Fear comes to a close!

My, I have been lacking in these posts, now haven’t I? Sadly, I have about 5 or six blogs all written down in my notes, and yet not one of them posted here. I’m sorry professor, but I guess go out with a bang here. That being said, let’s see if I can try and summarize many of these old scribbling into a new blog that is actually relevant to the discussions, and not an outdated rant as many of these are. Fear, I’ve talked about it before, and I think it’s worthwhile to talk about again. Yes, we did touch upon it during class in our discussion, but let’s dive deeper shall we? I am going to try and avoid things like “why do we feel fear,” or “what does fear do to people,” as much as I can, and instead stab at the heart of another idea, that of “how does one create fear?”Now, some might look at that and wonder if I am demented, but in all honesty, I want to look at this more as a question of what aspects of society are crafted for no other reason than to incite fear into people. To do this, I think it’s worth looking at the concept of crafting social realities, instead of just accepting them as they are presented to us. I would go so far as to argue the idea that hindsight is 20/20, because I think that the clarity in which we see the past, in any way, is actually seen through glasses of some kind, and not by the natural eye at all. What I mean is that we are quick to apply concepts and ideas to any sort of happening as if these ideas were present during the time of their conception. Luckily for us, we have been reading books that have, for the most part, been fully aware of the ideas and theories that they present. When we look back at Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, we know that Twain was aiming directly at the industrial lifestyle, and hit his mark in symbolism and even blunt imagery. Yet, as a counter to this, there are times in which we can take this too far, and apply contemporary thoughts that might end up confusing the text more than the criticisms levied on it during its own time. Handmaid’s Tale, then, perhaps is the best way for us to see this concept in action, as Offred is constantly dividing her opinions between what was acceptable and what currently is. A society structured on a system of oppression and regulation, using the logic and reasoning that the past was bad because it did not have this, then the creation of fear is inevitable. Offred describes the anxiety that is felt by everyone, including herself, in regards to that ever present entity of “The Eyes,” or the fear created by sterilization. Everything is made to be frightening, and much like the idea that man has tamed nature, religion is viewed to have tamed that which is evil and corruptive. If one sees everything around them as frightening, then any entities that stands up as a protective agent against this is seen as a savior. Often, people fear what they do not understand, what they do not know, giving such things power. When a government such as the one presented alters the past to make it unknown to people, it becomes frightening. The Eyes themselves are a secret police, making all those who do not know what they do afraid of them. These fears are constructed for the people, based upon latent ideas and conceptions. However, they are not always natural, and great lengths are taken to reinforce them, such as the conditioning the Handmaids go through as well as the public display of the “punished” on the wall. Remind people what they are afraid of, and they will not seek to understand it, more to run for shelter. With the end of the year fast approaching, many of us fear for our grades, we’re not always sure what they are. But, I would like to leave everyone with this. Fear is what you make of it, and the only way to get past it is to face it. Many of the characters we discussed in class did so, and those who did not ended up with a raw deal. So, have a good winter break, and remember, we have nothing to fear but fear itself… that and carnival workers, those guys are just creepy…

Get ready for a long rant!

Let’s take a moment here to talk about social development. Talking much about Twain and his works, we’ve had many discussions on the subject, and I would like to go into it out of reflection from other classes I have been a part of. Today, we talk a lot about change, we even elected a president based off the assumption of change. Where is the change coming from? Not the idea of how will this change happen, but I am asking more of the ‘where’ and the ‘why.’ It seems to me that whenever there is to be this idea of great change, something else has already reflected on it, and in some cases even implemented it prior. So let’s think, where did it all start? What was the first domino in this long line of cause and effect? I don’t think this line of change has ever actually stopped. I feel I must backtrack a bit to an earlier conversation the class has had, that about the theory in which humanity is moving towards perfection. I call shenanigans upon this idea, as for every voice that tells us we are progressing you have just as many saying that we are moving backwards.



