Ridley Scott’s Complicated Philosopher Kings

Tags

"Philosopher King", "The Cave", alien, Alien Covenant, Blade Runner, David, Deckard, Dr. Eldon Tyrell, Edward Gibbon, Film, film review, Gladiator, history, King Baldwin IV, Kingdom of Heaven, Literature, Livy, Marcus Aurelius, Maximus, Metamorphosis, Ovid, Peter Weyland, Philosophy, Plato, Plutarch's Lives, Power, Prometheus, Ridley Scott, Rise and Fall of the Roman EMpire, science fiction, Tacitus, The Crown, virtue, War with Hannibal

Russel Crowe avenges Dumbledore after Johnny Cash asphyxiates him and assumes control of the Roman Empire, though that still doesn’t explain whether Tyrell or Weyland corporation was responsible for the synthetic tigers he fought in the coliseum.  The reader may not understand this point, but trust me, Ridley Scott’s films are really just one big universe of interconnected characters and events.  This has tons of continuity implications for the Alien franchise and that Robin Hood movie nobodyexcept for Max von Sydow and my mother actually went to see, but I’ll get to that later.

I’m not sure what honestly compels me anymore.  My brain seems awash with ideas and thoughts and desires and cravings, and every now and then one of these chaotic messes of thoughts formulates into an action.  This is just my way of saying I don’t know why I bought a copy of Meditations by Marcus Aurelius on Amazon the other day.  I believe part of it is because I have a friend who’s part of the bi-weekly graphic novel group Ground Zero Comics hosts, and because the pair of us talk pretty regularly.  He also works for the City of Tyler, and so I seem him fairly often, and when I doI usually talk to him about history and science fiction, and recently he’s begun commissioning statues of roman deities from our 3D Printer at the library.  I’m ecstatic that someone besides me wants a bust of Zeus, much to the chagrin of my fellow library employees.  I asked him the other day, out of curiosity and also out of a sense ofawkwardness because I generally feel that I bore people when I talk to them, why he liked Rome so much.  It took him a second but his honest answer was, “The world was new.  It was being built.”

This just seemed to click with me and I’ve been processing it ever since.  Sitting on my desk in front of me every day when I write is the three volume set of Gibbon’s Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.  It rests between Plutarch’s Lives, Ovid’s Metamorphosis, Tacitus’s Annals of Imperial Rome, Livy’s War with Hannibal, and of course Simon and Schuster’s Guide to Insects, because, well, it’s me.  But these classical works sit in front of me everyday and I don’t often read them, a fact which is bothersome and also rather illuminating.  I appear to have become one of those people: the kind who use books to say something about their personality without actually bothering to open them and make something of a personality for themselves.

Meditating on my own aesthetic, and my own penchant for ancient Rome was an excuse however to finally write about Ridley Scott again, because after finishing my rather brief analysis of Kingdom of Heaven (2000 words is brief by my standards anyway) I realized there was more to be said about the film, and my favorite character King Baldwin IV.

Kingdom of Heaven is not just a misunderstood film about the Crusades and religion in general, it’s also a fascinating study on the conflict of power which has often dogged the “Holy Lands” and how in the face of these struggles one is able to maintain integrity.  The film follows a young blacksmith named Balian of Ibelin who inherits a plot of land in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and before he actually goes to rule he is invited by the King of Jerusalem, a man by the name of Baldwin IV who has, arguably, one of the most powerful entrances of any of Scott’s characters:

King Baldwin IV: Come forward. I am glad to meet Godfrey’s son. He was one of my greatest teachers. He was there when, playing with the other boys, my arm was cut. It was he, not my father’s physicians, who noticed that I felt no pain. He wept when he gave my father the news… that I am a leper. The Saracens say that this disease is God’s vengeance against the vanity of our kingdom. As wretched as I am, theseArabs believe that the chastisement that awaits me in hell is far more severe and lasting. If that’s true, I call it unfair. Come. Sit.

[they sit down on opposite sides of a chessboard]

King Baldwin IV: Do you play?

Balian of Ibelin: No.

King Baldwin IV: The whole world is in chess. Any move can be the death of you. Do anything except remain where you started, and you can’t be sure of your end. Were you sure of your end once?

Balian of Ibelin: I was.

King Baldwin IV: What was it?

Balian of Ibelin: To be buried a hundred yards from where I was born.

King Baldwin IV: And now?

Balian of Ibelin: Now I sit in Jerusalem, and look upon a king.

King Baldwin IV: [Baldwin chuckles] When I was sixteen, I won a great victory. I felt in that moment I would live to be a hundred. Now I know I shall not see thirty. None of us know our end, really, or what hand will guide us there. A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume toplay you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, “But I was told by others to do thus,” or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that.

Balian of Ibelin: I will.

I watched the scene again on YouTube, discovering in the comment section that not only had Baldwin been played by Edward Norton, but also that someone had labeled Baldwin here a Philosopher King.  I admit I know nothing of the real King Baldwin IV of which the character is based, but I do know something of this title and it’s history.

