Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron

Only through the works of fiction can we fathom upon the idea of living within a utopia, a state where we are all “equal.” The idea of equality and to be able to within a utopian like state is farfetched and is naive for we humans have only created the opposite and seem to move further away from any progress. The core focus or theme of “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut is that the pursuit for total equality is a dangerous and foolish ideal that is not tangible and has poor execution which leads to dire outcomes. Vonnegut’s purpose for writing “Harrison Bergeron” serves as a satirical piece as it points out the flaws within the Civil Rights Movement and present day we can see how Vonnegut’s piece serves more as a warning as neo-liberals and

pseudo-progressives seek for an ideal that cannot ever exist.
The tone throughout Vonnegut’s dystopia is filled with a twisted, cynical, dark sense of humor that it allows the readers to understand the absurdity and the insanity of the world in which Harrison Bergeron lives in. For example, when Harrison answers George is reply was, “Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well.” (Vonnegut 1961). At the end of “Harrison Bergeron,” the story takes a horrifying twist as the Handicapper General murders Harrison and the empress then turns the shotgun upon the musicians, as the scene played out, Vonnegut ends the story with a conversation between George and Hazel that ended, “Gee-“ said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”” Such childish like language is spoken as if nothing happened and they were supposed to continue living their lives in their utopia.
.

Vonnegut’s satirical work of fiction was published in 1961 to critique the Civil Rights Movement and address those in the movement that advocated the idea of total equality. Vonnegut feared that our quest for complete equality or egalitarianism would in the end cost us our freedom and individuality. We now live in an age of colorblindness and political correctness which are the byproducts of skewed neo-liberal ideology that humans should be equal but to what extend are we willing to go to achieve such means; does the ends justify the means when we longer have any sort of freedom? No; Martin Luther King Jr. and Kurt Vonnegut both advocated equality but understood equality is not supposed to become an ideal used to condemn and oppress and both truly advocated for the tearing down the walls of oppression and segregation that creates race and class warfare. Martin Luther King Jr. in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” that was written on April 16, 2963, addressed his fellow clergy men as he wrote, “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” (King 1963). King addressed his fellow clergy men whom he believe had stray from the path of what he wanted to accomplish and what he wanted the Civil Rights Movement to be which was for the most part a nonviolent act of civil disobedience to bring social change. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that only through bring awareness and the breaking of unjust laws which allowed and promoted segregation and racism was key in moving forward to address race relations in the United States. Through breaking unjust laws, King believed that others will realize how unjust the law is and empathize with those who have been wrongly prosecuted and call for change. King’s approach and end goal was not to have total equality but

rather he values individuality and freedom which the United States government refused recognize the African American population as well as other minorities.
Our culture and society is built upon the ideology of equality and now we’re at a crossroads where we have to choose between individuality and freedom or let political correctness create a false sense of equality. The United States was built upon the concept of freedom and equality which contradicts one another and since the founding of this country we have struggled to find a balance between the two ideals. Often minorities like myself have to choose between freedom and equality and in this age of political correctness we are forced to self-censor ourselves and therefore violating our freedom of speech which is essentially freedom to assemble and the press as well. From personal experience, self-censorship has proven difficult for me to express myself in a way that others may not understand or like. Do we sacrifice our individuality and freedom for the greater good to feed the masses the false conception of equality? Equality in my opinion will never exists because since the moment we enter this world we are already of different class, background, DNA, and other factors that through nature and nurture determine our status in life.
In conclusions, the quest for complete equality is a naïve and dangerous path in which we as Americans continue to walk upon. Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” written in 1961, originally served as a critique but has now become a warning for us as we have to ask ourselves; by 2081 will be living in a similar dystopia in which we all seem to be “equal” and where freedom and individuality ceases to exist? With the aid of Martin Luther King Jr’s true goal for the Civil Rights Movement, we can see how far we have come or how far we have strayed from the path depending upon perspective. Many would argue that the ends justify the means and advocated the idea of total equality but blatantly ignore the cost for such drastic measures while some understand that total equality can and should never exist for it would deprive us of what makes us human.