Monthly Archives: October 2012

Marx’s First Day On the Job

Posted on by

Karl Marx arrives for his first day of work in a factory, only to find that Adam Smith happens to own the factory.

Marx: You’re kidding me, right?

Smith: Sorry?

Marx: I’m taking on this factory job to, you know, unite with the proletariat and stuff, and I get landed with Adam Smith as my boss. This is just too perfect.

Smith: Um…

Marx: Well, I spend every flipping day inciting workers to unite against the bourgeoisie, and actually see that they are part of one big, sad, oppressed class. And now here I am, standing across from the man that basically let the whole bourgeoisie class feel guiltless about stripping the proletariat of their humanity.

Smith: Oh, so you think I’m the reason the bourgeoisie doesn’t feel guilty about the so-called oppression of the proletariat? Actually, wasn’t it you who said that the class situation of the bourgeoisie makes them think the way they do about the world? If you really believed your own theory, you would believe it was impossible for me to have influenced their attitudes towards capitalism.

Marx: You know who I am, then? You’ve read my stuff? Aren’t we proletarians just one big, nameless commodity to you? Come on, admit it.

Smith: I would hardly call you a proletarian.

Marx: Whatever. Let’s tour the factory. Oh, do you see this assembly line? Know what it does?

Smith: Sure. Every worker’s job is reduced to a simple, small task, to the extent that their skills increase tenfold at that one, single task. Not to mention, they aren’t wasting time switching between jobs. The assembly line increases efficiency.

Marx: And you think that’s a good thing?

Smith: Certainly. Just look around the world. The most efficient industries produce the best products and generate the most revenue. Simply put, the quality of their citizens’ lives are just better.

Marx: Come on now, which citizens’ lives are you referring to? Our society only ever looks through the lens of the bourgeoisie. If we were to look through the eyes of the proletariat, we would see that the oversimplification of labor drives wages down, which in turn forces more members of each family to enter the work force. And then, what do you know, the larger work force creates more competition for jobs, which in turn further lowers wages. So tell me, who has this high quality of life to which you are referring?

Smith: Um, the country does. The country is improving and moving along. I never said anything about the quality of life of the proletariat. Anyway, wouldn’t you agree that before the division of labor, everyone was saddled with more work? In unindustrialized countries, people many different types of work, whereas here, one only needs to do one type.

Marx: Well, at least in those countries, everyone is still connected to the product of their work. No bourgeoisie is exploiting them, either; they don’t have to undersell their labor to anyone.

Smith: So you’re proposing that we go back to caveman times?

Marx: No, I’m proposing that the proletariat take control the means of production, rather than continuing to suffer under the bourgeoisie.

Smith: You make it sound so easy. Don’t you see that everyone is selfish? They’re not going to give themselves up to the cause, or let any property be “public property” like you imagine. Selfishness, by contrast, is what makes capitalism work; it’s what causes entrepreneurs to rush into good industries, and drop out when they have negative profit margins. Selfishness creates that balance between supply and demand.

Marx: Haven’t you read St. Simon? At least he thinks of how the people will suffer before balance is achieved. Anyway, I’ve got to go. I’m finally here among the proletariat, and they still haven’t achieved class-consciousness. I’ve got work to do.

Smith: Sure thing. And I’m going to go increase the efficiency of my factory. After all, I’m after profit.

Marx: Sounds amoral, man, but you’ll be powerless one day.

 

Smith: Good luck with that.

 

 

Plato and More

Posted on by

Two men are seated in the middle of a room. One of them- draped in a thick, fur coat with a silk sash resting neatly on the shoulders- appears to be at ease. Sitting up straight in his chair, he glances over at the other man and offers a soft, almost cautious nod. There is a pause, as his balding, toga-clad companion mulls over the gesture. He seems undecided. Then, after a long silence he lifts his chin and returns the motion.

These actions- small and seemingly trivial- ultimately set the stage for the rest of the conversation. The two discuss democracy among many other subjects, but though each man has an opinion on such, their views prove to vary quite a bit.

“Democracy,” Plato starts, smoothing down the wrinkled fabric of his toga, “is simply not efficient.”

Thomas More raises an eyebrow. “Why do you say that, good sir?”

“The right to leadership should be earned. One should not become ruler because they are elected by the majority; doing so might leave room for inadequate men to govern simply because of their popularity.”

