Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Class oppression essay
Social oppression
Disempowerment and discrimination
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Class oppression essay
Harrison Bergeron vs. 1984
Harrison Bergeron and 1984 were both based on a similar concept. This concept is creating peace by limiting and controlling the population. In George Orwell’s “1984';, it was done through brainwashing and doublethink. In Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison
Bergeron';, it was done by limiting everyones abilities until everyone is equal in all ways. Each author used class systems, nature, and society to portray their negative utopia.
Class systems played a more important role in 1984, than they did in Harrison Bergeron. In 1984, there were three classes. The highest class, the Inner Party, controlled everything. They controlled what the people saw, heard, and read, and even what they thought. The middle working class, or the “regular'; party, did all the work that the inner party wanted to be done, in order to keep the population, including themselves, in control of everyone. The third, and lowest, class is the proles. The party does not even watch or care about the proles, because they are not important, and have no power at all. Harrison Bergeron apparently had everyone equalized through handicapping all those with extraordinary abilities. The classes were the same as they are in modern America, only with handicaps.
Human Nature was repressed in both stories. It is human nature to express one’s talents in some way. In 1984, any kind of personal expression was thoughtcrime, and would cause the guilty individual to be taken to the ministry of love, and brainwashed. In
Harrison Bergeron, every person was unable to display any kind of superiority over anyone else. The strong were weighted down, and the beautiful were forced to wear masks. No one was able to display any kind of talent even if they wanted to do so.
Society had almost the same roles for men and women in both stories. In 1984, men and women were both treated the same, as mindless members of the party. They both had the same jobs and duties, and they both had the same rules. In Harrison
Bergeron, men and women seemed to be treated the same as they are in modern society.
The search for justice actually contributed to the creation of both societies. Both were created in the hopes of eliminating crime and injustices by controlling the population. In 1984, there was only one crime, and only one punishment. If you commited thoughtcrime, you would be taken to the ministry of love and brainwashed, until you were fit to be released back into society.
The main concern for the characters in “Harrison Bergeron” is equality. It is the handicapper general’s job to manipulate everyone so no man is stronger
...r because it seems impossible to reconstruct an event from this objective point of view. Maybe the point of telling stories is not trying to recreate the reality of a past event, but it is the message that matters because that might be in the end the only thing that does not necessarily depend on single details of the story, but on the overall picture of an event. That is why to O’Brien another important component of a war story is the fact that a war story will never pin down the definite truth and that is why a true war story “never seems to end” (O’Brien, 425). O’Brien moves the reader from the short and simple statement “This is the truth” to the conclusion that, “In war you lose your sense of the definite, hence your sense of truth itself and therefore it’s safe to say that in a true war story nohting much is ever very true” (O’Brien, 428). These two statements frame the entire irony of the story, from its beginning to its end. Almost like the popular saying “A wise man admits that he knows nothing.”
Several stories into the novel, in the section, “How to tell a true war story”, O’Brien begins to warn readers of the lies and exaggerations that may occur when veterans tell war stories.
The truth to any war does not lie in the depths of storytelling but rather it’s embedded in every person involved. According to O’Brien, “A true war story does not depend on that kind of truth. Absolute occurrence is irrelevant. A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth” (pg. 80). Truths of any war story in my own opinion cannot be fully conveyed or explained through the use of words. Any and all war stories provide specific or certain facts about war but each of them do not and cannot allow the audience to fully grasp the tru...
If you have ever read the book 1984 by George Orwell, then an interesting topic may have crossed your mind. The way the classes of people break down can be quite similar, and very different at times. In the United States, we have classes like the lower class, the working class, and the middle class. In 1984, there were such classes as the Proles, the Outer Party, and the Inner Party. The way the classes are broken down in 1984 reminds me a little bit of my old history class. When I studied medieval times and the classes back then were broken down into the nobles, the bourgeois, and the serfs.
In conclusion, the complete freedom and absolute equality have been a goal of innumerable societies throughout human history. However, these two ideal cannot exist together in their most perfect forms because the perfect forms of either freedom or equality represent total chaos or total oppression, as we can see in “Harrison Bergeron,” the consequences of sacrificing freedom for perfect equality. The author uses the story of this imaginary perfect world where everyone is happy to demonstrate that a society in which total equality exists is not only oppressive, but also inert and unproductive. Using his futuristic scenario, the simplicity of the society, and the actions of his characters, Vonnegut makes his point of view of a repressive society. In addition, societies that try to create total equality have almost always proven to be oppressive, such as China.