It has been some time since I last read it, but Plato’s Republic is a book that I’m sure most readers have either read snippets of, or at least heard of the book.  It is one of the many Socratic Dialogues the man wrote during his lifetime, and in it the man allowed his teacher Socrates to muse on the nature of power and society.  “The Cave” metaphor is the component of the text that many writers, readers, academics, and philosophers have latched on to, and in fact some have made the case that The Matrix was just a reimagining of this old concept, but contained also in the text is the idea of the “Philosopher King.”  This figure was exactly as the title suggests, a monarch of a fictional kingdom that, because of his position as a philosopher, would bring great benefit and strength to his kingdom because he is a man in love with wisdom and knowledge.  A Philosopher, in the classical sense I suppose, is someone who is calm, patient, in love with a simple life, and desires only to learn as much as he can, and because of this knowledge and virtuous lifestyle, he is an ideal candidate to rule a nation or people because he will not be swayed by valor, ambition, greed, lust, or vanity.

I remember being 15 years old when the film came out.  Well in fact I remember being a young teenager, I cannot in fact actually remember being 15.  Such a reality now seems impossible.  But I do remember the sense of awe in watching Kingdom of Heaven, and the eloquence with which Baldwin ruled himself and his subjects.  He was the sort of leader I would want for my country, if not my species period.

It was looking at Baldwin then, that I began to observe that Ridley Scott often has such characters in his films, men who seem to be philosophers and who hold great positions of power.  But upon closer inspection the question I began to ask is, are they really?

Looking at the film Gladiator, one of my mother’s favorite films by the way, Russel Crowe is a quote “hunksickle”, Scott actually goes to the trouble to actually make the first real recognized philosopher King a central character.  Many historians have observed that Marcus Aurelius seemed to be the first real-life example of a “philosopher king” for the way he carried himself and Rome forward.  In Gladiator Marcus Aurelius, played by Richard Harris the man who would come to be Albus Dumbledore only a few years later for a new generation, is a wise and human man who understands the nature of his mortality as well as the nature of human beings.  Discussing the future of Rome with Maximus one can see his wisdom:

Maximus: Five thousand of my men are out there in the freezing mud. Three thousand of them are bloodied and cleaved. Two thousand will never leave this place. I will not believe that they fought and died for nothing.

Marcus Aurelius: And what would you believe?

Maximus: They fought for you and for Rome.

Marcus Aurelius: And what is Rome, Maximus?

Maximus: I’ve seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark, Rome is the light.

Marcus Aurelius: Yet you have never been there. You have not seen what it has become. I am dying, Maximus. When a man sees his end… he wants to know there was some purpose to his life. How will the world speak my name in years to come? Will I be known as the philosopher? The warrior? The tyrant…? Or will I be the emperor who gave Rome back her true self? There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish… it was so fragile. And I fear that it will not survive the winter.

It’s not bold to say that Gladiator is a film which actually portrays the figure of the Philosopher King as a man who wants only goodness and security for his kingdom.  Marcus Aurelius is a man who desires knowledge, but also stability for that is the sign of prosperity. He is a man who is concerned about the future of his people, and his country.

In this way Marcus Aurelius and Baldwin IV both seem then to be fine examples of Philosopher Kings, though this inevitably leads me to Dr. Edwin Tyrell and Peter Weyland.

Recently one of the two movie groups I’m a part of decided to watch the entirety of the Alien franchise.  This involved starting at Prometheus, then going to Covenant, and then resuming the franchise with Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, and Alien Resurrection respectively.  This was greeted with delight and frustration because while everyone in attendance is a fan of the film Prometheus, Alien:Covenant tends to inspire a revulsion that borders on apish feces throwing.  Despite the sever flaws in the second film, I recognized that Scott had really done something with these films, and the character of Peter Weyland, the terraforming trillionaire and synthetic humanoid producer is arguably one of the most important elements of the films.

The man is, without doubt, a figure with vision and sizable knowledge, but as the film progresses, Weyland is demonstrated to be anything but a benevolent philosopher. Though it was not contained in the theatrical cut, Scott did at one point include a “TED Talk” hosted by the character Peter Weyland, and it the man’s character is revealed:

Peter Weyland: [from TED Talks viral video] To those of you who know me: you will be aware by now that my ambition is unlimited. You know that I will settle for nothing short of greatness, or I will die trying. To those of you who do not yet know me: allow me to introduce myself. My name is Peter Weyland, and if you’ll indulge me, I’d like to change the world.

This would at first appear to be a man with an ambition to benefit society tremendously, but as the talk continues Weyland’s greed appears dramatically: 

Peter Weyland: [from TED Talks viral video] T.E. Lawrence, eponymously of Arabia but very much an Englishman, favoured pinching a burning match between his fingers to put it out. When asked by his colleague William Potter to reveal his trick, how is it he effectively extinguished the flame without hurting himself whatsoever, Lawrence just smiled and said, “The trick, Potter, is not minding it hurts.” The fire that danced at the end of that match was a gift from the Titan Prometheus, a gift that he stole from the gods. When Prometheus was caught and brought to justice for his theft, the gods, well, you might say they overreacted a little. The poor man was tied to a rock, as an eagle ripped through his belly and ate his liver over and over, day after day, ad infinitum. All because he gave us fire. Our first true piece of technology, fire… 100,000 BC: stone tools. 4,000 BC: the wheel. 900 AD: gunpowder – bit of a game changer, that one. 19th century: eureka, thelightbulb! 20th century: the automobile, television, nuclear weapons, spacecrafts, Internet. 21st century: biotech, nanotech, fusion and fission and M theory – and THAT, was just the first decade! We are now three months into the year of our Lord, 2023. At this moment of our civilization, we can create cybernetic individuals, who in just a few short years will be completely indistinguishable from us. Which leads to an obvious conclusion: WE are the gods now.