“Interesting. I see your point, but wouldn’t this cause unhappiness amongst the people?”

“Perhaps- but it entirely depends on how one chooses to view the situation. If this utopia were to be as successful and functional as possible, then surely the people living in it would be very pleased with such! Having the fortune of residing in such a successful, ideal society would promote happiness and a thus a very positive outlook on life.”

More considers this. Slowly, he lifts one leg and crosses it deliberately over the other, his brow furrowed in thought.  “If you don’t mind me asking, what would determine this?”

“Intelligence in the skills of arithmetic and dialect.”

“Intelligence?” Both eyebrows arched now, More eyes Plato skeptically. “That seems biased, does it not? In my utopia, there is equality for all who deserve it. We do not discriminate based on uncontrollable aspects of oneself; the only discrimination that occurs is the type that they bring upon themselves.”

There is silence, so More continues.

“If one commits a crime, they become a slave and spend the rest of their life serving the community. Everyone starts with a clean slate- no matter how intelligent they are- but what defines one is their actions.”

Almost instantly this elicits a laugh from Plato, who is seated at the other end of the room. Shaking his head in bemusement, he glances over at the disapproving More, before up at the large, glass window to his left. They have been talking for such an extended period of time that the sun has shifted, thus leaving Plato sitting in a tiny sliver of light, as opposed to the rest of the room that is filled with darkness. Still chortling softly over More’s words, Plato stands and drags his chair over to the other man, so that they are now both sitting in the shadows. Then, he speaks once more.

“You really believe that a utopia could be successfully ruled by someone who is not of the highest caliber?”

“Yes,” More says confidently, intent on proving his argument valid. “I do. Caliber is not necessarily defined by intelligence at all. By letting the people select their leader, the person who wins the election will not only be universally liked, but will know the community well enough to make necessary changes. An intelligent man might only be familiar with other intelligent men; but an average, well-rounded man will no doubt have a wider breadth of knowledge.”

Plato folds his hands and rests them on his chest, leaning back in his chair.

“I cannot say that I agree with you,” he starts slowly, “But I respect your opinion just the same. I apologize for my behavior earlier- looking back, it was somewhat out of place- but it puzzles me as to how two utopias can be so different.”

“Plato, do not worry. I completely understand, because this conversation is just as foreign to me as it is to you, dear friend. It was fascinating to hear what you had to say, even if it was and quite honestly, will continue to be a struggle for me to understand. What did you say the leaders of your society were called?”

“Philosopher kings. They are, to put it rather colloquially, the best of the best. It takes years upon years to perfect the skills to become such, which is certainly not an easy task.”

“Oh, I’m sure. Interesting, very interesting.”

“As is your policy of democracy. I had not viewed it in such a way prior to having this conversation with you, and though I am certainly not in favor of it, your reasoning has made me less averse to such.”

“Why thank you, I appreciate your open-mindedness. I have to get going now- it is getting rather dark in here and seeing is becoming a struggle- but I hope to speak with you soon. Shall we get together again one of these days?”

“Absolutely. Speaking to you was a pleasure.

“As it was with you. Goodbye, Sir Plato.”

“Goodbye, Sir More.”

Marx and Smith

Posted on by

Sam Wittmer

 

Two men sit at the bar, each contemplating his respective drink.  Across from the two, in a booth on the other side of the dark room, a group of factory workers sits down.  It is the end of their day; the workers are tired men, wearing rags and clearly exhausted, but nonetheless making jokes and laughing.

Karl Marx:  This is truly a sad sight.  I know the pain that those ironworkers and smelters must be feeling.

Adam Smith: Why do you say that?  Surely they have jobs and are able to provide for their families.

M:  Ah, but you must see that these men are a broken people.  They are the proletariat of London.  They face constant exploitation from the bourgeoisie, who care for nothing but producing more and more.  The modern Bourgeois, forged in the wreckage of feudal society, now oppress these wage-laborers and treat their personal worth as simply an exchange value.

S:  Well, that is very strange of you to believe.  I think of it as somewhat of a—how do I put this? —Oh, I know—an invisible hand! This new division of labor that we now see greatly stabilizes the economy and increases production and advances technology.  With each one of those factory workers creating a single part of a product, they are able to produce faster, greater quantity and greater quality of products.  Thus, we must allow as much production as the markets will allow.

