The Catholic Church in 100 Days

A little background first -- I will be writing a response to my viewing of the film 100 Days. The film exposes the injustice and brutual reality that was the Rwandan genocide. While the film follows a few main characters, as it is a docudrama, it is ultimately through these individuals and the fellow Tutsis murdered along with them (with the exception of Josette and her boyfriend who still must live to experience the aftermath of the genocide) that the audience is able to fully realize the horror of the Rwandian genocide ( an experience that many cannot or choose not to comprehend).

What I found to be one of the most interesting issue explored throughout the movie was the hypocritical role of the Catholic Church. One such representative of the church, the Catholic priest from the West, tried to indoctrinate Rwandans into the catholic faith through his Bible preachings. This same priest is later speaking to a French man and expressing his view of the Africans he is "trying to help". Not only does he refer to Africans as "dogs" but he also expresses his belief that "they are like children" and therefore, "their souls are more open". This priest represents the internalization of a colonized understanding of Africa and the people within it. The priest has internalized this faulty sense of superiority, one that ultimately deems the people of Africa, as inferior to Westerners. In his eyes, his position is to "help" these lower beings in a quest for salvation. But who is it that really needs salvation? It is more scary that he asserts that because they are like children, 'their souls are more open', for that means he ultimately wants to control their ideology rather than encourage them to think and question for themselves. His purpose is not to help them establish their own ideas of religion, but rather to brainwash them into believing the only choice is his way (the only choice is the predominate religion of the West). While some may view his presence in Africa as harmless, I feel that he represents all that is wrong and potentially dangerous about the Catholic Church itself. Ultimately, when the Rwandans are in serious need, he leaves back to the West, having "helped" or "saved" no one.

The Catholic Church is not only represented by a white, Westerner, but also by an African priest as well. Though this priest masquerades under the guise of a helper of the Tutsis and an advocate for preventing genocide, in reality, he perpetuates the murder of thousands of indviduals and his own rapture of young girls by manipulating people's view of him as a priest. It is disgusting that the priest pretends to be helping the Tutsis find refuge in the church, while ultimately knowing (and participating in ) their upcoming deaths. In fact, it was easier to attack and kill a multiplicity of Tutsis that were hiding in the church, then it was to seek and find them individually. The church itself represents the hypocritical nature of this priest that represents it because on the surface it seems as if it is a safe haven, when in reality it is quite the opposite. It is also disturbing that the priest, pretending to save Josette and other women like herself, rapes them instead. Not only is he preying upon their trust in him (as he is a priest) but also their fear of a brutal death. He exploits these young women's bodies and minds with no remorse. Though many would like to argue that this is an unfair representation of the Catholic Church, it would be detrimental to ignore this issue, an issue not isolated to one or two incidents.

What I think is particularly effective about this is that it explores this issue with both a Western priest and an African priest. It exposes the injustices perpetuated and internalized by the representatives of the Catholic Church, in the name of the "greater" good from both standpoints. While the Western white priest internalizes and outwardly expresses his superiority over the Africans, the African priest uses his position in the Church for his own corruption.

Ultimately, the problem that can no longer be ignored (an issue exposed throughout the film in its relation to the Rwandan genocide) is the Catholic Church itself.

Technological De-avdancement (Final Essay)

Imagine a world without individual thought, a world in which words exist only in the form of entertainment in order to distract from serious contemplation. In Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 and its respective film adaptation by Francois Truffaut, this world is able to exist because society convinces its inhabitants that books contain nothing but “silly awful hurting words” (101) that should be burned. In this society, Montag represents the formerly naïve member that blindly lives his life as is expected until he becomes conscious of its injustice. Bradbury’s futuristic novel and Truffaut’s film adaptation critique mass dependence on technology through a society devoid of deep thought; relevant to America’s heavy reliance on technology and its resulting degradation on communication and information today.

Although Fahrenheit 451 was first published in the 1950s, it is significantly applicable to the modern fast-paced technological world of 2009. Instead of reading newspapers and finishing books, technology allows quick fixes to issues of time management. Yahoo provides flashy headlines of what is occurring worldwide, while Sparknotes and Wikipedia allow individuals to get a shallow understanding of a novel or article without ever having to read the first page. In essence, thought provoking material is too time consuming to be considered valuable. As the saying goes, time is money after all. Facebook and Twitter, social networking sites that have millions of users worldwide, encourage narcissism and degrade communication. According to an article in USA Today, Bill Persky concludes that this technology is “actually destroying [communication]. How? By making it easier and faster for people everywhere to be in constant contact with each other -- about nothing” (Persky). Like Montag’s wife who participates in meaningless conversation through technology, modern society encourages insignificant communication in order to provide a distraction from the terrible realities of the world. Although there are wars, starvation, and poverty, the average American is unaware or unconcerned by this. Instead, they are constantly distracted by the endless, mindless entertainment available at the click of a mouse or button. Maybe with the destruction of communication and scholarly information, individuals will “all be[come] alike” (Bradbury 58) as Bradbury foresees.

