Blog Post 4

by bswise

By Bethany Wise

               It is apparent to those who have read A Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood that the town of Gilead is a totalitarian society which leaves no room for individual rights. There are spies everywhere constantly threatening to turn you in if you express yourself inappropriately in the eyes of the government. Jane Armbruster recognizes this horrendous way of life in her article Memory and Politics- A Reflection on The Handmaid’s Tale.  However, she makes an interesting claim regarding the relevance of Gilead to America today. “Margaret Atwood’s nation of Gilead…exists today in the United States of America—not in the near future as the author proposes” (Armbruster, page 146). Due to the extremity of Gilead’s society and the lack of Armbruster’s adequate evidence, I find the claim that America today reflects Gilead’s society to be absurd.

            Armbruster refers to contemporary “commanders,” under whose power we as a nation are under. While she never directly addresses who these commanders are, I had assumed them to be the government. She claims that the commanders have lied to us and told us that workers’ jobs and our personal security depend on military budget. They have also convinced us that we need to abuse natural resources such as natural gas and forests in order to live. Socially, we are so distracted by our culture that we are naïve to the fact that we are under the same power as those in Gilead. Deciding which TV shows to watch or what brand of shampoo to use are the types of trivial activities that contribute to our ignorance.

            Personally, I find Armbruster’s claim to be ridiculous. Not only are the characters in Gilead aware of their bondage, but they are also striving for a way out. This type of attitude is not depicted by Americans and, in comparison to the characters from A Handmaid’s Tale, we are quite content with our way of life. Unlike Gilead, America has a Constitution which protects the rights in which Gilead had violated. Women are not forced by the government to have sex with other men in order to not be executed or sent away. We are allowed freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and many other rights in which Gilead had stripped its citizens of. The two societies, politically, could not be more different.

           The claim made in this article is a very strong claim, and Armbruster does not give adequate evidence to support it. Any similarities between America and Gilead are subtle and trivial. It is offensive to say that America reflects the society of Gilead which, literally objectifies women and strips every one of the rights granted by our Constitution. 

Blog Post 4

by ederken

Figuring out how and why things function in a certain way has always been a human drive.  One of the more recent developments, psychology, has led scholars and researchers to provide reasons as to why humans behave in certain ways and attempt to generalize the behavior of humans.  In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the minds of the characters exhibit traits that correlate to Freud’s antithetical system; however, Freud was born almost a century after Shelley published her novel.  This correlation shows that similar features of the human have always existed in humanity, it just took many years for someone to name them.

 

For example, Shelley portrays the monster as a pseudo Oedipus figure.  He wanted a mate, who he could not have because Victor was withholding her from the monster by not creating a mate for him.  To retaliate, the monster kills the people to whom Victor is closest with the hope that he will be able to be with a mate.  Although Freud coined the term, Shelley had experienced a similar situation.  Additionally, Victor had a close relationship with his mother; after her death, his love was displaced onto his cousin Elizabeth.  With the void in his life that his mother’s death created, he was constantly ignoring his father and looking for ways to spite him.

Blog Post #4

by scottbl

“Playing God” is a household term that summarizes many views into one phrase. “Playing God” implies when man defies nature, when man’s ambition goes too far, and when man has breached the barrier separating God from humanity. Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps by Hek van de Belt challenges these same negative associations both with “playing God” and the “Frankenstein myth”. Belt describes the research of synthetic biologist J. Craig Venter in a neutral tone, however he also subtly refutes the labels Venter has received by the general public. He cites the “playing God” label as a journalistic “cliche” that downplays Venter’s achievements in creating a new microbial life form from scratch. What is interesting about his refutations is that Belt concludes that the most concern about “playing God” stems from secular organizations and individuals. Religious organizations and individuals even use the term “playing God” as justification for what synthetic biologists are doing, defying our expectations. However, Belt recognizes that as Venter and others have only experimented with microbial life, we have yet to see how people truly feel if one were to create “human” life.

This is exactly what the more secular individuals are concerned about. Although Belt condones the “Frankenstein” myth, it is not to say that Frankenstein does not hold some degree of truth. Right now, synthetic biology is still “ethical”. It is only reserved to small organisms who do not resemble human life at all. But when technology reaches levels where we will be able to create something comparable to man , we will be having a very different discussion. This is because not only have we now assumed responsibility as creators, we have now defied the natural order of “Nature”. We have essentially skipped many generations of evolution and created a being that we cannot entirely understand. While Frankenstein explores the ethical and moral questions of this situation, what scares people the most about Frankenstein are not these questions: it is the monster. That is why people are so wary about “playing God”. They are wary that we will have created a figurative “monster” that is no longer under our control. Humans do not like uncertainty. It is why we are inclined to believe in God, or other such omnipotent beings. It is why some of us believe there is an afterlife. We desire conclusions and answers for our existence; we want to have a purpose in this world. But once we have created something we don’t understand, then we have introduced too much uncertainty into our lives, both about what said creature would do, and about what it makes us. Are we now “creators”? Or have we doomed all of humanity? While Venter’s achievements are monumental for the future of synthetic biology, only time will tell if the general public will embrace the future of this scientific field.

