Truman Show vs. 1984

Truman Burbank was created through television show producer Christoph. His life was created by s series if events that were all planned and predetermined by the same man. While he was able to control his reactions and responses to this events, most of what happened in his life was out of his hands.

In 1984, Winston Smith was born into a "regular" society (regular meaning it was not created by a television producer), and yet he shared the same issue of privacy as Truman. While Winston was able to enjoy the luxury, so to speak, of having serendipitous and random events occur through the course of life, he had the opposite situation as Truman in that he could not freely express his reactions.

While both of their lives were intently watched 24/7, Truman had no knowledge of it and therefore had genuine, public reactions to whatever was thrown at him. Winston had to be careful of every little thing he did, as if he were to act the wrong way his life would be in grave danger.

Both of these characters were deprived of ther basic human instincts along with the rest of their societies and all that goes along with them.

Is the year really 2012?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall toward the earth’s center. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

1984, Part 1, Chapter 7, p. 81

In 1984, the government controls the people of Oceania. Not just what they do, but how they think, what they say, how they feel, and what they see. The presence of such control may not be as publicly present in the United States (although it certainly does occur in some ways), other countries face actions such as the ones in the book on an every day basis. North Korea controls everything that their people hear and see, and deprive them from "real" news. In an article investigated by Benjamin Insail, he explores the depth to which censorship is taken. 

Not only does the North Korean government censor what the people hear and see, but they also make it quite dangerous for those who try to expose the truth. One would think that this would act as a deterrent, however Insail writes that "more and more foreign journalists are actively seeking information about the regime." 

While Orwell wrote and satirized about a government in which the people have no control, not many people expected for the world of Oceania to become a living reality in the modern days of 2012. It would seem that people are more knowledgeable of their oppression, and are aware that their rights are alienated, but choose not to act on it. It seems that those who are acting on it are those who aren't facing the oppression firsthand.

Why is it that as soon as rights are taken away, and made secretive, everyone wants to expose the truth? Is this just human nature or is it simple curiosity that stems from lack of spontaneity in life?

My "handicaps"?

In the story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., the government handicaps the people that they feel are "above" or "superior" to other citizens. They feel that in order for everyone in the society to be equal, they, in a sense, must dumb everybody down to their weakest link. Some of the handicaps that they use consist of sashweights to hold people back physically, earpieces that prohibit long thoughts that could corrupt peoples' minds, and ugly masks that conceal people's beauty underneath. This story made me think about what I would have if I were to live in this society and obtain handicaps.

The first thing that jumped out at me were the earpieces that transmitted a loud, obnoxious, disruptive sound every twenty seconds that disallow people from thinking too far into their thoughts. Considering my anxiety, which causes me to unwillingly think a million thoughts at a mile per minute, and often over analyze most situations, my earpiece that I would most undoubtedly have, would probably emit a sound every 10 seconds, at least. It's not even that my thoughts are revolutionary, they just cause me to think of any and every possible outcome that could arise from any given situation.

Secondly, I would most likely be handicapped by some sort of vocal inhibitor. When I disagree with something, everyone usually finds out about it. It isn't because I am strident or anything about it, I just like my opinion to be heard and discuss my opinions with people whose opinions differ from my own. Just like the newscaster that Vonnegut wrote about, I believe that I would have some sort of device that causes me to stutter or become unable to speak the words that I am trying to say.

Propaganda... good or bad?

Whether we like it or not, propaganda is everywhere we turn. It's not only on tv and in the commercials that consistently interrupt our viewing pleasure, or plastered on billboards and sides of buses in the city, but from the words of our leaders, and teachers, and favorite celebrities and even our best friends.

As much as I would love to not have any propaganda for myself, and to live in a world where everyone can speak their own thoughts, it is not the case. It sadly seems that if there weren't any propaganda in the world, many people would not be able to form their own opinions, and inevitably latch on to what somebody else said because they had the human need to have their thoughts on an issue. Maybe the forms of propaganda today aren't as straightforward as that of the propaganda from the years of the World Wars, but that makes propaganda both much more dangerous and much more reliable. It has the negative capabilities to spread a rumor quicker than ever, and allow people to buy into ideas that have no affect except for a negative one on people. But at the same time, propaganda can be used in a way that allows people to do what's right.

Although there was much dispute over the course of action that was to be taken by the charity group, the KONY 2012 videos had such an extreme impact in such a short amount of time that not only caused people to think about people other than themselves and focus on other problems going on in the world besides their own, it also caused people to band together and try to do something for the greater good. While some of the things that were said in the video were exaggerated and untrue, which is why it can be categorized as propaganda, the outcomes of it spread had a positive impact on society.