Parable Part Deux

The most interesting thing I learned in the rest of the Parable story was the dramatic shift from traditionalism to modernism to almost a neo-traditionalism. I know the story spoke of post-modernism and the post-industrial era, but, to me, it seemed a hell of a lot like the traditional values and culture that was mentioned earlier in the story. So, I will stick with the new term “neo-traditionalism.” Hopefully, I will allude to what I mean by that through the rest of this blog.

Much of what is referred to as the age of modernity and this period of emphasis on the individual seem to correlate well with the United States up to post-World War II era. There was the advancement of technology and society for the sake of efficiency, the close-knit, yet diverse city, and families working to pay the bills, not to live. All of this was mentioned in the story. The move toward a more conforming society that focuses not on the helpfulness or efficiency of an item, but the look and “hipness” of the item epitomizes the United States post-1950. With what I know of American History, the growth of suburbs and Levittowns started during the 1950s. The movement of the wealthy and even upper-middle class society to these excluded, conformed areas is a vivid depiction of the conformed, amenity-competitive society depicted in the Parable.

Now, the reason I say it is more neo-traditionalist is because this movement brings traditional values to modernity. There is still the emphasis on the hierarchy, as seen through wealth and possessions. There is still the emphasis on wasteful display, such as cars that look nice but get about a mile to the gallon. So, the realm of post-modernity represented in the Parable is essentially the traditionalism of the canopy pre-‘knocking down trees,’ but with a modern twist to it. Display is much more accessible now, so these post-modern elites have to step their game up, as the kids say these days. But, the post-modern elites work through the capitalist system, and ultimately benefit from the capitalist system, in order to accomplish their crave to waste.

Another interesting item was the mention of post-modernism focusing on the inherent bad quality of the present and the ever-growing worse quality of the future. Along those lines, the emphasis on the dystopia rather than the utopia. I found this a bit shocking because I am a big fan of dystopic novels and am hoping that I could one day write one. Also, I have just gone through and read 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 for the first time in awhile and have a copy of Animal Farm sitting on my desk. Not to mention the fact that I plan on watching V for Vendetta shortly after writing this blog.
I would not say that I believe the present sucks compared to the past or that the future is a horrible place. I do, however, have a fascination with the theories and ideas behind the novels and movies involving dystopias. George Orwell criticized much of the world’s actions through his novels, but I do not think that he particularly believed the future was a grim and horrible place. I do not, however, believe in a utopia, or a utopian future. Utopia is, frankly, an ambiguous term.

Parable of the Monkeys

The most interesting thing I learned from the Parable of the Monkeys story was the simplicity of the situation. It seems a bit hard to me to be able to condense political and social backgrounds for the world in the past thousand years or so down to twenty pages about monkeys. Personally, I do not see how the story would have worked with any other animal than the monkey, because gerbils just do not seem like the type to be hierarchical. I always pictured them to be humble folk.

Back to the idea of the simplicity. If I had to sum up the vast changes in society since the colonization of the New World, this would definitely be on my list of witty metaphors and anecdotes to choose from. The idea of the transitional, hierarchical madness that dominated life for so long is pictured perfectly in the single, isolated status of the monkeys in their tree’s canopy. And this idea of modernity, too, is pictured with the cult of individuality and the intertwining of trees where one man (or monkey, in this case) relies on others to live. There is no longer the emphasis on producing enough to live, thus constricting the way of life. Instead, the world (or trees) is a much freer place with more opportunities for action and interaction. And even a little room for monkeys that can fly on rockets.

The story really fits in with the reading we have been doing in the larger section of class. There were the monkeys who refused to let go of their traditional beliefs, mirroring the Virginians who stayed loyal to the hierarchy and aristocracy of the crown. Change presented conflict for these traditional beliefs, so people (or monkeys) were forced to break from these traditional, and thus constraining, ties in order to live. Monkey separatists (which rolls off the tongue) mirrored, in a way, much of colonial America. There were probably fewer witch trials in Monkey City, though. I would like to make a reference to the game Monkey Island somewhere in this bit, but I just cannot seem to find a proper location. Which is probably why I just put it in the last sentence.

Another key element of the story was the isolation of the monkeys. This isolation forced them to find their own set of beliefs and, thus, their own representation of society; god. Each society of monkeys had different views, yet maintained certain core monkey values (endowed by their monkey Creator and protected in the Bill of Primate Rights) despite their isolation. This really keys in on the difference between religion not only between colonial America and motherland England, but also within the colonies themselves. The Anglican god differed greatly from the Puritan god. The Great Chimpy also happened to be a bit different from Bozo the Great (though the latter sounds more like a clown name than a monkey god name).

Overall, it just seems like a matter of adapting to modernity. Traditional values alone cannot be sustained in the modern world. Times are a’changin’ and the rigidity and firmness of the traditional world prevents it from blossoming in the modern world. This story really seems to show that in a simple, grade-school level (though the kindergarten version should have Care Bears or something).