The Realized Dystopia

What does freedom mean to you? How are you free? Whether it is the freedom to speak, consume, protest, bear arms, or believe whatever one wants, people want “freedom” because of ideology. Ideology is deceiving in that it is the creator of principles. The reality that humans perceive to hold universal truths are merely a creation of a false reality that humans have been indoctrinated into in order to perpetuate the power of higher classes. Taking a deeper look into the American psyche, one can begin to draw conclusions that the freedom we take as the most important and superior of human ideology is actually a means of domination. We are blinded by our own individuality because we do not understand that it is a product of what the other perceives in us. We live in a world with no true meaning or purpose, only what past generations have handed down to us as truth. Our perceived freedom to choose is what gives humans the power to believe they have control over their reality, but it is in actuality those with supreme ideology who choose what is good or bad.

In America, freedom of speech and the right to vote gives everyone an equal opportunity to speak out about any political issue that will make human life better or worse. Any issue one can think of can be questioned dealing with consumerism, technology, religion, art, love, etc., and those stances accepted by society are what are eventually engrained in our minds as what is normal. Through this free-will there is always push-pull of opinions, which is supposed to create equilibrium by which people find contentiveness in living. What dystopian texts beg to ask is: what makes reality as it stands today the ideal way to live? Taking a closer look at our ideologies and institutions put in place to perpetuate them, we are indoctrinated into a line of thought that strives towards utopia, which alienates real individuals who want to truly be free. Take consumerism for example. Americans have adopted the capitalist ideology as a means of allowing everyone in society to have an equal chance at becoming who they want to be. This ideology allows people to achieve the ideal style of comfortable living, but through consuming objects. It is through consuming things that we define ourselves because the commodities we think are important to us tell something about our individuality to other people that share similar ideologies. Theodore Adorno addresses this problem with mass culture today in that “every detail is so firmly stamped the sameness that nothing can appear which is not marked at birth, or does not meet with approval at first sight.” (Adorno 6) What he means by this is that people will never learn to rationally agree or disagree on anything if it has not already somehow been established as good or bad in our ideology. Think about Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 where people in the future are led to believe that firemen have always burned books instead of putting out fires. Today we put out fires in people’s homes because fire is the destruction of what is already established in one’s life, including books, photographs, and art; which are all constructs of human thought and creativity. The people in Bradbury’s world however did not question the meaning behind why books or any form of art existed because it was engrained in their history (i.e ideology) that books were negative to the human existence. When Montag begins to grasp this rather simple notion that books try to reveal some truth about the world, he comes to the conclusion “how long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?” (Bradbury 52) This realization is a good example of how humans do not understand what is really real and meaningful to them, only what they are ideologically taught is real and worthwhile.

The problem with this streamlining of ideology is that people who think they are they are individuals have no actual original thought. George Orwell’s 1984 is a critique of capitalistic ideologues who believe that their point of view is better than another, and what could happen in the future if one ideology dictates every aspect of the majority of people’s lives without them knowing or caring. Wouldn’t it be great if we could all just get along? It sounds like a good thing to strive towards for the human existence, but by what means would one be willing to take in order to get there? From an Orwellian standpoint in 1984, “orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think” (Orwell 53) and that is what made everyone equal. Without being allowed to have conflicting points of view, everyone believed the same things, thus making what fundamentally makes them human (thinking), less than human. In our world today according to Fredric Jameson “we as individuals entertain a relationship with money and greed, with property, and we are thereby led to wonder what life would be like without these things.” (Jameson 39) What this argument shows in comparison with Orwellian “thought-crime” is that the language we use to explain our thoughts and establish ourselves as individuals is something entirely made up by humans, for humans. An example of this from the film Twelve Monkeys is how psychologist Kathryn Railly tries to define functions of the human mind, but realizes that the occupation by which she defines herself by doesn’t really reveal any truths about the world. What this suggests is that because humans have the thought capacity to describe their world with language, everything is open to interpretation. In a psychologists role, they are simply copying the procedures learned by other psychologists, eventually causing people to believe psychology is important and True. Since Kathryn realized that psychology is all a construct of ideology, her identification as an individual quickly faded.