One can almost hear Plato screech and Marcus Aurelius cast a resigned sigh of painful recognition. It seems at first a little difficult to say that Peter Weyland is not a true Philosopher King.  He is obviously a man of real knowledge and education, all of which would suggest he is a man in love with wisdom.  But upon examination it’s painfully clear that this acquiring of knowledge has not been simply for the sake of acquiring knowledge.  And for all his outward concern for the “benefit” of humanity, the final lines of his speech reveal the man for what he is: yet another in a long line of insects desperate for immortality.

I might perhaps be being a little negative, and it might be better to look at Dr. Tyrell of Blade Runner as well before coming to any final conclusions.  If my reader does not remember, Blade Runner was a film which explored the nature of humanity in a world where “Sythetics” or biochemically engineered human beings have been created and largely used as Slave Labor on “other-world” colonies.  A “Blade Runner” named Deckard is brought back onto the LAPD to terminate four rogue synths which escaped one suchcolony and made their way back to earth, and during his investigations he meets with the head of the Tyrell corporation, Dr. Eldon Tyrell.

Tyrell is a cold man who often appears guided by his own personal sense of charm as is emphasized in one memorable line:

Tyrell: Commerce is our goal, here. More human than human.

Apart from making me think of a great White Zombie song, this small line is real enough to damn Tyrell.  Commerce is not simpatico with being someone purely in love with knowledge, it’s the sign of an individual concerned with profit.  This is not to say a philosopher could not be a capitalist, but greed will blind a man to the truth and so weaken his personal strength.  And Tyrell only makes it worse after he allows his assistant to be interview by Deckard who recognizes that she is a synthetic.

Deckard: She’s a replicant, isn’t she?

Tyrell: I’m impressed. How many questions does it usually take to spot them?

Deckard: I don’t get it, Tyrell.

Tyrell: How many questions?

Deckard: Twenty, thirty, cross-referenced.

Tyrell: It took more than a hundred for Rachael, didn’t it?

Deckard: [realizing Rachael believes she’s human] She doesn’t know.

Tyrell: She’s beginning to suspect, I think.

Deckard: Suspect? How can it not know what it is?

To which it is revealed that Tyrell hasn’t told her.  Tyrell is presented as a man who is not concerned with empathy for the people he has created, nor would he even recognize them as people.  They are merely products designed to increase revenue and thus continue his existence as a leader of the world and thus insure his continued comfort and ego.

These four men together seem to embody the collected works of Ridley Scott, for while the man has created characters of real strength and virtue, he has also observed in humanity a real failing of character.  My question at the end of each of the analyses is not to make some blanket statement about Scott’s carear at large, but again to answer a simple question: can they all be considered Philosopher Kings the way Plato foresaw such a being in the republic.

In my own mind the answer has to be no, because Tyrell and Weyland are clearly not Philosopher Kings, they are merely men who have perused philosophy and settled more on the title of Kings.  Their ultimately failing is their desire to acquire some kind ofpower, and rather than benefit society in a true form or fashion, they create at the expense of others thus reducing their empathy and their real love of knowledge.  As Plato saw it the role of the Philosopher King would be not only to be intelligent, wise, and true to their humanity, but also to lead society into an ideal state akin to a Utopia.  Though looking at this it becomes clear none of the men cited in this essay really match that title.  And that’s largely because Utopia will always be impossible as long as human beings are hindered by their failings.

Greed, ambition, vanity, and desire will always bring about destruction in there world, and to Scott’s credit each of these films demonstrate how society and individual people can be impacted when any and all of these traits become the foundation of power in theworld.  In Kingdom of Heaven Baldwin died and a vain ambitious man began a war with the Saracen Muslims. In Gladiator Commodus murdered his father out of a desire to hold power and appear strong. In Prometheus and Alien Covenant Weyland wanted to live forever and be a god and this ultimate brought about the creation of David, a being who brought tremendous pain to humanity. And finally in Blade Runner Tyrell was a man corrupted by his greed and apathy, all of which caused the synthetics to be butchered by a man who himself was caught in the morbid conundrum of his own morality.

My reader may object at this point, so what?  What good is it wondering about four characters in fictional films and whether or not they satisfy some Classical archetype?  People suck, that isn’t new information, why should we bother worrying about the apparent goodness of fictional people?

These are all fair points, but as always my contester has missed something significant.  Yes these characters are fictional people (though Baldwin was based on an actual dude), but fiction has always been about truth, that abstract notion that there is an explanation of reality that we can tap into and understand.  The truth of the matter is, it’s through fiction that human beings are able to perform thought experiments where they can find their ideals, desires, expectations, and beliefs made manifest.  In this way Scott’s collected oeuvre of characters allows the reader to try and determine what they ultimately believe about power.  What kind of ruler or influential people would we want ruling the world?  And it doesn’t even have to be as complex as that, what kind of people do we want to be in charge of us.