M:  But this division of labor has made the workingman expendable, and his masters view him as having a low exchange value.  The reason for this is that division of labor creates workers who are easily replaced by others, therefore the factory owners may pay their workers only enough to keep them alive—in this way they survive only to produce more for the bourgeois owners, and have no humanity.

S:  Let me continue on the invisible hand controlling the markets in relation to this previous statement.  Those workers will not work if they are not being given fair compensation.  This is also how the economy works—people will not buy a product if it is not a fair price.  Producers must be fair in their trade, for the market will not allow it to be otherwise.

M:  The people in fact do not have a choice of how they live.  Their sole property is their own physical labor, and this they sell to the bourgeoisie and become commodities.  The proletariat will overthrow these chains of capitalism because conditions will simply be too terrible to bear.  The proletarian revolution will bring about a Communist society where all property is held by the state with centralized production.  All will earn the same.

S:  If all people are to make the same and also have no personal property, then for what will they work?  Innovation will come to a standstill, as incentive is no longer present.  Furthermore, why do you think that these people will be able to get along?  No one will be in charge if they are all equal.

M:  They will in fact all be the proletariat and have an abundance of goods.  When there is no want of food and shelter, there will be no strife.  History is the history of class warfare—the tale of one group oppressing another.  This revolution will effectively eliminate the need for class struggle because there will be no classes.  As for order, it will be a democracy controlled by the people.

Plato: (lurking in a dark corner of the bar) But lead to tyranny, Democracy must!

S:  Who was that?

M:  I do not know but I believe it is our cue to leave.

S:  Indeed.  Well I believe I will see you again next Friday, Karl?

M: Ah, of course Adam, I do enjoy our conversations.

They exit.

 

 

 

Plato vs. More

Posted on by

Lehrer: Good evening, gentlemen. Your first topic tonight is Democracy. Plato, you go first.

Plato: Thank you, Jim. I am not and have never been a supporter of Democracy. Democracy is the result of the poor overthrowing the rich and killing or driving them out. Afterwards positions will be handed out to everyone and their cousin with no thought as to whom is fit for which job. There is complete freedom for the people. This freedom to say and do as they please will result in the population being extremely diverse, with no one filling his or her role. Soon the people get a taste for freedom and start living a life of excess. Finally the people will want even more freedom and overthrow their democratic government. The leader of the coup will be made a tyrant.

More: Plato, where is your faith in humanity? Do you not trust the citizens to be able to run their own state?

Plato: The only people fit to rule must have been trained for years in order to handle such power.

Lehrer: More, what do you think?

More: Well, in Utopia the cities are run by rulers that are elected by a group of politicians who are chosen by the people. The leaders require no training because I trust them to act in the people’s best interest.

Plato: That is why your system will never work.

More: I do not require the rulers to be trained because then it becomes a small number of educated people holding control over many, which is an oligarchy. I seem to recall you saying in Republic that an Oligarchy is bad because it results in the poor staging a revolution and forming a democracy.

Plato: That is why you must keep firm control on them.

More: If you do not allow the people their freedom then they will rise against you just as surely as if you give them too much.

Plato: That is why you must have a Philosopher- King to keep them in hand. If the people are not ruled completely they will overthrow the government.

More: That is where you are wrong. The people are More capable than you give them credit for.

Plato: We shall see whose government is overthrown first.

More: Indeed.

On Capitalism: Smith vs. St.Simon

Posted on by

(St. Simon [St S] from 1817 time-travels back to 1776 and conveniently sits next to Adam Smith [AS]  in a bar)

AS: Hello good sir, I am Adam Smith from Scotland. From where do you hail?

St S: Good day to you, I am called Claude Henri de Rouvroy but most commonly Henri de Saint-Simon of France.

AS: It is nice to meet you. Say, what are your thoughts regarding this glorious rise of industry and capitalism in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom?

St S: Glorious? It is the foremost poison of our society that exists today. This shortsighted drive for progress and profit will lead to the destruction of the economy itself!

AS: I respectfully disagree. Capitalism will be catalyst to a new era of progress from industrialism! A revolution, if you will.

St S: This revolution of which you speak may seem appealing, but you must consider the long-term results of it.

