Education doesn't exactly educate nowadays.

Basically, this video rocked.  Not only were the drawings exceptional, but the lecture Ken Robinson gives is truly phenomenal.  It directly connects with our reading in Brave New World as well as the education system that we are so fond of today. 

Ken Robinson’s lecture addresses the concern that education is not really educating us.  Rather, education serves the purpose of conforming students, similar to the way an industrial factory produces identical products. 

At the beginning of his lecture, Robinson mentions that there are two false generalizations that most make: one being the belief that there are so called “smart” people, and the other generalization being that the rest of the people are “non-smart” people.  He later states that this mindset perhaps benefits those who are considered smart, but it ultimately demeans the other “dumb” individuals.  Being labeled as inferior, these people begin to believe this to be true, and thus, society and education repress their potential as the people end their attempts in developing intelligence.  In Brave New World, the Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons also share this identical problem.  If a Gamma was created to be a Gamma, he would never gain the opportunity to climb a rung on the social ladder, let alone demonstrate any sort of intelligence at all.  With speakers endlessly projecting facts such as “Gammas are stupid” and “Alpha children are frightfully clever”, society immediately assumes these lower class individuals as the “non-smart” people and the Alphas as the “smart” people.  Though these individuals have the same amount of intelligence as an Alpha or Beta, the ideals society holds about them stunts their potential, ultimately leaving them in the same uneducated state indefinitely.  

Robinson further describes the meaning of an aesthetic experience: one where the senses are at a peak; where the individual is “fully alive”.  However, Robinson contends that education and ADHD medications serve as anesthetics that deaden the senses.  Similarly, the presence of soma in Brave New World serves almost an identical purpose, allowing the people to “take a holiday from reality whenever they like”. Though they may not feel a thing, the people are “getting through” life, just as kids in today’s schools “get through education”.   But what is learned and experienced through such anesthetics?  Here, Robinson makes a powerful point: we must wake students up!  And I agree completely.  We can’t accomplish greatness until we are truly alive.

Chapter 3 analysis

The passage reminded me somewhat of The Grapes of Wrath with its varying point of view changes, from narrative to lyric-like passages.  I found the “lyric” sections of chapter three in Brave New World to hold the most interesting information in regards to this value system that the society follows. 

Mustapha Mond initially mentions the concepts of family, monogamy, and romance, depicting them as “everywhere exclusiveness” and “a narrow channeling of impulse and energy”.  Mond describes the families of the past with negative connotations such as “exclusive” and “narrow” so as to emphasize the immorality of such beliefs in history.  Through this insight, Mond additionally reveals one strong principle that the society enforces: “everyone belongs to everyone else”.  This principle ultimately eliminates outsiders from society by looking down upon families and couples.  The presence of such exclusive relationships between people leads to emotions, feelings, desires, both negative and positive.  But instead of highlighting the wonderful rewards that come with families and monogamy, Mond speaks of the “fierce and foamy” wild jet of emotions that such relationships entail, with only one outlet.  He reminds his students of the dangers of feeling strongly and how it leads to “lonely remorses” and “endlessly isolating pain”.  In this way, Mond demonstrates the common belief that the absence of pain keeps men sane and “stable in contentment”, thus keeping the wheels upon their axels.  Without pain, there are no uncontrollable streams of emotion.  And this, Mond contends, is a much better way to live. 

With these goals established, Mond continues to describe the new definitions of principles used today, revealing the clever manipulation Huxley uses to prove his point.  For instance, chapter three incorporates Fanny and Lenina and their many relationships.  Ironically, Fanny shows her utter disgust at Lenina for staying with the same man for nearly four months when she really should be with a new man each day.  Here, Huxley stretches the principle of “everyone belonging to everyone” to a ridiculous extent by revealing the backward thinking of this society. 

Additionally, Mond mentions the drug soma, the substance that allows one to take a holiday from reality at any time.  Here, Huxley manipulates the concepts of impulse, feelings, and desires because the drug keeps society from feeling its real impulses.  Rather, it reaches a high where pain cannot enter the mind.  A state of numbness, you might say.  Feeling nothing is better than feeling both joy and pain, apparently.  

Sorry, this post was a bit longer than I thought... 

Introduction to the Tempest Essay

Keep in mind that I wasn't in class on Friday, so I'm not entirely sure if I completed this correctly...

     In the discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been the supporting or scrutinizing the idea of colonialism.  In his play, Shakespeare presents the issue, but he never fully reveals his true intentions colonialism.  On one hand, George Will argues that literature contains merely one concrete interpretation intended by the author, usually indicating a strong political stance on a given matter.  In the case of The Tempest, Will would agree that Shakespeare wrote the play initially in order to reflect the “imperialist rape of the Third World”.  Will feels that this stance ultimately demonstrates a “deculturation” as students mindlessly listen to the words they hear.  He contends that the literature that reveals political bias destroys the purpose of the literature itself and wrongly influences the readers of the particular work.  On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt argues another side entirely.  He feels that a literary work can be interpreted in many different ways, and he promotes those who attempt to find more than one interpretation to such a work.  Greenblatt argues that The Tempest has endless amounts of interpretations, hinting at the idea that Shakespeare could be both supporting and condoning colonialism.  I agree with Greenblatt’s proposition here, since I see evidence for both opinions towards colonialism.  Shakespeare could very well be giving a surface impression that favors colonialism, but underneath, Shakespeare could also be sending strong indications of a disapproval of the matter. 

        To write this essay, I will use citations from the literary debates of Will and Greenblatt.  This article contains two diverse opinions on a similar ground topic, and this will allow me to elaborate further on my own argument.  Also, I will use Bressler’s description of postcolonialism in my paper.  This addition to the argument will help to clarify the definition of the argument at hand, and it will also help to prove the possibility of Shakespeare supporting both diverse opinions within his play.