William Domhoff’s investigation into America’s ruling class is an eye-opening and poignant reading experience, even for enlightened individuals regarding the US social class system. His book, Who Rules America, exploits the fundamental failures in America’s governing bodies to provide adequate resources for class mobility and shared power. He identifies history, corporate and social hierarchy, money-driven politics, a two-party system, and a policy-making process orchestrated by American elites amongst a vast array of causes leading to an ultimate effect of class-domination theory pervading American society. In articulating his thesis and supporting assertions, Domhoff appeals rhetorically toward an audience with prior knowledge of America’s
What gives the reader the false idea of utopia in Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” is the deep social control in the form handicaps where individual’s abilities and competence and even appearance are neutralized and vilified as a form of inequality. The characteristics of equality chosen by Vonnegut; beauty, athleticism, and intelligence is important to the story’s message. The main focus of the story are the characteristics of equality that are subjective, the very same characteristics we are born with that makes us different and minimally states the objective ones, the ones that plague our society today. This not only satirizes the epitome of equality itself, but rather the people’s flawed ideals and belief of what total equality is supposed to be or should be.
In “How to Tell a True War Story” by Tim O’Brien, Orwell’s ideas are questioned and the competition between the truth and the underlying meaning of a story is discussed. O’Brien’s story depicts that the truth isn’t always a simple concept; and that not every piece of literature or story told can follow Orwell’s list of rules (Orwell 285). The story is told through an unnamed narrator as he re-encounters memories from his past as a soldier in the Vietnam War. With his recollection of past encounters, the narrator also offers us segments of didactic explanation about what a “true war story” is and the power it has on the human body (O’Brien 65). O’Brien uses fictional literature and the narration of past experiences to raise a question; to what extent should the lack of precision, under all circumstances, be allowed? In reality, no story is ever really truthful, and even if it is, we have no proof of it. The reader never feels secure in what they are being told. The reliability of the source, the author, and the narrator are always being questioned, but the importance of a story isn’t about the truth or the accuracy in which it is told, but about the “sunlight” it carries (O’Brien 81).
1984 was written as a warning to the western countries about having a totalitarianism government which is refers to a system of government in which lawfully electes representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little to no participation in the decision-making process of the government. The author felt like these countries were not able to find tactics to withstand the communism that was being taken placed. When the book was written in 1949 the Cold War had not yet broke out, and most people supported the diplomacy with the democratic communism. The author found the cruelty that was committed in the communist countries very disturbing, and the technologies that were used to help these countries control the citizens intriguing. This book tells how a complete government controlled country could be. Warning those who lived during this time to that if they did not want this to happen then they better vote against totalitarianism.
Tim O’Brien’s novel The Things They Carried challenges the reader to question what they are reading. In the chapter “How to Tell a True War Story”, O’Brien claims that the story is true, and then continues to tell the story of Curt’s death and Rat Kiley’s struggle to cope with the loss of his best friend. As O’Brien is telling the story, he breaks up the story and adds in fragments about how the reader should challenge the validity of every war story. For example, O’Brien writes “you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil” (69), “in many cases a true war story cannot be believed” (71), “almost everything is true. Almost nothing is true” (81), and “a thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth (83). All of those examples are ways in which O’Brien hinted that his novel is a work of fiction, and even though the events never actually happened – their effects are much more meaningful. When O’Brien says that true war stories are never about war, he means that true war stories are about all the factors that contribute to the life of the soldiers like “love and memory” (85) rather than the actual war. Happening truth is the current time in which the story was being told, when O’Brien’s daughter asked him if he ever killed anyone, he answered no in happening truth because it has been 22 years since he was in war and he is a different person when his daughter asked him. Story truth
This essay has compared the differences between the societies in these two novels. There is one great similarity however that both make me thankful for having been born into a freethinking society where a person can be truly free. Our present society may not be truly perfect, but as these two novels show, it could be worse.
After reading the book and watching the movie 1984 there were similarities and differences between the two. The novel is about manipulating people in believing in something that isn’t really there and about erasing history. Both the book and film focused on: authority, government, and war. The book and film follow the theme of conformity to control society.
Eventually, the lack of privacy and freedom leads to a suppression of people’s thinking. In 1984, people’s thinking was controlled by lies, invented stories and false information. The stories of the past are all altered and the information is constantly changing every day without any sign of change. The party uses propaganda as a deadly weapon to control its citizens’ minds.
In Bergeron’s society uniformity is strictly imposed upon all citizens. Physical adjustments are levied to achieve this uniformity: tall people wear weights, disturbing sounds administered through earpieces deter intelligent thought, and hideous masks conceal beauty (208, 210-211). "Handicap Generals" continually clear citizens’ minds allowing them to think only in the present. These controls force the suppression of all individuality.