AS: The long-term results? Of course there will be long-term results! The consequence of this progress is nation-wide wealth and success on a scale only imagined in dreams!

St S: I completely disagree. How do you define this success of nations? Keep in mind the personal consequences of industry in addition to the social consequences to not only the business owners, but of families and the unemployed.

AS:  Would you not concur that the success and reputation of a nation is derived from two things: its skill with regard to labour, and of the number of citizens thus employed? Moreover, are not the recent innovations towards the de-specialization of professions the source of great production and new opportunities to work, and consequently wealth for the nation?

St S: The wealth of a particular nation need not be based solely on its productions. This individual egotism, this laissez-faire, laissez-passer mentality in industry leaves out consideration for the workers and those who are run out of business because of competition. One can hardly consider a nation holistically wealthy when the select few benefit from the toils and despairs of many.

AS: I offer a counterpoint that these successful few spur production and opportunities for labour for the good of the nation. Through the division of labour, with one labourer being skilled in a single aspect of production, the production efficiency and quality of goods will increase exponentially. As a result, the quality of life of even the poorest of families will become incomparably better over the majority of families in savage nations that suffer from poverty.

St S: I would hardly consider the cycle of all available workers rushing into the each successive industry with the promise of success efficient. It is a waste of resources; this action leads to deficiencies in the other industries while leaving countless men who have lost their jobs to your so-called innovations in industry with only the promise of future success to satiate their hunger.

AS: Your views are troubling, and they are only detrimental to the marvelous industrial revolution on which we are on the precipice.

St S: It seems we are of opposite beliefs then, and it appears that we will not be able to come a mutual understanding. I bid you farewell, but with a few parting words: remember my words in 30 years, perhaps you will see the errors in your beliefs.

Dialogue on democracy between Plato and More on a friday night over a drink.

Posted on by

Robert Ekblom

Professor Qualls

Utopias/Dystopias Seminar

 

Dialogue on democracy between Plato and More on a friday night over a drink.

 

M(ore): What is your opinion on social freedom and individual role in society?

P(lato): I believe in three classes. There will be those who rule, the warriors, and the masses. The masses will work, and will not involve themselves with ruling or responsibilities of the society, and a select group will take on the responsibility of leading the society for the good of the whole.

M: I don’t agree with your position.

P: Please, elaborate.

M: Should the masses not have a voice? A chance to raise the issues they feel are important?

P: The rulers will address the important issues, for the good of the society, without the masses rising. If people have the power of voice, that is all they need to overthrow rulers.

M: Should an able leader not take into consideration what their subjects feel or think?

P: An able leader should not need to consolidate with their subjects. An able leader knows the needs of their subjects, and does not need them to repeat their concerns.

M: I disagree. No leader can know all the wishes or concerns of their subjects.

P: So what you suggest is that the people have the option of voicing their concerns and having a role in governing the society?

M: Precisely.

P: If they have this power, can they not attempt to overthrow those in power? Can they not decide they are never content with the decisions of the rulers? Does the power you suggest not permit uprising?

M: The rulers and those in power will make decisions for the good of everyone in the society. The difference between our proposed states is that the masses in mine are able to voice the concerns that the rulers might overlook.

P: I can understand your point of overlooking issues; however, I would be concerned giving the freedom and power nevertheless. It is the responsibility of the rulers to govern the state as they see fit. The decisions the rulers make should be the final verdict, for the good of the whole. Once you permit the masses to address their concerns, you permit the masses to govern. Hypothetically, an issue arises and the masses raise the issue to those with responsibility. Should the ruler not be able to rectify the issue, the masses would begin to question their leadership, and consequently, chaos will pursue.

M: Only prosperity would pursue by allowing the masses to speak. The masses would see no reason to rise against their leaders if they are part of constructing their society. With the people having the ability to work alongside their leaders, and help in building their ideal community, the people would not rise up, solely because they would themselves be to blame for any mistakes. However, clearly we do not, and will not, see eye to eye on this matter. We should agree to disagree.

P: Agreed. How’s the wife?

History 253 Exam

Posted on by

What would you like to be asked in your oral exam? Here is your opportunity to contribute to the exam. Please submit at least two essay-type questions via the comment section of the blog. These should not be narrow, factual questions, rather they should be open-ended questions dealing with central themes of our course. Preferably, they should cross several eras. See the current exam guide on Moodle for suggestions.

