and influences from other cultures, may lead to stagnation of will power and energy to create something new among its younger generations. I hope not, but signs are showing. While my university tends to attract students with ambition and sensitivity to the world, my experience with other fairly prestigious university classrooms is that apathy and pursuits of short term pleasure reign. The kids live in a cushy dream world created by their grandparents and maintained by their parents. There is little sense of economic crisis or need to be competitive, and I just wonder where that is going to end up going...perhaps the stagnation is temporary, especially after 3/11, but there is no denying that an awareness of what is going on is important.

How will Japan reinvent itself? Whatever the answer is, I hope my students will be carefully considering not only the necessary economic strategy, but also what is needed in terms of social and educational development in order to create a society that balances pursuit of gain and pursuit of happiness for self and others.

"5 Days of War" (2011) -- Practice Your Critical Thinking

I try to watch war movies that purport to be based on true stories, and many that I have seen have been both educational and moving. Some stories must truly be told, and film is an effective channel for helping people know more about the truth and human nature.

But a good dose of critical thinking is always needed, and this movie is an excellent platform for practicing critical thinking and the separation of emotion and biased thoughts from actual fact or an effort to present a situation in a balanced, objective way.

You should watch it for that purpose only, and probably NOT to learn about the 5-Day Russia/South Ossetia-Georgia war of 2008, seeing how it is funded by the Georgian government.

The movie starts with the line "The first casualty when war comes is truth." (1918 quote attributed to Hiram Johnson, a US senator) Very good line. After watching the movie and researching the content, the use of that line actually seems to be quite ironic.

Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1486193/
Japanese DVD title = 5  デイズ

Here's my recommendation:

1. First, watch the movie without reading too much about it and note your reactions.

2. Second, go read about the 2008 5 Day War in a number of sources. Starting with Wikipedia is fine, but make sure you go to the External Links at the bottom of the also try to read reports by the EU or UN Investigation Commission or Human Rights Watch.

3. Third, read about how the movie was funded and why it was created. Think about the 3Bs:
Background (where did it come from),
Biography (who financed and/or created it and why),
Bias (what part of the story are they ignoring or misrepresenting).

From today's NYT in the article:
April 1, 2012, 11:13 pm

The Politics of Going to College

By THOMAS B. EDSALL

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/the-politics-of-going-to-college/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120402

(Explanation of the graph above excerpted from the article) "...M.I.T. economists Daron Acemoglu and David Autor, shows what has happened to the wages of men with various levels of education working full time (high school dropout, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, greater than college)."

Columbia professor Edsal summarizes the exchanges between Obama and Republican hopefuls Romney and Santorum regarding an expansion of federal support for less advantaged students to be able to go to college, and cautions (reasonably in my opinion) that the Republican party take a hard look at the illogical and self-contradictory statements its candidates are making on this issue.

Some of things Santorum has said such as the quote below are just shockingly ignorant. Scary.

Santorum: “President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob,” Santorum told a Tea Party meeting in Troy, Mich., on Feb. 25. “I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.”

??

It is true that not everyone needs to college. Some people can have very meaningful lives and develop themselves a lot by starting a career after high school (or after dropping out) and learning on the job or in technical schools, and learning in their personal lives. On the other hand, some may go to college and squander their opportunity (like many college kids in Japan--but very rarely at my university, fortunately). However, the issue is not increasing the absolute number of college goers or college graduates, but increasing the fairness of opportunity that each individual student has for going to a higher education program if they choose so and if they plan to put in the work that is needed to benefit from the opportunity.

Expanding opportunity for students who want to go to college and make efforts to get sufficient funding but can't (assuming there are such students) is not "snob" ism. To me, it seems to be a simple support of equal opportunity, which should be strengthened if the US wants to continue to be a active and prosperous society where the best ideas and best efforts are rewarded regardless of family economic status.

I included the graph above because it shows how the value of a college degree has increased over the past few decades in terms of financial compensation, and how the gap between college educated workers and high school grads is increasing. This gap is wider than I had thought. I assume this gap is widening because employers of companies with competitive jobs believe (and have found from experience) that those who go to college actually offer something that their employers have found of value, that those students would not have had if they had not gone. This graph in itself is not a case for increasing federal support for college tuition, but it explains the motivation that students and their families will have to try to get to college and further their education.

I think it is quite reasonable that our taxes be used to level the playing field on a federal level, assuming, of course, that the playing field is skewed. And my sense is that it is.