In both the novel and its film adaptation, books are burned in order to eliminate intellectual conflict. In the novel Montag nonchalantly explains to Clarisse that burning books is “fine work. Monday burn Millay, Wednesday Whitman, Friday Faulker, burn ‘em to ashes, then burn the ashes” (8). It is no coincidence that these influential works that would stimulate the reader’s mind are discarded without a second thought. Through his nonchalance, the outrageous act of burning books is made insignificant, an everyday act undeserving of consideration. Bradbury represents it as such in order to mirror individuals’ blind acceptance of the status quo even in the most ridiculous of circumstances. In the film version, the Captain explains the reason they burn books is because “Robinson Crusoe, the Negroes didn't like that because of his man, Friday. And Nietzsche, Neitzsche, the Jews didn't like Nietzsche. Here's a book about lung cancer. You see, all the cigarette smokers got into a panic, so for everybody's peace of mind, we burn it” (Trufautt). According to the Captain, or the enforcer of society’s laws, books cause a conflict of opinions. In order to eliminate this conflict of interests, or individual thought, the source of it must be destroyed, which Bradbury argues is books. As Montag reads “Dover Beach” to his wife and her friends, Mrs. Phelps begins “crying. The others in the middle of the desert watch her crying grow very loud […] They sat, not touching her, bewildered with her display. She sobbed uncontrollably” (Bradbury 100). As a direct result of the destruction of books, the characters in the novel are unable to cope with the emotion that poetry can stimulate. Instead of recognizing that emotion as powerful, the characters become very uncomfortable and denounce it as negative. On the contrary, Bradbury is arguing for the intellectual and emotional stimulation that books can provide and against the meaningless instant gratification that technology supplies to the unconscious masses; applicable to America’s lack of urgency for intellectual development due to over-reliance on technology.

Although currently in America there is an abundance of intellectual conflict, the internet promotes one-sidedness. According to an article in Marketing Management, Christopher Hart argues that “when people are actively engaged, they pay attention to other perspectives and develop stronger views than when passively exposed to” (27) information. In other words, as people are “passively exposed” to others’ opinions and mindless information on the internet, they may not actively participate in developing intellectually. Since there is no need to identify with another’s argument, people are able to disregard what they dislike. Instead people can focus on what they agree with and can read over and easily dismiss what they consider to be false. By doing this, individuals merely have to “develop” a shallow understanding of their thoughts on both sides of an argument (while their opinion stands as the ultimate truth). The internet provides a “one-way flow” of information where everyone can “reinforce” (Hart 27) their own ideas, without having to critically examine serious issues. This mirrors the consequences of technology in Fahrenheit 451 mentioned in the above paragraph. Although intellectual conflicts do still exist today, the internet does not hold the same active intellectual participation as does a face to face conversation. While the internet requires less stimulation, a face to face interaction requires a more dynamic discussion. Ironically, the internet contains the intellectual conflicts of millions of users, while simultaneously promoting static intellectual development.

In Fahrenheit 451 Bradbury warns that being wholly dependent upon technology leads to superficial happiness. While exposing the truth to Montag in hopes that he will accept society as is, Captain Beatty explains, that “technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time” (Bradbury 58). While books bring conflict and negative emotions, technology is said to inspire happiness. This happiness is as artificial as the technology itself. This is apparent in the parlor scene in the film when Montag’s wife participates in the show by “say[ing] what [she] thinks” (Truffaut) about where they should place a particular guest. The irony is that the questions are shallow and do not require a moments contemplation. In Fahrenheit 451 , not only is technology replacing books, but the technology available requires little to no thought. This instant gratification as Beatty exclaims keeps “them moving, don’t we give them fun? That’s all we live for isn’t it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these” (Bradbury 59). Bradbury is critiquing society’s desire for the instant pleasure that technology brings; its distractions are often times mistaken for happiness. In reality, Bradbury argues that without any kind of intellectual stimulation, this dependence on technology creates a superficial happiness and temporary happiness.