One of the more interesting topics that are brought up in a progressively dystopian reality is the unknown direction of eugenics. Humans perceive themselves as the dominating force in nature over animals and technology as other means of intelligence because they have emotion. Emotion plays a huge role in ideology that is often unrecognized, because in order for a structure society to thrive, people cannot solely rely on their emotions to make the “right” choices. Cloning is often questioned as right or wrong because it has the potential to cure many diseases and increase longevity in humans, but it is also emotionally feels wrong because it involves tampering with human life, which is perceived to be precious because of ideologies like religion. Why don’t we hold these same kinds of emotions for animals then? Why do we slaughter and eat them? Aren’t they life as well? This is the problem with the human mind in that it rationalizes its decisions based on how it benefits the individual as a whole. Donna Haraway takes the idea of a cyborg (half man, half machine) to explain a similar concern about how people interact with nature, “the cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity. It is oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence.” (Haraway 151) It is ironic that humans would fear their own creation because every thought that it would have would have been given to it by humans. It is feared that cyborgs would eventually reign over humans because they are superior physically and mentally (in you can call it that), but it is once again ironic because humans essentially fear robots becoming more than human, although what makes us human is being imperfect. This fear of perfection is firmly stated in the creation of a cyborg, and it is be paralleled with ideology because once ideology is too perfectly streamlined, one loses sight what makes them human. We can read modern technology today as dystopic because tasks that were done by humans a decade ago are now all done by computers. To compare Fahrenheit 451 to modern day society, knowledge was lost because books were the most prominent source of information, where today a lot of knowledge in books is becoming obscure and obsolete because of the vast amount of information that is on the internet. Technology has replaced the pen and paper, and whether or not it propels humanity into a better future depends on how ideological positions progress. Today, the reality of cloning human beings and “perfecting” their DNA is a more apparent uncertainty. The problem with eugenics as seen in the movie Gattaca, is that it could lead to profiling; making naturally born humans underclass citizens. The main character, Vincent explains the devastation science possibly wields, “I belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the color of your skin. No, we now have discrimination down to a science.” (Gattaca) This is a great example of how ideological standpoints are always conflicting because often religious and semi-religious people today do not want to tamper with eugenics because they feel it is messing with God’s will, but still many ideologues embrace science as the savior to humanity.

What else do we have besides ideology? It has weaved it way into every part of our existence because it is a part of human nature. As humans, we feel like we need to establish a point of view because it is what gives us credibility in making the right decisions. In a Marxist critique of capitalistic ideology, it is the difference between doing a job for self fulfillment and doing a job one dislikes solely as a means of attaining money. The argument from a communist’s standpoint is that self worth is lost in the worker who doesn’t have the economic means of doing what they want to do in life. Jameson also critiques this capitalist notion, “capitalism cannot flourish under full employment” (Jameson 37) because in true American ideology of the “American Dream” it is believed that all people should work and strive for a better economic life in order to be more fulfilled. Ideology is something that one must hold onto because without it, no one would be an individual any longer. In establishing ourselves as individuals we allow ourselves to be interpellated, meaning that people are open to being subjugated. Loius Althusser illustrates this, “the existence of ideology and the hailing of or interpellation of individuals as subjects are one in the same thing.” (Althusser) There is always someone ideologically higher with more knowledge; whether it is authority who tries to assume power over others, or society making sure everyone follows the same “correct principles.” (Althusser) There is “no ideology except by the subject and for subjects” (Althusser)

It seems apparent that ideology is something that humans cannot control or begin to dismiss because it is so deeply ingrained in our existence. For some unknown reason the human mind is able to make decisions according to their emotions, but ideology is a means of controlling our inner most desires. Until humans can change their perspective of themselves, we will always be subjecting the world and others through our individuality. Foremost, think of our emotions and they develop our ideology. Our emotion is something that is all humans have because nature made us that way, and nature is filled with unknown possibilities. Unless we can learn to be ‘more natural’ in the sense that we can act upon on emotions and not be subjugated by ideology, controlling the future will always inspire unequal certainty.