Whether it’s the President of the United States, the CEO of Apple or Facebook, the mayor of your hometown, or whether it’s even your supervisor at Barnes & Noble or a public library, the people who govern and inspire influence matter in our lives because their morality and integrity can have great weight over our lives.  Good people will try to be good to those “beneath” them, and thus try to make the world, and their environment, better, whereas selfish and greedy people will only cause chaos and pain.  Rulers like Baldwin IV and Marcus Aurelius are the sort of individuals most people would want in charge because they seem to understand the nature of integrity, whereas Weyland and Tyrell couldn’t possibly be bothered.

I recognize that this may be a tough sell because the idea of a “Philosopher King” is obviously something antiquated.  Kings and monarchs are the stuff of bad CW programs and amazing Netflix series (check out The Crown, it’s legend-“wait for it”-dary) but power is the one constant of human existence and few directors have explored so incredibly as Ridley Scott.  

I still am left awed at the wisdom of King Baldwin IV, and of the man’s supreme concern for the safety of the people he reigned.  Though I am also deeply ashamed that it took me 14 years to see that the man had a thin mustache etched into the silver of his mask.  Wisdom is important, though observation as ever eludes me.

Advertisements

Light Bulbs, Atom Bombs, And Free Enquiry: Does It Really Need An Anthem?

Tags

Anthem, Atom Bombs, Ayn Rand, Conformity, Cosmos, culture, Essay, Idealism, Individual Will, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Literature, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Politics, Power, Public Education, Science, Totalitarianism, Trinity

Any writing pertaining to Ayn Rand should be short, yet tragically it never is. It’s rather fascinating that in recent times the woman’s writing has become praised by certain politicians as guiding lights of behavior and moral fortitude, while their would-be legislation seems to be nothing more than an attempt to create a moral imposing government system which leaves the individual with little to any real power. The irony unfortunately is lost upon them. I would not be so ridiculous as to suggest that contemporary politicians would desire anything like the cultural system painted so efficiently in her, graciously short novella, Anthem, but it does beg the question: why does this philosophy, clumsily disguised as literature, possess the cult following that it does?

Before we continue allow me to impart to you an axiom that will never fail you: Trust not any human being who professes great fondness for the novel Atlas Shrugged.

The average reader most likely could not stand Anthem, or any of the philosophical tomes Ayn Rand produced over the course of her life, because the idealism that shines through them is overbearing. It becomes clear after only a few pages of one of her texts that Rand is interested first and foremost with creating an ideology, art is merely the delivery mechanism. The Objectivist movement is rooted in the power of the individual, and so, working with the environment she had, totalitarianism would serve as the ultimate enemy. In a charitable summation of Rand’s Total body of work: Collectivism is the greatest vice to humanity. There’s a reason Equality 7-2521

The beginning lines of the novella echo the Orwellian Nightmare (though technically this book did precede the wretched vision).

It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon paper no others are to see. It is base and evil. It is as if we were speaking alone to no ears but our own. And we know well there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone.

As is customary with the negative-utopia literature, there is the presence of thought crime, in which no one is truly free to feel, think, or behave inwardly for fear of legal and physical consequence. Rand paints the portrait clearly that in this system, no one can truly win. The basic plot of the novella Anthem is as follows. A twenty one year old man named Equality 7-2521 lives in a world, we are lead to believe, sometime in the future in which society has taken a massive step back. The technological boons to which our society currently enjoys have been seemingly abandoned for unknown reasons and all personal self-hood has been erased. All names are reduced to a single ideal term (equality, liberty, union, etc) followed by five numbers. Equality 7-2521 as we see, possesses intelligence and suffers, for the society he inhabits does not trust intelligence, in fact it penalizes him for it. Assigned the job of street sweeper, instead of scholar as he desired, he eventually stumbles upon a long lost subway tunnel and there begins to study electricity. While doing so he falls in love with a young woman named Liberty 5-3000 and the two carefully develop a relationship(I will give Miss Rand her dues, for she understood well that dictatorship always fears the sexual response). Equality’s talents eventually lead him to re-discovering the power of electricity by creating a light bulb (society at this point only uses candles). When he attempts to show his findings to the scholars of the world he is condemned and seeks refuge in the forest where he and Liberty eventually discover and abandoned house and begin to create a new society.

The great conflict with Anthem is that the characters revert back to the most basic archetype so that character identification becomes almost impossible. That is not to suggest that this book shouldn’t be read (I read it in the eighth grade and, like many experiences at the time, did not appreciate the raw power of the text). In fact it should, for it demonstrates the importance of individual power in society. The culture that Equality 7-2521 finds himself accommodates no individual pursuit. It controls sexuality thereby stunting the balm a physical release, it manipulates the mind preventing intellectual development, and attempts to promote their backwards moving culture through intense psychological and physical pain (one of the horrific passage in the text is Equality’s punishment at the Hall of Corrections where he is whipped by two men described as “naked but for leather aprons and leather hoods over their faces).