Dehumanization

Posted on by

Jeremy Pozner
First Year Seminar
Professor Qualls

Paper Prospectus

I intend to write about the use of propaganda to influence both the German citizens’ and the Nazi soldiers’ views of the Jews as Üntermenschen. The Nazis used propaganda campaigns in order to glorify the blue- eyed, blonde- haired Aryan and to dehumanize the Jews. These propaganda campaigns included movies, posters, and even comics for children that blamed the Jews for all of society’s ills. This propaganda influenced the Germans’ view of Jews as less than human and created a psychological gap between the two parties. When added to the propaganda that boosted the Aryan soldiers of the German army as Übermenschen, the effects were magnified. This effect, known as dehumanization, made it easier for the German soldiers to commit horrible atrocities against the Jews in concentration camps such as Auschwitz because they viewed the Jews as inferior life forms.

I am going to try to answer the question “How did the propaganda influence the thinking of Nazi soldiers and their ability to exterminate Jews?” as well as “How did the propaganda influence the German civilians and could it have helped them turn a blind eye to the suffering of the Jews?”

This topic has been covered quite a bit, however I am also going to try and cover the angle of the civilians as well as the soldiers.

Bibliography
-Zimbardo, Phillip. “The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo.” The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo. http://www.lucifereffect.com/dehumanization.htm (accessed October 1, 2012).
This page is based on the book The Lucifer Effect by Phillip Zimbardo. It talks about the Nazi propaganda that dehumanized the Jews and influenced the German citizenry to think of the Jews as bad.
-” Dehumanization of the Jews.” Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh. http://www.jfedpgh.org/page.aspx?id=148357 (accessed October 1, 2012).
This page talks about how the Germans used various forms of propaganda to portray the Jews as subhuman.

– Smith, David Livingstone. Less than human: why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2011.
This book talks about how dehumanization of a people is a crucial aspect that leads to genocide. It not only talks about dehumanization of the Jews by the Nazis but also about other instances in history such as the Rwandan genocide.

Gender and Sexuality under Differing Ideologies

Posted on by

Emily Smith

Revised Paper Proposal

 

In this paper, I want to examine the way that gender and sexuality are viewed under different forms of government. Gender and specifically women’s role in society has always been a controversial subject because different societies view women with varying degrees of equality. In the United States, women did not have full rights until the nineteenth amendment outlawed discrimination in suffrage based on gender. Yet women continue to have lower wages and have more difficulty obtaining jobs in certain fields than their male counterparts. When thinking about gender inequality and how women were only allowed full rights recently, a logical connection is the current debate on sexuality and how same sex couples continue to be discriminated against in much of the United States. The United States claims to be one of the most progressive societies in the world, and yet there are two major oppressed groups that are still working to gain equality in a country that claims to be the “land of the free”.

First I will examine one of the earliest works of literature to reference sexual relationships between two individuals of the same sex, Plato’s The Republic references the relationship between two males. I will examine Plato’s view on sexuality and gender, then the society which the philosopher lived in. How were the roles of women and sexuality viewed in classic Greek society? This question leads me to look to a government system essentially in opposition to the democratic republic of the United States, Soviet Socialist Russia. What are the similarities and differences in the ways gender and sexuality are treated in each society and form of government? How have these perspectives changed with time or have they changed at all? In my investigation I will attempt to expand upon these questions and why each society views gender and sexuality the way they do.

Originally my plan was to compare socialist and communist governments in general to the way democracy views gender and sexuality but when attempting to research I found that there was a lack of general information about each ideology and this made obtaining information much more difficult. In order to fix this problem I narrowed my research topic to three specific societies and ideologies. This has made research much easier and the information more related to the topic. I am in possession of Plato’s Republic, in which the philosopher strives to create an ideal state of justice and truth. In Bertel Ollman’s article, Social and Sexual Revolution, the NYU fellow discusses the changing views of sexuality in the social setting from the perspective of many different ideologies ranging from Marxist theories to radical liberalism. Another source which I will rely on is Disorders Of Desire Rev: Sexuality And Gender In Modern American Sexology, written by Janice Irvine, this work explores the evolution of sex in modern American culture. She investigates the psychological effects of these changes and the changing views of sex in the social setting. These resources and others such as: Socialism and Homosexuality, Gender and Society in Soviet Russia, and Greek Homosexuality will help me to investigate different perspectives on gender and sexuality during different time periods and under various government ideologies. There is enough information from these sources to support my investigation and comparison of these topics, with most of the sources available in full text online.