Works Cited

• Adorno, Theodor, and Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment. 1944.

• Althusser, Louis. La Pensee. 1971.

• Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451. Westminster: Del

• Jameson, Fredric. "The Politics of Utopia." New Left Review Jan.-Feb. 2004: 35-54.

• Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Ed. Frederic L. Bender. Boston: W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated, 1988

• Orwell, George.1984. New York: Signet Classics, 1950.

Dr. Wexler,
Thank you for everything this semester. I really feel that I learned a lot although the subject matter can be rather depressing. It found it to be quite conscious widening in that there is more to politics than just two points of view. I really enjoyed the blogging too. It was exciting to do for my first time, and hopefully more classes will adopt your paperless methods because it allows people to communicate ideas constructively amongst each other rather with solely with the teacher. Hopefully I can take another english class in the near future. Thanks again, Professor!
Sincerely,
Sean Donahoe

Drum Machines Have No Soul

“Perfected machines may one day succeed us is, I remember, is an extremely commonplace notion on Earth.” (Boulle, 210)

The terrifying reality that Ulysse came to realize on the Planet of the Apes was that evolved apes had the same mental capacity of humans. The apes eventually came to accept Ulysse for being a rational being, but he was still feared by elite apes because a rational human mind posed a threat to the well being of ape civilization. Imagine if a reasoning, free-willed ape came out on the news. It would shock the world because humans ideologically see themselves as “better” than animals. Ullyse explains in the quote above how humans never imagined animals to succeed humans, but instead, machines. This distant fear of technology exists today because technology becomes more and more advanced every day. My friend was just explaining to me the other day how he couldn’t beat his computer at a game of chess. What if the computer could physically sit across from you at the playing board, moving real chess pieces? To imagine further, what if that computer could carry out a conversation with you during the game? What if it could be programmed to do everything that you can do, only better?

In Donna Haraway’s essay, “A Cyborg Manifesto” she explains human separatism through the cyborg, which is a political metaphor for the boundaries between humans, and machines. Her argument is that people create these boundaries because they are always fearful of the “other”. “Cyborg writing is about the power to survive, not on the basis of original innocence, but on the basis of seizing the tools to mark the world that marked them as other.” (Haraway) What she means by this is that humans don’t base their actions and beliefs off of some kind of universal belief, but rather to separate ourselves from what we believe to be different in others in order to survive. The cyborg explains this well because we imagine that cyborgs (half human, half machine) would take over, but it is an ironic fear because humans are the original creators. Haraway uses the cyborg as a means of explaining a feminist stand point, “Cyborg politics is the struggle for language and the struggle against perfect communication, against the one code that translates all meaning perfectly, the central dogma of phallogocentrism.” (Haraway) By showing the boundary breakdown between humans, animals, machines, and would be cyborgs –Haraway argues that woman have been unfairly subjected to separatism and that people need to recognize that all humans are equally human. Just as humans believe they are better than animals, a male dominant society doesn’t respect women the same as men.

Why is it that people value certain things over others? Is a human life as precious as an animal life? Is the music that comes out of a drum any better than the music that comes out of a drum machine? Is marriage between a man and a woman better for society than marriage between homosexuals? All these questions embody cyborgs in essence because the binaries created in the human mind are always forcing us to question what is best.