In short Rand provides a go-to example of a totalitarian state. The problem arises as we consider interpretation and analysis. The perennial lecture of professors and teachers may remain at the dictatorship that governs every aspect of the society and only teach that lesson. The greater conflict of Anthem, is the restriction of the imagination, particularly in scientific inquiry. The modern day covers of Anthem seem always to place the image of a light bulb beside the title and author’s name, suggesting that a new and more important contemporary interpretation may be made from the work. The question of science has never been more important than it is right now, for our current educational system falls far too short in the education of children. I grew up at a private school that required four years of science or four years of math. Faulty in the latter, that is a charitable summation I assure you, I chose the four years of science and devoted myself to the study of biology(I liked the teacher, he beat the students with rulers when they asked stupid questions and took us out for long rides in the swamp in the trunk of his yellow Toyota truck). Since that time I have married a biologist and tutor-teach biology to college freshman. All of this has led me to the fact, that science demands of its participant’s imagination. A scientist must ask “why?”

And questions give us no rest. We know not why our curse makes us seek we know not what, ever and ever. But we cannot resist it. It whispers to us that there are great things on this earth of ours, and that we can know them if we try, and that we must know them. We ask, why must we know, but it has no answer to give us. We must know that we know.

This drive is the true embodiment of scientific inquiry. Before this passage however, it is important to note the context of this impulse.

We learned that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it, which causes the day and night. We learned the names of all the winds which blow over the seas and push the sails of our great ships. We learned how to bleed men to cure them of all ailments.

The scientific knowledge of Equality 7-2521’s society has been reverted to a pre-Industrial age standard. They have adopted egocentricity as their cosmological model, they possess no combustion engine, and the medical standards of blood-letting (the strategy that ultimately killed Byron in Greece) are almost hysterical if they were not so pathetic. These accomplishments of the society seem farcical at first, but then fester into something far worse.

All the great modern inventions come from the Home of Scholars, such as the newest one, which we found only a hundred years ago, of how to make candles from wax and string; also how to make glass, which is put in our windows to protect us from the rain.

Candles and glass? To quote my lovely lady wife when I forget to buy toilet paper and instead buy books, “Fucking seriously?” The invention of glass, I will admit, would possess some difficulty to early humans, however human cultures have producing glass for centuries. Indeed, archaeologists have suggested that glass production appeared in Mesopotamia, the “Fertile Crescent” since 3500 b.c.e, the emergence of recognizable human society. We will let this pass and instead note it is the first (candles, in case you forgot) which is the most troubling. It becomes clear that Equality 7-2521’s society is several centuries in the future, and in a hundred years it took a whole collection of scholars to realize they could place a string in a tube of wax. It takes Equality only a few months to create a light bulb through his own personal initiative. Equality 7-2521 exemplifies the ability of what a scientist can accomplish when properly motivated. It is the individual will that pushes the great rewards that the rest of society takes advantage of. Anthem demonstrates that if our society is to flourish, then it trust in the individual imagination.

Reading Anthem I was prepared for the heavy handed philosophy that made finishing The Fountainhead impossible. I admit this to my great shame. But I do believe that despite Rand’s overbearing will, she accomplishes an effective critique of totalitarian willpower in the state by demonstrating that it is not just bullying and physical annihilation that such systems employ to enforce their will, but a narcissistic step backwards. They are ridiculous and self damning. It becomes difficult not to laugh at the reaction of Equality 7-2521’s light bulb to the Home of the Scholars.

“This would wreck the Plans of the World Council,” said Unanimity2-9913, “And without the Plans of the World Council the sun cannot not rise. It took fifty years to secure the approval of all the Councils for the Candle, and to decide upon the number needed, and to refit the plans so as to make candles instead of torches. This touched upon thousands and thousands of men working in scores of States. We cannot alter the Plans again so soon.”

“And if this should lighten the toil of men,” said Similarity 5-0306, “then it is a great evil, for men have no cause to exist save in toiling for other men.”

**Author’s Note**

Italics are my own

My those “Plans!” How great are those “Plans?” Who could imagine altering the “Plans?” This farce is as hilarious as it is pathetically familiar. In our own time the advances and discoveries of science tend to be ignored or infuriating. One summons the words of Mr. Rzykruski from Tim Burton’s latest, and recently most tolerable, film Frankenweenie “They like what science gives them but not the questions science asks.” As the political situation in this country pushes further towards extremism, in both camps before you start, the role of science in our society becomes more daunting. Scientists who even begin the conversation of climate change or solar energy are bombarded with abuse before they even have the time as ask the question, “why?” The question of stem cells has recently faded into the background of socialized medicine, yet the ever present debate of teaching evolution is a battle that seems without end. On one side note I take great pride in announcing that my university’s biology program has altered their degree plan requiring Evolution courses to be taken before graduating can commence.  Most recently, the efforts to re-kindle the inspirations of young minds towards science via the wonderful television series Cosmos, has been met with mutual celebration and horror.  Christian parents were dealt a serious blow as Neil deGrasse Tyson looked unashamedly into living rooms across America during the second episode of the series and states, “Evolution is a fact.”  In reaction to this, in my opinion unfortunately shocking and profoundly brave action, numerous parents sat their children down and instructed their children that the facts presented on the show were false(further demonstrating the inadequate educational system existence in this country not to mention the unfortunate consequence of blurring societal and scientific colloquial phrases: “It’s just a theory.”). Returning to the novella, the reaction of Equality 7-2521’s society to his invention is perfect. Rand accurately conveys the pitfalls of scientific investigation in a totalitarian state. The government and the masses coordinate together to enjoy the “story” of their society. The scientist, in any culture, demands more from his or her culture and offers up a means of bettering the situation. The case against their discoveries or proposals? It’s hard. It’s like…really hard. We’d have to change stuff. The pathetic attempts to stymie the efforts of scientists result only in the further stale potential of said society. Those in power will attempt to sway progress, because the vision suggested does not fit to their particular fetish of the society they envision (fetish in the spiritual sense, not erotic, though this does tend to overlap). Stephen Hawking has commented that in our time Scientists have been forced to assume the position of philosophers. His statement is not far off the mark.

