Distributed Mind

I love dystopian literature. I am not entirely sure why, though I do know that much of my appreciation of it is because of its usefulness in pointing out the potential flaw in our social, cultural, and political systems.

I read and watched most of dystopian art I have ingested some time ago, back in the mid- to late-90s. I hit the big stuff like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 and Brazil and less comprehensively-dystopian works like RoboCop, and a few things that escape my mind right now or are largely irrelevant to the present discussion. (Admittedly, I didn't always watch and read them because they were dystopian, but I always lodged that fact in my brain for future reference - I like to categorize; the last vestige of a compulsive personality I smothered years ago). Although many have read much more dystopian literature than me, or seen more dystopian movies than I have, I do try to keep up.

I have happened almost by sheer coincidence to see both Brazil and RoboCop this week, and these further cemented for me a point I had realized some time ago, largely in relation to 1984, which, sad to say, I have not read in quite a while. That point is quite simply, this: We are rapidly moving nearer to many of the worst attributes of these dystopian societies. (For my mathematically inclined readers, the second derivative of dystopianism vs. time appears to be positive).

First, the most obvious case: 1984. When I read this in the late-90s (1998, perhaps?), there were already many similarities to modern society. This is not surprising, since it was arguably just (or at least almost) as relevant in 1949 as it was then.

One of the key points of it was the use of war to justify governmental control (in 1984 the governments of the three large states argue to their citizens that they are needed for protection from the other governments, while meanwhile the nations fight pointless wars in regions no one cares about, precisely so they will have a reason for existence). This has been an issue for some time (at a relatively low level of intensity) but this sort of thing was discussed more then, with the cruise missile attacks of sites in Afghanistan and Sudan just after the release of Wag the Dog, than it had been previously. Some other aspects of the totalitarian governmenr presented had varying degrees of similarity to our government - I won't attempt to list them all since I can't remember any now as I am thinking more about these other works, but I may come back to 1984 at a later date. The thing about war, amazingly, has been much more relevant since 2001 than it ever had been before. What were outlandishly exaggerated suggestions even a few years ago are now much closer to the truth, in so far as many have suggested (as have I at times) that the "war on terror" was created largely to create a purpose for our current administration rather than out of any real necessity. (Which is not to argue nothing should be done about terrorism, but rather that the waging of a war against it is somewhat questionable.) Some similar accusations could be made about the Iraq war, though if that was the intent it seems to have failed. Of course, the Gulf War in 1991 was subject to the same sort of accusations, so this is not an entirely new idea, as I have already indicated. And that's the thing - 1984 is about something old more than something new, as dystopian literature is so often. But again, a topic for another time. The point is, this "prediction" seems more pressing now than it did.

The manipulation of history is a large theme in 1984. Some would argue that has happened much more in the last few ears. Of course, this has been such a common practice it is hard to know how much is new, and besides we would do well to not forget the likes of Nixon... (The fact that anyone has trusted an American president in decades is the real mystery to me. But then since our nation seems to be as much a religion as a country, this is hardly surprising. They are just showing proper faith. The state religion lives, unfortunately.)

Anyway, enough of the classics, let us move to a less significant work: RoboCop. RoboCop is not a classic dystopian work. For one thing, as a perhaps more minor point, it does not concern itself much with politics - which is unusual in the main thread of dystopian works - but it hardly seems fair to disqualify it. More relevant is that its society is much too close to the one we actually find ourselves in. It is more satire hiding in the guise of dystopianism than true dystopianism. So, we should not be surprised if it resembles our world. What is interesting is not that it does - since it did in 1987, as it was supposed to, I think - but that it does now more so. Cars that get 8.2 miles per gallon, a somewhat ridiculous suggestion even in the regressive 80s, is no longer ridiculous. SDI was dying already by 1987, but we had to argue over it a couple years ago. Privitization is as far as I know much more of a problem now than it ever was in 1987. Corporations also seem worse than they did then, but then I was young, naive, and (ahem) conservative in 1987, so its not like I was taking notes. True, at least MAD is gone, so maybe "Nuk Em" would be a hard sell today. But still, it feels more like the world of RoboCop, not less. The mere fact that we haven't improved since then is scary, let alone the fact we may have moved closer to it.

I will skip Fahrenheit 451 since I think it is not as relevant to this discussion. The cultural decay present in that book has moved at a farily constant pace, though one might argue some progress has been made. While the literary regression we are experiencing is real, there are signs of hope in the young. This may be the dystopian work that missed the mark the farthese - thankfully - though it will still be a close call, I think. Maybe people actually read Bradbury. Theoretically they read Orwell too, and that hasn't seemed to have helped so maybe we just got lucky. Or, maybe I am blind on this issue. Anyway, I will save critiques based on Fahrenheit 451 for the English majors for now.

Okay, now to the most critical work here, and the one whose correspondance to our world disturbs me the most: Brazil. Brazil, for those who have not had the "pleasure" (Brazil can be a rather painful film to watch), is a film from 1985 directed by Terry Gilliam. Its world resembles that of 1984 in many ways, though the two are hardly identical. The government in Brazil is somewhat less effective at being authoritarian than that in 1984. The government's role in suppressing the people may be more accidental, though this is arguable. The great issue this government fights is not some enemy nation, but terrorism, which it is suggested may be in fact perpetrated by the government. In its war on terrorism, the government occasionally manages to get the wrong person, or persons whose role is at best marginal. However, many of these people manage to end up being tortured anyway - apparently (though not certainly - the film is not explicit) the government's main means of dealing with anyone it distrusts. All other components of the government are mired in ineffective bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the people seem to not notice for the large part, placated by rampant consumerism. Alright, if by now that doesn't sound like the world we live in in many significant ways then you probably will never share my interest in dystopian literature. Admittedly this is a British film, where terrorism has been an issue, but in 1985 in the U.S. there was no terrorism. There certainly was no torture. There was, I am afraid consumerism, and whether this is better or worse, I should perhaps say better, is open to much debate, and the joke about beauacracy is mostly irrelevant - not a concern in the U.S. today much at all. But the other aspects ring much more true now than they did in 1985. When I saw this in 1999 or 2000 it was disturbing but in a very distant way. The idea that my country has moved that muchmore toward the world of Brazil, however slightly, is terrifying. Certainly the people in this film are much worse off than we are in many ways, but in some crucial ways we share their plight. Or rather some poor suckers from Iraq and Afghanistan do. At one point in the film, the main character, whose job is in the Ministry of Information defends a questionable action by asking something to the effect of "Would you rather have terrorists?" But the point is that indeed they might rather have terrorists. In their world the choice is simpler since the terrorists may very well be fake, or possibly positive components of their society - rebels trying to save people from their own government (the government seems to throw a lot of people in the category of terrorist, even those who are clearly not). We do face real terrorist enemies, the question is the extent of that threat, and what we are willing to do about it. And also, the expanding category of who qualifies as a terrorist, or what qualifies as terrorism, and the actions that can be taken against "terrorists" keeps expanding. To paraphrase a line from North by Northwest (which I also saw this week), if this is what winning looks like, maybe we should learn how to lose.

So, I hope I have conveyed to you the creeopy feeling I have had having as I observe events around me and reflect on how they increasingly resemble works intended as fiction. The point though if dystopian literature is usually in large part to warn the reader or viewer of the possible negtive endpoints to the current path of their society. We still have time to change ours, lets do it. I really hope I am not writing in 20 years about how much more our society looks like that in 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 or Brazil than it was in 2005... I hope...