Medicated Love

ADHD CURE


Is disciplining children looked down upon today? It’s always so embarrassing whenever I see a child throwing a temper tantrum in public, but especially because the parent never takes hold of the situation properly. As a kid, I had my fair amount of disciplining from my parents –and I deserved it. Today, disciplining one’s children with force is looked down upon because we believe we live in a more rational age. The truth is, people give excuses to why children are acting out rather than letting the child know their behavior is unacceptable to society. In this episode of South Park, a doctor shows his miraculous abilities to cure children with A.D.D by savagely beating them to study. This is funny because the kids appear to be hyper and out of control, but a little brute force keeps even the most severe disorders at bay. Obviously this technique is not meant to be taken seriously, but it is relevant because parents and doctors are too quick to assume children need medication or special treatment for small problems. It’s like my Dad always used to tell me, “You better stop crying or else I’ll give you something to cry about.” It seems cruel, but it always made me stop. Immediately afterwards, I always had a lot of resentment for my mother or father; but that quickly faded. Parents today don’t understand the meaning of “tough love” because they don’t want their kids to end up resenting them; but in fact, medications are possibly doing more psychological damage than any kind of spanking would. What it comes down to is that people today don’t want to solve their problems with violence because it causes pain and anguish in the receiver. We live in an age where peace is so highly valued because we live in a highly advanced society, but will our means of controlling people without violence prove to be less harmful in the future?

Slaves to Ideology?

Burning books is like destroying history. By destroying someone’s words, one is destroying a creation. What if the bible was never written? In Genesis of the bible, God’s words were creation. If we didn’t have words and language, could people be happy? What defines humans from other creatures on earth is that humans can communicate their ideas through words. By being able to communicate ideas to each other, people can begin to better themselves and develop ideology. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, the purpose for burning books was to create equality. That equality is achieved because without books, there are no conflicting points of view. If there is no history, the knowledge ceases to exist. Every bit of knowledge that humans attain every day is for the purpose of better ones life. By becoming more knowledgeable, one can create an ideology that seems to be the best to live by. If everyone can obtain different ideologies, there is no definite way in which to live best. The connection between book burning and equality is without books, people cannot create ideology, and without ideology, everyone believes the same things. Books are what give people a chance to glance at different points of view on the world, as told by the author. In a place as individualistic as America, people want different points of view so they can be unique. People’s desire for equality is what holds them back. With total equality, and agreeability among everyone, no one would question authority.

In a world full of ideology, points of view are always conflicting. All of our media today has some sort of connection with ideology in that it makes its viewers subjects. By being a subject to a piece of art, one must make the choice to accept or question it. Theodor Adorno questioned this kind of subjectivity and he believed that people didn’t have control over the ideologies that they attained. He said it best when he wrote, “There is nothing left for the consumer to classify. The producers have done it for him.” (Adorno 4) By this, he means that when people accept the widely valued ideologies that are created in the mainstream, people don’t really have a choice what ideology they believe. This is a huge role people in Fahrenheit 451 play because they choose not read books in the hopes for a better world of equality. By never reading any books, one cannot look at anything subjectively. One cannot come to their own conclusion about something being right or wrong because things do not appear to have subjectivity; only truth. People become the subjects to everything around them, instead of the other way around. When people do not have a capacity to be able to question ideas, they are easily locked into one state of mind. Alexis De Tocqueville foresaw this when he wrote “Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” (Tocqueville) This is interesting because total equality would be a lot like slavery in the way that the ones in power would be able to manipulate every aspect of our lives without us knowing or caring.

By being able to read and become educated, people have control over the ideology they choose. Throughout Louis Althusser’s studies, he defines ideology as “the system of the ideas and representations which dominate the mind of a man or a social group.” (Althusser) He saw that ideologies that dealt with religion, ethics, legality, and politics, “always express class position”. (Althusser) This is important because ideologies tend to classify people into different groups, and give one a sense of fitting in and being accepted. Althusser was especially interested in this because he saw that ideology was “manufactured by who knows what power”. (Althusser) This is expressed in Fahrenheit 451 because people accepted that books were bad and useless because their authority told them so. By not being able to have an outside source for information and simply believing one powerful entity’s ideology, the individual does nothing more than serve as a subject to propel that single ideology forward. This theme can also be seen in George Orwell’s 1984 because people dared not question Big Brother, and words were streamlined and simplified in order for everyone to believe that they were happy. The truth is, Big Brother is just used as a means of getting people to all believe the same ideology, and enforce it on others by out casting them if they don’t agree.