If unconvinced, consider if you will the power of the atomic bomb. There is no experience on earth as humanizing as witnessing an atomic blast. Nowhere near the potential or power of the light bulb, and yet the image of the mushroom cloud has become a symbol in the public consciousness of utter extermination or world chaos. No book captures this spirit better than Trinity by Jonathan Fetter-Vorm. A historical/scientific/cultural/anthropological study of the making of the atomic bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the graphic novel chronicles the human reaction to the actual pursuit of the bomb and the concluding success of it. While there is no central character in Trinity, other than the bomb itself, the book does take special note of the figure of J. Robert Oppenheimer, both as the coordinating constructor of the bomb, and also its greatest opponent. A passage from the graphic novel cites one of his speeches,

“We have made a thing, a most terrible weapon, that has altered abruptly and profoundly the nature of the world. We have made a thing that, by all the standards of the world we grew up in, is an evil thing. And by doing so we have raised the question of whether science is good for man. The pattern of the use of atomic weapons was set at Hiroshima. It is a weapon for aggressors…and the elements of surprise and of terror are as intrinsic to it as are the fissionable nuclei”

Would this not then cancel your argument? My contester speaks. It was because of scientific inquiry that we eventually discovered, manufactured, and employed nuclear arms. That is true, and damning evidence that perhaps the “greatest generation” was not as imperfect as the history books and war movies would lead us to believe. Nevertheless, from the discovery of nuclear fission, new energy sources have been produced that are both clean and efficient, despite the naysayers nuclear power is remarkably clean, when done right. The power of the bomb has lifted mankind out of the infancy of our species and shown our true potential, while also handing us our own mortality to our hands. The progress of science is an effort to aid mankind, both technologically as well as morally. With each new discovery mankind is offered a new choice. They move forward and learn to adapt to the new advancement, or else they may reject it and remain static.

In the case of the bomb, humanity had to decide how they wished to behave with their fellow men: through diplomacy or mutually assured destruction. In the case of the light bulb, it is a question of whether our “plans” are really so great. Equality 7-2521 becomes an essential character for the twenty-first century, for in our time science will advance further and further while forces in power will attempt to negate it. As a species and a culture, it is up to us to decide whether we are willing or able to accept these changes. If society is to be allowed to continually enjoy the products of science, they must be open to the questions science asks.

All Essays Are Equal…But Some Are More Equal Than Others

Tags

Animal Farm, George Orwell, Individual Will, Injustice, Lord of the Flies, Politics, Power, Public Education, Reading

It seems impossible to separate the characters of Animal Farm from their perceived counterparts in the Russian Revolution, and therein lies an unfortunate consequence in the mass analysis of such a wonderful and essential book. I wrote in a previous essay that it is not a question of should one read Animal Farm, but when one should read it. There have been far too few sentences that have stood out so pronouncedly in my mind as a personal triumph as that one. My ego aside I make this assertion due to my first sentence of this essay. The fact that we believe the events of Animal Farm to be only a localized allegory about the formation of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, reveals a flaw in our perception of our own humanity. Animal Farm at its most basic level is an attempt to warn the masses of the twentieth century of the abuse of power and demonstrate that no one is immune to its blinding influence. Power corrupts absolutely seems to have become an almost tawdry platitude, which is unfortunate because even the most hackneyed mumbo-jumbo retains its power if it possess worthwhile truth. In many ways Animal Farm is a summation of this predicament because it demonstrates such a platitude which had been expressed numerous ways before the actual writing, and also because like said platitude, we listen to the words without actually absorbing the message.

To begin, a basic summation of the text shall be necessary. I promise to keep it short.