Works Cited

Ashwin, Sarah. “Gender and Society in Soviet Russia.” Well Placed Pottery. www.wellplacedpottery.org/alec/literature/russia.html (accessed September 30, 2012).

Harrison, Thomas. “Socialism and Homosexuality  | New Politics.” New Politics. http://newpol.org/node/79 (accessed October 1, 2012).

Irvine, Janice . Disorders Of Desire Rev: Sexuality And Gender In Modern American Sexology. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2005.

Irvine explores the convoluted psychology of sexuality and gender in modern American culture. She uses social movements, government policy, debates and research to create a summation of American sexology in the late twentieth century.

Katz, Marilyn. “Ideology and `The status of women’ in ancient Greece..” History & Theory 31, no. 4 (1992): 70.

Kon, Igor S.. “The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: Russia.” Der WWW2-Webserver — Website. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/russia.html (accessed September 30, 2012).

Loftus, Jeni. “America’s Liberalization in Attitudes Towards Homosexuality.” American Sociological Review 66, no. 5 (2001): 762-782.

Ollman, Bertel. “Social and Sexual Revolution.” The Writings of Bertel Ollman. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/ssr_ch06.php (accessed October 1, 2012).

A more general view of the changes in perspectives in sexuality, Ollman discusses sexuality from varying perspectives and ideals. He provides useful background in different idealogies and time periods and how each viewed sexuality in a social setting.

Plato. The republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. *Primary Source*

The philosopher explores his ideal fantasy of the “perfect” state, in which all individuals are working most efficiently towards a common goal. One of the first works to ever mention the most basic ideas of communism and socialism, Plato explores the topics of family, property, government, and what it means to be truly just and whether or not this creates happiness.

van Dolen, Hein . “Greek homosexuality.” Livius. Articles on Ancient History. http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/homosexuality.html (accessed October 1, 2012).

 

The Effects of Collectivism, and a Lack of Individuality on the “Individual” In Anthem and We

Posted on by

The Effects of Collectivism, and a Lack of Individuality on the “Individual” In Anthem and We  By Katie Mooradian:

Proposal:

I plan to analyze individuality in both Ayn Rand’s Anthem, and Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We. I hope to find similarities between how their limited opportunities for individuality, take away their humanity. Both stories feature a removal of “human universals” such as choosing a mate, and child rearing by their natural parents, which compete against what we today would term as human nature. I am assuming that the protagonists of each story will share similar personality traits, and that I can analyze how their lack of individuality affects their overall psyche. I plan to analyze this information directly from the texts. I also wish to look at differences between societies, most specifically how each government keeps control over its citizens, and how they maintain a lack of individuality among them. We has technology, but the government highly oppresses their citizens with laws, and police who have nearly complete visibility of all citizens including their home lives because every one lives in glass houses. This creates very complacent citizens who fear disobeying any rules, as well as other individuals who ban together in an organized rebel group. In Anthem society has regressed, and is now less technologically advanced by state mandate. Citizens have very restricted freedom of choice in how they live their lives from childrearing, to career choice.  These topics may eventually lead into talking about revolutions by the protagonists against the rest of society, and what acted as their catalyst. Both stories include another female character who helps to assist the main character, but Anthem ends much more successfully with the creation of a new society, whereas any progress made in We was annihilated by the government.

There is much writing on the biblical references in both We and Anthem, which describe how both novella’s include two main characters, one male, and one female. They are both said to be expelled for “Eden” to create new societies, in the same way as Adam and Eve. Although there are some works done describing individuality in each book separately I have only been able to find one article by Peter Saint-Andre titled Zamyatin and Rand which tries to analyze the books together. Saint-Andre focuses on the similarities between both utopias, why they collapse or do not function properly, and similarities in structure. Since I have not read We I am unable to draw further conclusions just yet, but I hope to see connection to how a lack of individuality takes away what could be considered natural human behaviors, and how it spoils a potential utopia, transforming the societies into dystopias.