Many Marxist writers critique capitalism because they see the culture industry as a means of controlling people with material items. Adorno looks further into this regarding our media, “movies and radio no longer need pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish the deliberately produce. “ (Adorno) This explains that although people believe they have the choice, they actually don’t. In order for things in the media to sell to consumers, the consumer is forced into becoming subject to that media, which is a form of ideology chosen by another group. This brings up a problem because as humans we believe we have free-will, but we are really just being molded and manipulated to serve a purpose; which is to make the rich richer. This seemingly inevitable power structure of human nature is critiqued in 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 because when humans want to become equal or happy, they become less conscious. In a big way, capitalism causes people to become less conscious because money is what allows one to attain the lifestyle they desire, rather than something deeper in the human existence. This might be spirituality or wisdom, but is it one’s own beliefs that make life meaningful.

What makes ideology valuable? With ideology, people have the power to share ideas and communicate in order for self betterment. In Fahrenheit 451, people did not read books because ideologies that were inside the books caused too much inequality and unhappiness among society. What people in Fahrenheit 451 did not understand was their history, and why things are the way they are. This is a good example of why people today still argue over religion or the origin of existence, because they simply don’t know what specifically happened in the past. People in Fahrenheit 451 didn’t even know that Firemen used to put out fires because they accepted the present, and never questioned anything. The Captain mentions this when he explains the purpose of the Hound, “it doesn’t like or dislike. It just ‘functions’” (Bradbury 26) In saying this, he is actually talking about society because society functions at the will of those in power. Those in power want to horde all of the knowledge to themselves in order to stay above their subjects.

As humans, we are meant to communicate ideas in order to live according to our desires. Should we always be searching for more information in order to better ourselves and mankind, or are we getting too caught up in our ideologies for our own good? There is always the desire for pleasure and ending hardship, but this cannot come from denying our ideologies. Once we succumb to believing that everyone else’s ideas are not better, but equally as good as any other argument, only a single ideology would remain. Bradbury and Orwell saw this desire as the complete loss of individual human rights, and that too much trust in government or total power would cause people to stop questioning their purpose. Today in America, people worry that we have already become somewhat of a dystopia because people are too easily swayed by media and money. The real importance that has been shown through these works is that people need to remain conscious and skeptical of the reality they accept so willingly. If people stopped reading and went back to a more simple life where everything was simply told to them, we wouldn’t be much more than animals, waiting for our master to tell us when we can eat next.

Works Cited

Adorno, Theodor, and Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment. 1944.

Althusser, Louis. La Pensee. 1971.

Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451. Westminster: Del Rey, 1997.

Kramnick, Isaac. Democracy in America : And Two Essays on America. Trans. Alexis De Tocqueville and Gerald E. Bevan. New York: Penguin Classics, 2003.

Orwell, George.1984. New York: Signet Classics, 1950.

The Same Old Shit

You gotta sink, gotta sink, gotta sink to swim
impersonate greater persons,
cause we all know art is hard,
when we don't know who we are.
-Cursive, from the song 'Art is Hard'

