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.
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.
posted by The Sasquatch at 10/15/2006 05:36:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home