In the beginning an old boar by the name of Old Major gathers the animals of Manor Farm together to inform them of a vision. He says that the animals should be the real owners of the farm because animals are the only ones who actually produce anything at all. He speaks to them of a vision in which no animal suffers the whip or the rack or the chopping block before concluding his grand speech with an original song entitled Beasts of England (which possesses one of the few hilarious moments for those paying attention because the melody is described as a mix between Clementine and La Cuacaracha). Old Major dies however his ideals do not. One day Jones, the ill-fated owner of the farm, neglects to feed his animals properly. When they bursts into the store room to feed themselves he begins to whip them resulting in the rebellion and the formation of the revolution. On the farm are many animals but the pigs are by far the smartest. They lead the other animals by teaching them the alphabet and writing the famous, and by far most easily absorbed section of the text most likely due to our annoyingly constant exposure to fundamentalist paradigms, Commandments of Animalism. Two pigs emerge as leaders, one named Snowball and the other named Napoleon. The two pigs argue and bicker over the proper management of the farm until Napoleon eventually chases Snowball off the farm with trained dogs. Once accomplished Napoleon takes Snowball’s plans for a windmill and the animal’s work day and night all the while the pigs slowly assume total control of the property now known as Animal Farm. The Animals are constantly monitored and re-educated about their history and their own commandments until there are few who can actually remember the foundation of the farm. The book ends with the classic and somewhat heavy handed metaphor when the pigs are playing cards with invited humans and the animals “looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Due to the subject matter it becomes difficult to determine when one should read Animal Farm. A person glancing through the summation above may have young children and stop reading after mention of talking animals in which case they open their young child up to potential disaster. One might mistake Animal Farm for a charming fable in the vein of Aesop (whether it be  the original Greek tales or else the charmingly re-imagined version in the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show) but after a certain point this becomes impossible to materialize. In a later chapter after Napoleon has assumed power he holds a large meeting to declare the bitter influence of Snowball (who by then has been chased off the farm and most likely assassinated by the despot’s goons). Animals come forward to confess and the text reads:

“They were all slain on the spot. And so the tale of confessions and executions went on, until there was a pile of corpses lying before Napoleon’s feet and the air was heavy with the smell of blood, which had been unknown since the expulsion of Jones.”

This would seem enough to place the reading of Animal farm well past the age of four and perhaps even past the age of ten. The question arises but should it? Obviously infants should not be encouraged to read such a text and the protection of young minds is essential for healthy development, but everyone must fall off the cliff in the Rye and discover that the world is not always pleasant or accommodating. The passage quoted is a potent symbol and as such we must be careful as to when children should experience such horrific incidents in prose. The answer to this question is often the wrong sort. Rather than be exposed to challenging works of literature they are heavy handed worksheets and young adult pulp, assuming they are given even that. While there may be works of young adult fiction such as Bridge to Terrabithia or Are you there God, It’s Me Margaret that challenge a young reader and ask them to question what it means to be a human being and struggle, a majority of the texts provided to children seem to be nothing but fluff guarding them against certain realities of life. Certainly of the most difficult topics such as pain, death, and sense of self and individual will.

I believe that is where Animal Farm may be necessary as a required text in public education as well as private education. I grew up attending a private institution known as All Saints Episcopal School (A classic example in misdirection as I was the one of the few, at that time, actually Episcopal Christians at said school). It is not my intent to burden you with tales of my shitty years attending this awful hellhole (though I might save that for a later time) however I will mention several important stories read at said school. They include: Oliver Twist, The Birds, The Cask of Amontillado, The Journeys of King Arthur and his Knights, and the Lord of the Flies. These texts were read during the two years it took to finish the sevenths and eighth grade during which time I was approximately thirteen years old. Right away it seems to make sense. By middle school (American middle school at any rate, I am ignorant concerning public education in foreign countries) the child is old enough to experience “dark” moments in literature and in all of the books previously cited, particularly the latter, contain horridness that can be quite shocking to any first reader. Compared to Lord of the Flies, Napoleon’s slaughter seems a penny thrown in a pond, but to a first reader such images and moments carry great weight in our development and consciousness. But even so, the lessons gained from careful analysis of such works, rather than a superficial exposure, can linger in a human being’s mind if they are open to the experience.

Both the Lord of the Flies and Animal Farm are excellent for their portrayal of the way in which power can be attained and constructed easily, but also the way in which it can easily crumble as power plays are used to distract those who are not as gifted intellectually.

The power of Animal Farm as a text is justly in its writing and prose. While reading the book recently it was remarkable how such simple prose can accomplish so much. George Orwell will probably never be called to the same hall of proseists such as Joyce, Tolstoy, or Fitzgerald due to the fact that his writing bears little experiment or panache.

This is not a weakness.

Like political manipulation itself, the execution is subtle rather than grandiose. In a previous essay I quoted directly a passage in which Squealer, one of the aptly named porkers that runs the place, explains why the pigs require the milk and apples for he says:

“We pigs are the brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Surely Comrades,” cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, “Surely there is no one among you who wishes to see Jones come back?”

Now if there was one thing the animals were certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone”