Personally, I say we are changing in a straight line, neither forward nor backwards, but to the side. Change is inevitable, and we have definitely progressed farther technologically speaking from the times before, however, I feel socially, we’ve stayed almost the exact same, just with new labels and reasoning behind them. Of course, not all change is good, but we all know that, but I am always curious to see how much of change is actually revolutionary in the truest sense.
I would like to take a moment and reflect upon this using human experience. Again, I put on my history hat and pull out two periods of our past that might give an idea or two to people on the subject. Now, both periods have something very important in common when compared to the time periods of Twains book, see if you can spot the reasons before I explain why later.
The first is that of the Renaissance. Now, most American’s will picture the English Renaissance at this, normally under the reign of Queen Elizabeth. This popular conception of the time, peppered of course with art and culture from the Italian artists, is not what I am pointing too. No instead I am looking to much earlier, that of where it all began, Italy, where we find a very important result of early trade and commerce of the time. We see the growth of the middle class, those with enough money to break free of the bindings of the poor, but no birthplace to claim for a title in the upper ranks. A return to classical teachings and styles lead to a revival of the individual, as well as a strengthening of a budding practice in Europe known as democracy. Irony will have a part to play when one thinks that while Italy was the focus point of a new age of intellectual thought, the country only unified after a number of wars a couple hundred years later, ending after its defeat in the First World War, but that is a subject for another class. Now, I would like to point out that democracy was by no means new during this time. In fact, many had felt that it was a dead institution from the Greek and later the Roman people. Resurfaced knowledge brought back to Rome from the crusades sparked a new credibility to these assumed new ideas. I am almost tempted to remind the class of our talks of nostalgia and its effects on the present, but I feel it would be a little to cynical in the contexts of a democratic based republic. Regardless, the west returned to democracy, even though it was tempered by Monarchy, and later broken to different forms by revolution and war.
On the other end, let’s look to the east, and a more modern concept of Communism and its rise and even fall. I would hope people are catching onto how both these time frames reflect what we’ve been reading, but again, I am ahead of myself. Now regardless of your own feelings on the subject, please note that I do not fashion myself to be a Communist, at least not anymore, yet my own political bends are not the focus of this analysis. I would like all those who have read the Communist manifesto to help those who have not, as you will have a better understanding of what I will be talking about, at least I hope so. It is no real secret, the Communism that Marx talked about was one born out of a post industrial society, one in which a country would become strong enough to support itself and its people. However, it is interesting to note that both major Communist countries, Russia and China, turned to Communism well before becoming a true industrial country to begin with. This was not Marxism, but Leninism, the idea that Communism could propel a nation forward through development by the will and work of the people. Take a step back for a moment and look with me in hindsight as to what has happened to both places. In both, we have seen an explosion of industrialization, with the leaders of the country trying to pull their countries out of the poor status they were seen to be in and bring them right up alongside their western competition. Yet the closer each country came to that post-industrial goal, more issues within the state came to arise, and in the case of Russia, came an eventual collapse of the USSR. China, however, stayed strong, with new leadership and new ideas, and in a bit of twisted irony, capitalism. Today, we have two countries as much a part of free enterprise as any other, with only one still calling itself Communist. What happened? My answer is thus, the steel age that was championed by both Communism and the World Industrial Revolution gave way to the silicone age, and thus the global uprising of the worker as predicted by Marx was completely side stepped as man walked down an alternate path. The failure of Communism seemed to be the failure to predict human development. Yet as I stand up here on a soapbox, I wonder, we say the revival of democracy, all be it a few centuries after it was first used, could it be that man has yet to rediscover socialism? Could it be the next stage after the globalization that was born of a post silicone age? Time has been known to repeat itself in very interesting ways.
True, I have given a sort of short hand of these ideas, but then again, I could write books on the subjects, and honestly people already have. Now, to draw this long rant right back into the text, allow me to shed light as to why I picked what I did. Both of them are sort of the next stage in human development from the points in the book. We see the Renaissance as a step up from the Middle Ages, and Communism by definition is based on a post-industrial society. If nothing else, I would like to use them to completely fight against Hank and his entire ideology of change. If nothing else, I would like to jump back to the idea that of all change, there has already someone else that has done it. In the greatest of examples, Hank is showing us just that. His country, his time from which he comes from, has already done that which he is trying to do, and has been, to him, successful with it. However, he has been trying to impress all of this upon a society that has not developed in the same way, has yet to reach that point of turnaround in which the ideas of Rome become important again. In a way, Hank has skipped the creation of self awareness in the people in his attempts to create a republic. And what of after? True, it can be said that Twain was not around to really see the after effects of the Communist movements, and obviously his character had no part in this, but what about that idea? I would like to point out that in battles against Merlin, Hank has had to outdo himself every time to try and take favor away from the old conjurer, telling one something about how resistant people really are to change. It took hundreds of years for democracy to become established as deep as it has been, and decades for the ideas of socialism to take any real root. Hank is trying to do all this in one lifetime.
I will cut things short here, as I fear I’ve rambled off already, but let me ask this much. Is Hank really accomplishing anything in the long run? Is his legacy nothing more than a bullet hole in a suit of armor, or is there more too it? What are we given to believe about what happens after, and did history really change at all, even to just Hank?

(Comic provided by www.XKCD.com)

A talk upon the subject of fear.

Fear is an interesting and powerful tool, one I have been growing more and more interested in as of late, I must admit. Be it the fear of attack, fear of loss, or even fear of a teacher threatening your standing in a class over the status of an assignment given, fear can be a very powerful thing. It also seems to, in many ways, drive what we do in our lives. To dive a moment into my geek/nerd side for a moment, I would like to quote Dr. Johnathan Crane, aka the Scarecrow, on the subject:
"You married your wife...because you were scared of dying alone. You have children because you are scared of leaving
nothing behind that really matters. You go to the doctors because you're scared of dying. Do I need to go on?"
Cynical, yes a bit, but at the same time very much important to the topic. Even in our own readings, there is much that revolves around fear. Many of the characters are all afraid in one way or another of Hank. In a sort of twisted way, he has put himself into such a position that he is powerful, without any sort of true "right" to this status. Now by right, I of course am talking about the ideas of rights by birth, a subject well gone over already in class. But Hank remains untouched by all of this, it seems. Despite being feared, I've yet to see any thing come about it that will end him. Using fear as a weapon, a source of power, has historically lead to people to rise up against their oppressors and to reject them in one way or another. Revolutions are started against governments of oppression and fear, so why should this be any different?
Just a short musing, I'll write more on the topic later I suppose.

Also, big points to those who can tell me where that quote is actually from. Give you a hint, Micheal Bay had nothing to do with it.