I found both of these writings quite ingenious in their ideas and fascinating to read. They both relate to each other and We. The first one, Questions of Conquest, talks about Indian cultures versus Spain's, and how they mixed together. The most interesting part of this article is when Llosa begins to talk about the "modernization" of the Indians by the Spaniards. According to the author, it was the Indians' culture that ultimately led to their defeat. The empire of Tawantinsuyu is a fascinating one. The Incan society was a whole- one body. All were fed, all were housed- and all were one. Llosa says the Incan individuals "lacked the ability to make own decisions either with the sanction of authority or indeed against it and were incapable of taking individual initiative". The authority (in reality the emperor/god/master) represented his empire of twenty million. Without their god, the Incans could not think nor protect themselves, and thus were they slaughtered by the spaniards.
This relates quite well with We (by Zamyatin) as the culture of the One State is all about crushing individual and living "happy" as one. As all beings are given numbers, and individuality and creativity are discouraged. Heavily. So much so that I-330, when she raised her hand alone against the Benefactor, she was about to be arrested. This is the same as in the Tawantinsuyu community. In Questions of Conquest Llosa states that the empire "was... Able to evolve slowly and with care in the field of knowledge, inventing only that which could support it and deterring all that which in some way or another could undermine it's foundation". Workers of the one state could only write propaganda-ish stuff, or spend time dutifully doing what one was told (except for one free hour) or else be taken, interrogated and, eventually, given a removal of one's imagination. Other factors of Incan society are similar to those of the One State. Llosa refers to the community as "machinery", as D-503 often does. One significant connection is the relation of religion to the people.. Llosa says this: "The individual had no importance and virtually no existence in that pyramidal and theocratic society whose achievements had always gene collective and anonymous... A state religion that took away the individual's free will and crowned the authority's decision with the aura of a divine mandate turned the Tawantinsuyu into a beehive- laborious, efficient, stoic". Llosa could have just as well been talking about We. The Benefactor, like the Incan emperor, was the Godlike figure to his society. D-503 could only bare to look at the Benefactor's feet, overwhelmed by the seeming power and religion the Benefactor held. Much like Tawantinsuyu, the One State was a colony of efficiency, perfection, and one-ness. The numbers worked hard at their duty, whatever it was and however long, and the conditions they lived in (glass houses with no playtime) gave them a stoic life. The numbers of the One State and the Incans are perhaps not too different.
Freedom and Democracy also contains several connections to Zamyatin's novel, if more theoretical than real. There are several points that the author makes which are key ideas in We. The author of Freedom and Democracy also manages to relate it to not only a fiction story, but to now in the 21st century. Here, the author points out reasons why an individual fails to, well, individualize himself and instead conform to society. What is most important is the loss of identity. In this article, it is said that "because we freed ourselves of the older overt forms of authority, we do not see that we have become prey of a new kind of authority". This relates to the first story we read about people with only perceived freedom- but in reality it being only an illusion to gain people's compliance. In this article, it also says "the loss of the self has increased the necessity to conform". The author means that all of us question who we are- and in lack of an answer to the disturbing question, we push it aside and out of our minds, and instead merge into society- "I am 'as you desire me.'" the author later tells us that "By conforming with the expectations of others, by not being different, these doubts about one's own identity are silenced and a certain security is gained". This is what the One State has done. As the numbers refer to themselves as "we", they loose their individuality and imagination, but gain security- no loss of self, no hunger, no boredom, no questions. Life just is. It's a fact.
Both of these articles led me down a train of thought and invoked a lot of imagination on my part. The questions that were asked I asked myself- "who am I"? I found myself agreeing with some parts and disagreeing with others. For instance, I do not believe that individuals are solely only individuals or part of a bigger community. We are both. I am what my parents made me, of all that has happened outside of myself, but my thoughts are my own. I do not always agree with something that anyone says, and often I find something quite different to say. I am unique, as are we all.
Jorina's Comment
Hey, I agree with the connections you made between the
articles and We, well done on that part. The points you made
about the society in the One State in connection with the society
described as the Inca Empire are very well developed and I
completely agree with you. But is creativity in the One State
really discouraged? Think about the fact that there are poets,
writing poems, D-503 creating a new building, the Integral...
Also I wouldn't say that the Benefactor is the number's religion.
Of course there are significant relations to God and the way they
admire him, but it's not like they believe in the Benefactor, but
maybe I'm wrong?
I also feel that you could have developed more the
connection between the two articles. There are some interesting
connections like the fact that in 'Questions of Conquest' the author
thinks that the way we are as an individual all came from the
ancient empires and that we 'grew' into it as a society; The other
article says that our individuality developed the way it developed
because of our parents, the school we went to and the people that
'shaped' us. I believe that's an interesting point you could have
mentioned.
Otherwise I think that your reaction is thoughtful and
interesting. You mentioned some things that I didn't even see
before, good job Adrienne !
Jorina
No comments:
Post a Comment