Blog Post 4

by hmajoros

The human race is obsessed with life, whether it be creating new lives or trying to save current ones. Research in the areas of cloning and stem cells have changed the ways we can save lives, but there is an ethical dilemma that comes along with this new technology. Bioterrorism, Embryonic Stem Cells, and Frankenstein by Patrick Guinan discusses the current state of affairs in human life with the advancement of technology, and how this compares to the story of Frankenstein. In this article, Guinan eludes to the fact that there are limits on human knowledge and advancement, but more than often these bounds are overstepped. Human tendencies lead us to take the forbidden fruit, as in the story of Adam and Eve, and Guinan believes that works such as Frankenstein should serve as a cautionary tale to humans. Despite our best intentions, technology and the desire for humans to make advances in society will eventually lead to a dystopian future if limits are not put onto technology.

An example given by Guinan to accurately portray an incredible invention turning into a disaster is the case of September 11th. Prior to this incident, airplanes had been one of mankind’s most remarkable inventions, but in the hands of the wrong people, this miraculous man made machine quickly became a tool used by terrorists. Frankenstein can be viewed in a similar manner; most people believed that the ability to create life from nothing would be an extraordinary feat, but Frankenstein’s monster ultimately turned out to be a killer. Guinan writes that, “Dr. Frankenstein is a paradigm for many literary figures who have usurped the quest for knowledge” (Guinan, p. 307). The quest for knowledge is present in the lives of many, but how many will go past the ethical and moral bounds set by society to continue on their quest? According to Guinan, most people will, even though warning signs exist. It is hard to set distinct limits on knowledge, but it is up to the humans themselves to learn from stories like Frankenstein and realize that the attainment of greater knowledge may someday be the downfall of the human race.

Blog Post 4: Globalization and Technology

by bswise

By Bethany Wise

Technology and globalization share a mutually beneficial relationship. At least, that is what Kriengsak Chareonwongsak thoroughly explains to us in his article “Globalization and Technology: How Will They Change Society?”   As technology continues its evident rapid expansion, there are a number of notable global trends as a result. Greater diversification, increasing standardization and faster development are only a few of these examples. Chareonwongsak’s central claim is that globalization and technology support each other and have improved society’s productivity and communication drastically.
Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale depicts a very different perspective of technology and globalization. The plot is centered around an isolated society which redefined our conservative idea of technology to the concept of human technology. Handmaids were the “technology” and they were used for the mere purpose of reproducing. The effects of this totalitarian society were complete isolation from the rest of the world. Communication was nonexistent outside of their little town—and even among each other. It got so drastic, that there were systems resembling the Underground Railroad in order to help women escape. In contrast to Chareonwongsak’s article, A Handmaid’s Tale portrays technology as the ultimate globalization/communication preventer.  
The difference between the two types of technology discussed in both pieces certainly broadens the definition of technology a bit. Which is why my opinion agrees with both. Atwood portrays a very specific, unrealistic society throughout the plot. In the context of the story, forcing a woman’s body to serve as nothing other than reproductive technology would probably prevent globalization for that one specific town. However, fortunately for us, that is not our reality and there are no indications of that ever becoming our reality. There is no denying that Chareonwongsak speaks truth when he says the technology and globalization have been building on each other and are bettering the productivity of society. Whether or not it has bettered or destroyed individual socialization is another topic. Despite how technology is depicted in A Handmaid’s Tale, it is my opinion, as well is that of scholar Kriengsak Chareonwongsak’s, that technology and globalization are evident in each other and in the increasing productivity and communication throughout the world.

Blog Post 4

by alexizen

-Alex Izen

In “Maintaining the reversibility of foldings: Making the ethics (politics) of information technology visible”, Lucas D. Introna argues about the morality of new technology.  Introna stressed that technology is a technical mean to social ends, as well as the belief that improving technology decreases social communication and that this intention to end direct social communication is immoral.  He also mentions how the spread of information is political and ethically questionable.  Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale supports this statement fully.  In A Handmaid’s Tale, there are many examples of dysfunction in society that are caused by the advancements made in technology.  In this book, social communication is clearly hindered and there appears to be a strict and rigorous social class system.  This harsh class system limits social communication.  This is possible because of the technology available to the government.  Additionally, because of the spread of knowledge the government is able to spy in on the class system and problems in the society.  They use high-ranking officers and “The Eyes” to see when crimes have been committed, allowing them to enforce their strict penalties immediately to keep their rules in place.  Having complete control keeps the people in fear of the government and this stops any potential rebellion.  This overruling power is unethical and immoral and I believe that is what Atwood is trying to convey in the story.  Throughout the book, Offred is living in fear of the government and from “The Eyes”.  Furthermore, she is even more afraid when Ofglen kills herself because The Eyes were coming for her.   The government, after finding out about Ofglen’s intentions immediately moved in to stop the spread of knowledge to keep them in control.  This takes away the liberty and freedom of the people, which is neither right nor just. I also agree that the society present in A Handmaid’s Tale is a terrible totalitarian society that is evil and unfair.  In reference to the claim made by Introna, I believe Atwood as well as myself would both agree.