If we look at the prose it is simple. Orwell cannot be bothered by flowery language because his work is political allegory, and while the language of politics is a labyrinth of misdirection, he is making a direct statement about manipulation. As such, the prose must be simple. As is often the case simplicity yields to complexity. We have all seen the big red dot in the Museum and wondered to ourselves why good money and time would be spent in adoration of such simplicity, but such a simple statement reveals the immensity of detail. If we look at each word, each sentence we observe that Orwell’s language is a beautiful and meticulous dance. Squealer appeals to the animals sense of self by depreciating while at the same time lifting the pig’s position in the farm as key provider. He acknowledges his own physical inferiority but without sacrificing power. In the next sentence when he speaks of “welfare” he appeals to his ethos. Ethos, to those unschooled in rhetoric, is an argumentative tool in which the speaker appeals to the audience by calling his integrity as a means of securing his position. Squealer protests that he’s working for the benefit of the animals themselves, and surely he would not lie since he cares so much about them. In fact the removal of the apples from the rest of the communal diet is on some level a sacrifice, because it demonstrates he has assumed a more important work than the rest of them and that his labors are more intensive than their own. Finally we see his appeal to pathos. Pathos or “pathetic” appeals are arguments rooted in emotion. We’ve all suffered filibusters by politicians in which they are brought to tears as they tell the tale of Jim the town hopeful who makes them proud to be an American citizen. Squealer employs not fond reminisces within the animals hearts because it can be seen as the book progresses he is not attempting to lift their spirits at all, but instead calls upon their communal fear. The fear of Jones is a fear of helplessness. While the characters may be animals they are anthropomorphized and a unifying fear in humanity, apart from yet another STAR WARS prequel centered around Jar Jar Binks, is a sense of powerlessness. Squealer not only appeals to this raw emotion but he manipulates his own emotional state by “pleading” with the animals once again placing them in a seeming position of power. Finally to note, Squealer often “dances” as he move about during his appeals to the animals creating a visual distraction. Hitler is too often employed example, but the purpose of this essay he will have to do. Anyone dimly familiar with the fuehrer of the Third Reich has at some point viewed the man mid-speech. Making grand gestures and contorting his face like a palsy victim with the runs he conveys great emotion and that energy translated into the emotional experience of the listener. Squealer moves about to give his words an added depth but also so that the animals are too busy observing the movements of his body to truly stop and consider the ideas being presented to them.

After all of this the animals acquiesce and allow the pigs to eat the apples without argument. It’s brilliantly executed and Squealer’s ability as a rhetorician cannot be denied. But how does this relate to the issue of when a child should be exposed to such a text?

The answer is simple: Whenever a child recognizes injustice.

Few of us have possessed moments of greatness when we stood up for a fellow student, for a best friend, or even an acquaintance that seemed to be suffering from some external persecution whatever the form. We may have recognized it as such, but we may have failed to act because getting involved is just too much trouble. There exists a psychological condition (the official name, I am ashamed to admit, I don’t honestly know) we shall refer to as Spectator’s syndrome. We’ve all experienced it. The teacher asks the class a question. “What does “a” then equal?” Well we know the answer or we don’t, but there is an impulse to remain silent. We believe someone else will provide the answer we cannot give. We remain in this position until one brave soul raises their hand or else somebody farts. This syndrome manifests, not just in its juvenile grade-school form, but also in day to day reality. We see a man suffering a heart attack. His body drops and we cluster around the poor soul who requires medical aid or at least an aspirin. We expect someone, perhaps the man or woman standing next to us will whip out their Smartphone and dial for an ambulance, however, much to our own audacity of dismay, no one does and so the earth is blessed with another cadaver.

It is the lone dissenter who recognizes the injustice of this action who steps forward, points at you, and yells, “You, call an ambulance. Now idiot can’t you see he’s dying?” This man or woman possesses a strong individual will because they have pushed past the collected trust in the mass and placed strength upon themselves. Rather than submit their will to the higher power of society, they understand that action requires action on their own part.

There is a passage in Animal Farm in which Squealer is attempting to re-write the history of Animal Farm by smearing the name of Snowball and further re-create him as a villain and a monster. He suggests that Snowball aided the Human beings at the famous Battle of the Cowshed. Boxer, perhaps the most devoted to the cause of Animalism, recognizes an injustice in this and protests:

“I do not believe that,” he said. “Snowball fought bravely at the Battle of Cowshed. I saw him myself. Did we not give him Animal Hero, First Class,’ immediately afterwards?”

I do not believe that. Boxer may possess little intelligence (it’s noted he cannot learn any more of the alphabet past the letter D) but his strength of character is such that even in the face of “authority” he maintains his integrity. He is rewarded by an attempt on his life. Boxer’s integrity of will cannot almost be missed, in fact almost every passage of note in Animal Farm can be missed if one simply sprints through the text without giving each word, each sentence, each paragraph etc., the attention it deserves. We perceive Animal Farm to be nothing but a text about Animals with a clumsily veiled metaphor for Russian Communism. No one will protest that that is not there, it is, but that is simply one interpretation. Hierarchy and power are universal paradigms that govern our species and as long as they exist those in the know and possession will manipulate whatever forces they can to maintain it. Regardless of political position, power corrupts absolutely.

This platitude can only be appreciated when one understands injustice for what it is: the manipulation of a few for the betterment of those in their circle.

Animal Farm is most likely never to be read in grades lower than the seventh, and it is likely to be continually read as a metaphor for communism. But those who are willing to step forward and face the bitter truth of the novel will be rewarded for receiving a text that plots out the tricks of manipulation and understand that we lose our power, not in grandiose revolutions, but instead through subtle tricks and smiles.

I believe this has done little to truly answer the question, when one should read Animal Farm. A straight answer would most likely be sometime around the age of ten or eleven. A satisfying answer would be the first time we observe an event, a statement, a speech, or an opinion and respond as Boxer does, “I do not believe that.” The result will leave you forever changed, slightly disappointed in life, but stronger than you can possibly know.