Lenses for Things Fall Apart

        I happen to think the book Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe has a sort of feminist subject text in its reading.  It addresses the main ideas of feminism and it seems to stand strongly to its point.  The origins of have existed for a long time in Western culture.  The man has always thought of to be superior to the woman and women have been discriminated against for some time.  Such discrimination has continued throughout history and is also portrayed in Things Fall Apart.  Throughout his book, Achebe portrays women as just an object; an object that is meant for work and for the bearing of children.  I personally do not agree with or like that perspective at all.  I actually think it is kind of pig-headed for any man to think like that.  Men and women should be treated as equals.  They deserve to be treated with respect because of all they do for society.  They play such a huge role in just about everybody’s life.  Every child needs a mother and if they don’t get that chance to have a mother then they usually seek for a mother figure in other women.  Society needs women, not just to clean up around the house or work in the kitchen, but also for many other vital things as well.  I have this theory that if a guy thinks women are inferior to men then he is just trying to compensate for his lack of purpose.  He doesn’t feel like he plays a role in society so he begs on women instead.  The man’s goal is to take the spotlight off him and put it on women.  He doesn’t want other men to notice his incompetency.  That is just my personal view.  My point is that society needs women.  We as men need women.  They play way too big of a role to be discriminated against or looked down upon.  Men should treat women as equal to men because that is what they deserve. 

Technopoly

"Technopoly" is a word Neil Postman uses throughout the book.  He defines technopoly as a society that believes that "the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency, that technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment ... and that the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts."  Technocracy is a society that is governed by the technical experts that control the decision making over the fields they partake in.  Therefore, technopoly and technocracy differ because a technopoly favors the technological side versus a technocracy which favors the actual people’s thoughts. 

Frederick Winslow Taylor has a theory that a technopoly is created when technological aspects become valued over human intelligence and judgment.  Taylor is suggesting that technology will surpass human efficiency and thus end humans’ ability to think for themselves and be creative. 

This exact situation is happening in A Brave New World and Postman’s book will help provide a better understanding for A Brave New World.  This idea of a technopoly fits right in with the concepts in A Brave New World, being that the people in their society have also lost their creativity and individuality.  The characters in are at a loss of being able to think for themselves.  They are being oppressed by a more efficient way of life even they do not realize it.  Bernard is character that questions the state of their society.  He notices that his, and everyone else’s thoughts, are inspired by what they are fed by the government.  Bernard recognizes that the society he is being forced to live in is, in a way, a technopoly.  He doesn’t actually know about the idea is called a technopoly but he knows that the society falling into the same concepts Neil Postman presents to us.

"The Brave New Singularity"

The concepts in “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immoral” are actually valid concerns.  The author of the article, Raymond Kurzweil, and Bernard, from Brave New World, seem to share quite similar views.  While Bernard and Lenina are hovering above the Channel, he tells her that the silence makes him feel like an individual.  Bernard notices this feeling and realizes that the society he lives in is not at all individualistic.  He is unhappy with the state of affairs and he strives for a sense of authenticity in his life.  The Singularity article and Bernard area right on the same page. 

Kurzweil comes up with this theory that somewhere in the future artificial intelligence will overtake organic intelligence because of the fact that the rate at which computers are getting faster is increasing.  He thinks that man will eventually merge with technology.  I don’t think I necessarily agree with that statement.  I don’t think technology will ever overtake us as humans because we wouldn’t let it.  If the power of technology got even remotely close to surpassing human intelligence, we would simply stop our technological development.  We would just no longer attempt to make better computers or gadgets.  I am confident that the people who are developing technology are smart enough to realize that being controlled by computers would not be a very good life. 

I feel like we as humans have the desire to be unique in what we do and think.  We like having opinions, and without them we would lose our sense of individuality, and therefore would no longer be authentically human.  By authentically human I mean that we would no longer be able to think for ourselves – speak for ourselves – act for ourselves.  We would lose our sense of creativity and wouldn’t be able to express ourselves through artwork or writing.  Kurzweil theorizes that computers, instead of humans, will have the capability of “writing books, making ethical decisions, appreciating fancy paintings, [and] making witty observations at cocktail parties.” 

Kurzweil has a legitimate thought that computers/technology will eventually take over our ability to think; that we will no longer have the freedom to imagine like we do today.  He definitely makes a good point “that there is some pristine state of existence that man can achieve”, but I personally don’t think it will ever happen.  We will never be in danger of losing our essential humanity as technology continues to progress.  Humans are the creator of technology and the creator has and always will have power over the created.

Rhetorical Analysis of StudentPulse essay

Landon Fischer

AP Literature

Period 4

9/5/11

Rhetorical Analysis of Ahab's Devolution in Herman Melville's "Moby Dick"

It is kind of hard to tell what the author’s purpose in writing this piece was.  Marina A. Kinney, the author, could be trying to get us to think more deeply about the book Moby Dick or simply just using Captain Ahab to teach us a lesson about the consequences of obsessing over something.  Either way, whatever her goal was in writing, she did an excellent job of expanding on her ideas and persuading her audience to understand where she is coming from.  

Kinney seemed to be directing her writing to the people who have read the book Moby Dick.  I believe she is quite aware of her audience because she assumes people know the book when she quotes and describes scenes from the text.  Kinney, being aware of her audience, doesn’t have to summarize the story because she knows that the majority of people who have read Moby Dick are reading her writing.  This influences the construction of her text because she can spend more time on her deeper ideas that only previous readers of the book would understand.  Also the author has a solid subject to her writing that would be appreciated by her target audience.  Everyone can relate to the idea of obsession because it’s not just something written about in books.  People in real life obsess over things and that is why Kinney’s subject can be appreciated by the audience.  

The overall main point of Kinney’s writing is that Ahab’s obsession with catching Moby Dick ends up making and outcast out of himself.  Ahab can no longer relate to others and his obsession leads to his transformation which continues to his “complete loss of humanity.”  Kinney seems to be trying to prove to us that obsessions lead our own fall in society. She also selects text from the book that captures Captain Ahab at his worst.  Kinney does this to put emphasis on the fact that Ahab is completely socially incapable.  The type of evidence that the author uses is more on the dramatic side.  She wants us to get this image in our heads that Captain Ahab is this guy that obsessed almost to the point of insanity with catching the White Whale.  Her structure also helps with the desired effect of her piece.  Her ideas are arranged sequentially which makes it easier for the reader to understand.  Kinney’s introduction refers to events from the story to set up for her thesis.  Her strategy is effective because it allows the reader to follow along without risking confusion.  The structure is pretty basic, but it gets the point across.
Kinney also manages to establish herself as a credible source on the subject.  She has this way of using words and turning them into valid ideas.  Kinney builds a strong ethos by appealing to our emotions.  She knows everybody has their own obsession and she uses that to get us to relate to Ahab from the story.  Kinney is successful in making her audience feel that their obsessions can and will cause their own downfall.  

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/400/ahabs-devolution-in-herman-melvilles-moby-dick