Skip to main content

What are some ways the government tries to control the people in Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451? Do Americans today experience something similar?

Perhaps the most significant theme in Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is that of the government's control over freedom of thought.


In the novel, members of society are not allowed to read books because it promotes freethinking and original thought. Anyone who is found hiding books is taken into custody, and their books and home burned to the ground. It is not without irony that one of the story's strongest rebels against this process is found in Guy Montag. At the beginning, he is a fireman who burns books and houses. He muses, "It was a pleasure to burn." However, he receives guidance in the form of Clarisse McClellan's challenging questions, as well as witnessing the woman at 11 N. Elm Street who is willing to die rather than live in a world without her books. In response, Montag's once-unquestioned perceptions (based on the government's dumbing-down propaganda) begin to change.


Beatty provides a glimpse not only of what the fireman's job is, but also the skewed perspective society has perpetuated upon its members—who mindlessly engage in activities and behaviors that deaden them to individual freedoms, especially independent thoughts and actions:



The important thing for you to remember, Montag, is we're the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you and I and the others. We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought...I don't think you realize how important you are, we are, to our happy world as it stands now.



The government is selling the idea that ignorance is bliss. Beatty notes that anyone who questions the norms that are perpetuated within the society is a threat to the collective's overall happiness and the cause of conflict.


The same might be said of the political rhetoric that is often fed to Americans either by political candidates for office or by representatives of the government that do not always provide citizens with the complete truth. People are often told what politicians and officials believe the populace wants to hear. Other politicians or special interest groups that speak out against these "pie in the sky" ("unlikely to happen") ideas are often vilified and dismissed.


For example, while there is a great debate about the effects and fall out from global warming, there are groups that still try to debunk what scientists are seeing in terms of climate change. Gun control is also a hot topic: one side argues for the right to bear arms, while others point to devastating attacks in this country by American citizens upon other members of the community at large with the use of automatic assault rifles.


Any lobbyist in Washington, DC, that supports the freedom to purchase and bear arms is in direct conflict with those who oppose firearms, supporting gun control. The debate rages, in these instances, between government special interest groups and social institutions/organizations that oppose such widespread freedoms.


One might argue that a majority of government officials may see a situation of any kind as a problem, using their influence to bring Americans to their way of thinking, while an opposing side in the argument will do its best to influence American perceptions, especially as they are played out in voting booths across the country.


While the control of Bradbury's futuristic society is almost absolute, a few dissenters are able to turn the tide in saving books (which represent ideas and knowledge) to be a part of the rebuilding of their society. In modern-day America, there is no absolute control, but the rhetoric shared with the public is often accepted without question, while small groups of committed citizens who see things differently do their best to change the widely-accepted societal norms in this country.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more