Sometimes I wish I could revert back to when I was a child. I didn’t
care about what art truly is, or what makes good art; I just did it for
fun. To a kid, art is what art is: art. It is projection of what is
going on in your mind. It is a form of expression that is pleasurable.
To look for the origin of art or where it came from cannot possibly be
determined because art is inside all of us. Today in class we talked
about how as humans we try to distinguish ‘good’ art from ‘shit’ art.
Throughout history, art has belonged to the more elite classes because
they had the education to appreciate the art, as well as the cash to
shell out. What makes a painting worth money? It might be the
uniqueness and the exclusivity that is tacked onto it. Rich people want
to impress other rich people, and make those below them realize they
aren’t the same. Everyone is out to seem better, or more knowledgeable,
or wiser than everyone else. Those who can’t have what they want, want
even more. Contemporary artists like Andy Warhol came around and tried
to prove that art isn’t just for the wealthy. His interpretations of
consumerism turned into art when he painted a can of Campbell’s soup.
Advertisement and consumerism is a huge part to our society today, so it
has meaning to us. That copy of the Campbell’s soup print isn’t unique
by any means, but the message behind it is what makes it art. Art is a
statement through the individual. Is a Warhol print less valuable or
less artful than a Picasso painting? Is one superior to the other?
Those are only famous artists too. They probably both got their
recognition from some group who said their art was cool, and everyone
else wanted to follow. Can people really explain why they like a piece
of art? I know I can’t. Walter Benjamin makes the argument that art is
always reproducible. Theodor Adorno argues that art loses its meaning
when it “organizes the consumer.” Current forms of art fall under both
of these categories. People are always learning from each other, so
their art undeniably reflects off of other influential individuals. Art
comes out of the mind, and our mind is formed by the world around us.
It seems logical that we would create art that is similar to others. Is
there any such thing as complete individual thought? At the same time,
Adorno’s beliefs can be widely seen in contemporary art forms like film.
I refuse to go watch the same cliché movies over and over again.
Through the demand for mindless entertainment and special effects, the
meaningfulness of the “art” is lost. I can’t say film today isn’t art
though. It is still a form of expression and has an audience. Without
an audience, what good would art be? Who is to say I’m not an artist?
My mind is projecting a viewpoint, and it is meaningful. Maybe not to
you, but to someone out there. Defining art all depends on the receptor
and how they like it. I’ll go out on limb and let you know I’m no less
of an artist than a genius like Shakespeare. You disagree? Why is
Shakespeare considered a literary genius? It’s all in the mind of the
beholder. It is whatever they decide is “genius”, “good”, “bad” or utter
“shit”. I say we go back to aimlessly drawing like we once did as kids,
and forget about what makes it art.

It Sounds Crazy

Throughout all the chaos in this world that we live in, the one thing
that helps me keep my peace of mind is music.  Music is full of emotion
that can pull your spirits out of almost any bad situation.  In movies,
music is used to convey emotion, and sets the mood for each scene.  In
Stanley Kubrick’s movie rendition of A Clockwork Orange, Ludwig Van
Beethoven’s symphonies express the power behind music and its emotion in
a disturbing fashion.  I don’t think anyone thinks of rape and violence
when Beethoven’s 9th symphony comes into one’s ears.  The scenes of
violence are hard enough to watch as it is, but with Beethoven
cheerfully blaring in the background, the mood is transformed.  It is
transformed into something that the senses can handle.  That is the
power of music.  Even after being dead for almost two centuries,
Beethoven’s music lives on because of his musical genius.  The notion
that Beethoven’s music was meant to convey anything dark about the world
seems like madness.  His music is pleasurable to listen to, and it sets
the highest standard of what music really is.  For Alex DeLarge, a
hooligan with a lust for pleasure, Beethoven is his escape from facing
the reality of the atrocious crimes he commits.  To Alex, his acts are
not sinful because he doesn’t see them to be.  One can really understand
this when Alex goes into special government treatment and is forced to
watch scenes from the holocaust and other acts of violence with
Beethoven’s 9th symphony playing in the background.  Without being able
to look away or stop listening, the sheer horror he was forced to
witness caused him to hate the song.  It’s interesting to note that Alex
kept screaming “it’s a sin” pertaining to the fact that they were
playing his favorite composer of all time during the treatment.  It
ruined his ultimate listening pleasure.  When I think about it, if I was
forced to watch the most violent and disturbing of acts while listening
to my favorite band, I can’t fathom how badly that would damage me
psychologically.  After Alex is “cured” from being able to commit
violence, he is reunited with F. Alexander, a man who he crippled and
raped his wife.  It is ironic that F. Alexander wants to lead Alex to
kill himself, but only at first because he believes that the government
killed his wife by letting young gangs run rampant.  It is purely out of
hatred, something that Alex can no longer possess.  One can fully
understand the traumatizing pain that was inflicted on F. Alexander when
he hears Alex singing the song that was sung while his wife was raped
and killed.  In the end, Alex is used for political change, and promised
a good life if he helps one particular political party to keep order.
Throughout the whole story he is in the middle of a world of chaos, but
he finds clarity and happiness through music.  The music allows him to
envision and embrace his deepest desires, no matter how blind he is to
his own sin.