The primary sources that I will be using are of course both novels themselves, as well as a variety of criticisms of each novels, focusing on sections involving individualities, human nature, and reasons why each society is a dystopia. Literature such as Human Nature in Utopia: Zamyatin’s We, and Needs of the Psyche in Ayn Rand’s Early Ethical Thought will speculate on how collectivism effects the “individual’s” emotional wellbeing and shape their interactions with the world. Where-as Deception of Self in Zamyatin’s We focuses more exclusively on how the lack of individuality changes the lives of characters in We. Nearly all criticisms of Anthem discuss the lack of individuality because it is such an obvious part of the book since “I” and “Ego” are entirely removed from the book, and it is such a turning point when the main character discovers these words and their implications.

I own both of the primary sources for my topic which helps make this paper more practical, but I am struggling with secondary sources, especially for Rand. I am able to find informative pieces on all the subjects I am looking to cover in the databases, but Dickinson doesn’t own many of the books and journals I need for my paper so I will have to take out interlibrary loans for all the sources for Anthem, as well as the majority of sources for We. I am hoping that the library will be able to help me get access to them, otherwise my research topic will be somewhat impractical. Overall I have found more related information than I had originally expected to find, and the scope of my project has broadened. I plan to focus the majority of my attention on the affects of individuality, but since that is so interconnected with concepts such as human nature and the structure of government in We and Anthem both will inevitably be included, and articles on those topics are likely to also include information about individuality.

 

 

Works Cited

Primary Sources:

Rand, Ayn. Anthem. Champaign, Ill.: Project Gutenberg, 1938.

Anthem was written by Ayn Rand in an attempt to warn of the dangers of collectivism. The novella takes place in the future, but the date is not specified. Technology has been limited, and individuality has been entirely removed from their society to the point where “I” and “Ego” are no longer part of citizens vocabulary. As in We individuality is removed for the collective will of the people. The main character, Equality 7-2521 has lost much of his humanity due to the way citizens are raised, which includes being raised by someone other than biological parents, he may not choose his profession, and is not allowed to have friends. The names in Anthem are similar to We in that people are primarily identified by numbers.

Zamyatin, Evgeniĭ Ivanovich. We. New York: Viking Press, 1972.

We is a novel which is focused primarily on the idea of surveillance. The main character D-503 living in a house made of glass which removes all possibility of privacy for the citizens of One State, a futuristic nation. The way of life in D-503’s country also limits individualism. Characters are forced to march in formation, there are strict rules controlling relationships, and children are also raised by the state. Collectivism and government control has a very obvious effect on the personalities of the characters, most specifically D-503 who is wary of breaking the laws, when compared to the rebel I-330 who is in an organization, MEPHI which is revolting against the government and its restrictions.

Secondary Sources:

Berman, Michael. “Studies on Themes and Motifs in Literature.” In Disguise, Deception, Trompe-l’œil: Interdisciplinary Perspectives.. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. 133-148.

Brook, Yaron. “The Ayn Rand Institute: News and Highlights.” The Ayn Rand Institute: Center for the Advancement of Objectivism. http://aynrand.org (accessed September 20, 2012).

Cooke, Brett. Human Nature in Utopia: Zamyatin’s We. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 2002.

Doyle, Peter. “Zamyatin’s Philosophy, Humanism, and ‘We:’ A Critical Appraisal.” Renaissance & Modern Studies 28 (1984): 1-17.

Mayhew, Robert. Essays on Ayn Rand’s Anthem. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2005.

Saint-Andre, Peter. “Zamyatin and Rand.” Journal of Ayn Rand studies 4, no. 2 (2003): 285-304. http://stpeter.im/writings/rand/zamyatin-rand.html (accessed September 30, 2012).

Saint-Andre works to analyze both We and Anthem together. He looks at similarities in the structure of the writing, and of the utopias themselves. He points out many parallels experienced by both of the main characters including their way of life within each society. They experience the same types of upbringing, and neither was able to choose his own profession. This article has proven very helpful because it is very thorough and detailed.

Smith, Natalie . “Human Nature in Utopia: Zamyatin’s “We” .” Slavic and East European Journal 47, no. 2 (2003): 317-319.

Wegner, Philip. “On Zamyatin’s We: A Critical Map of Utopia’s ‘Possible Worlds.” Utopian Studies 4, no. 2 (1993): 94,23.