On an interesting side note, my father has a similar experience with
music.  Ever since I can remember, there have been a handful of times
where my dad and I have been listening to the radio, and this one U2
song comes on and my dad has to instantly turn it off.  I never really
understood why he did this until one day when he wasn’t close enough to
the radio to turn it off, and he got really angry at me when I didn’t
turn it off in time.  The song had played for maybe 15 seconds, and my
dad was dry heaving; about to purge.  He explained to me that one night
when he was younger, he was violently sick from alcohol, (I think
possibly some other drug) and the song came on the radio and ruined it
for him forever.  He says that he gets a flashback of the same horrid
sickness he felt over thirty years ago.  I found this hard to believe
that someone could be so psychological damaged that a song could induce
that anxiety and panic.  The thing is, my dad’s favorite band is U2!  He
told me that ever since then, he’s never even been to another U2 concert
in fear of them playing the song.  I could definitely use the song as a
weapon against him, much like what I viewed in A Clockwork Orange.  Not
that I would ever do that though.  I definitely found the techniques
used in the movie to brainwash people with sound to ring true through my
dad’s experience.

ORDER your Meal

Tonight I decided I would eat at one of the only fast food restaurants I
enjoy, In-N-Out.  At first, I was skeptical about finding dystopian
aspects in my favorite fast food restaurant.  After sitting through a
meal and taking some notes, I was astonished by the things I realized.

The first thing that I noticed is that the restaurant’s seating
arrangement is perfectly symmetrical.  It is very easy to navigate
through; everything is easily accessible.  On the walls there are strict
regulations such as “No Smoking” and “Capacity: 50 People.”  The
lighting is bright, and it reflects well off the white and red color
scheme that floods one’s vision.  Everyone behind the counter wears a
white uniform with a red apron, and a mandatory mini chef hat.  Everyone
except for what must have been the manager or boss.  She started to bark
out orders at 8:30pm when the drive-thru backed up, and customers were
getting impatient at the counter.  At this point, I looked up from my
writing, and I noticed that no one in the restaurant was talking to each
other.  The people wouldn’t acknowledge each other at all.  I caught a
few glances from people who were probably curious why I was writing with
a burger and fries in front of me.  They looked, and then quickly turned
away with meek expressions.  Just as I was about to finish up with the
thought that I had observed enough, there it was out of the corner of my
eye; big brother looking right at me.  I couldn’t believe I almost
missed the surveillance camera, watching my every move.

Walking into an In-N-Out is like walking into a Burger Heaven.  It has
been specifically designed for its customers to feel like they are in a
pure and superior environment to other fast food chains.  The symmetry
and overall interior design of the setting is what stands out foremost.
Human’s tend to like (or perceive to like) the organization, tidiness,
and uniformity that these In-N-Out establishments contain because it
reflects order.  Order is the name of the game at In-N-Out.  The strict
signs such as “No Smoking” and “Capacity: 50 People” are indications of
the demanding environment In-N-Out believes people feel best in.
Therefore, your freedom of choice to light up your desire is taken away.
The company’s slogan “Quality you can taste” suggests that these
burgers are made with the finest, purest, and best ingredients in the
fast food business.  In that sense, there is no more of a perfect place
to eat than In-N-Out.  It is also interesting to note that “Quality you
can taste” is very similar to something like “Quality you can trust”;
which I do.  The employees all work together with little talk in order
to mass produce a good product.  They work so hard and fast in their
uniforms, they could be compared to a military platoon.  When the
manager shouted out orders, the employees seemed to go into robot mode,
working as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Surprisingly enough, the customers were getting anxious about having to
wait more than 2 minutes in line to order.  People are so used to
getting their meals so quickly and conveniently, they don’t know how to
act when things aren’t going right.  No one engages in any kind of
conversation, let alone eye contact because there is nothing to be
questioned in an In-N-Out.  The focus is on the feeling of superiority
over other fast food establishments that one is meant to feel.  I can
definitely say that In-N-Out strives and achieves being the best burger
chain in the business, but their utopian ideals to make eating food into
an orgasm of order creates a small dystopian ache in our bellies.