Like Bradbury and Truffaut’s dystopian world, America is currently becoming more and more dependent upon technology for its superficial fix. Although the internet is a relatively new invention, statistics show that “80 percent” (“Internet Usage (U.S.) Statistics From the 2009 Digital Future Report”) of Americans are reliant upon it. Previous to this technology, there was a heavy dependence upon books and writing as a source of knowledge and communication. Today, the internet has become a more accessible source (at least to those who can afford a computer and the internet monthly fee). Not only can it provide an abundance of information with the click of a button, but can also be used to simultaneously communicate with thousands of other people. Although some of the resources available online are useful for academic enrichment, the majority of the internet is cluttered with mindless forms of entertainments and distractions. If Americans only used the internet sparingly, it would not pose such a problem. Instead of using it with discretion, Americans usage “has grown in each year of the Digital Future studies, and has now surpassed an average of 17 hours per week” (“Internet Usage (U.S.) Statistics From the 2009 Digital Future Report”). Idealistically, most of these seventeen hours is spent acquiring knowledge by utilizing the abundant scholarly resources available. In reality, much of this time is spent communicating with others “about nothing” (Persky).

One of the sites that promotes communication “about nothing” is Facebook. Facebook was created in February 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg and was originally intended for social networking between college students. It is currently available to the masses and has “been able to obtain over 8 million users in the U.S. alone” (Yadav). As a social networking site, Facebook provides much entertainment. As a form of communication, Facebook is detrimental. If it wasn’t so widely trafficked then Facebook would not pose such a threat to communication, but it is significant to note “that Facebook is the 7th most trafficked site in the U.S.” (Yadav). Out of all the scholarly sites available to the public, it cannot be ignored that some of the most trafficked sites in the United States are social networking sites. This is very telling of what is high on Americans’ priority lists. It is evident the masses are not utilizing the internet for its academic accessibility, but rather for its entertainment value. Facebook provides the opportunity to form “groups” to ideally offer students the opportunity to connect academically. Unfortunately, “about 80% of the groups are ‘fun-related’” (Yadav) and have nothing to do with academics or forming close ties. Thus, the communication enabled by Facebook is shallow and superficial. While individuals complain about the mundane details of their everyday existence, others comment on how adorable a picture is or how much they miss a friend. True, this is a form of connecting individuals easily, but at what cost? By promoting such shallow communication, Facebook and other social networking sites such as Myspace and Twitter are degrading personal, meaningful communication. Instead, they present the message that it is best to speak superficially with hundreds of “friends” rather then to form real connections with a few individuals.

The main problem with Facebook and other such networking sites is not only its promotion of meaningless conversation, but also that it is replacing face to face communication. While it may connect individuals to a hundred of their closest acquaintances, the probability of any individual meeting face to face with a quarter of those “friends” is slim to none. Instead of going out of one’s way to meet with others on an intimate level, Facebook provides a convenient way to communicate with many people simultaneously. In a November 2009 issue of Learning and Leading with Technology, readers were polled on a question asking if Facebook could replace face to face interactions. Alarmingly, thirty three percent responded that it could (Capozzoli 6). This brings to mind Faber’s insight about the disruption of communication in Farenheit 451. According to Faber, “the firemen are rarely necessary. The public itself stopped reading of its own accord” (Bradbury 87). Similarly, the people of the United States are actively choosing social networking sites as a sufficient source of communication.

In actuality, social networking sites are an insufficient and disconnected form of communication. Although words can convey meaning, “inflection, gestures, and other nonverbal expression can give clues to the meaning that is intended but not said” (Roberts). While all that is said on Facebook must be interpreted at surface value, face-to-face conversation is much more dynamic. Face to face interaction involves the use of many different parts of the brain. It requires interpreting the ‘intended’ meaning of a statement based on physical gestures, visual expressions, and vocal tones. For these reasons, social conversation is much more intellectually stimulating then internet conversations. Not to mention, face to face communication also requires a social awareness, rather than the sheltered comfort of one’s home. In the above mentioned issue of Learning and Leading with Technology, Maria Muzzo, a technology integration specialist, confirms this as she expresses that

social skills are developed when children play face to face. The neural circuitry in their brains is constantly mapping connections as they develop understanding of how to share, be a good friend, or interact to get what they want. Small and Vorgan’s study (2008) [specifically] suggests that the more time we spend online, the weaker social skills become. (Capozzoli)

Intimate conversations are necessary to promote an individual’s capability to exist in a social environment. By replacing social interactions with the internet, individuals become poorer communicators. As Bradbury warns, with a growing dependence upon technology “the mind drinks less and less” (57), until eventually know one will truly “talk” (23) as they will become socially inept.

While social networking sites degrade communication, sites such as Wikipedia offer invalid information to the masses. By referring to itself as an online “encyclopedia”, Wikipedia exists under the guise of an actual encyclopedia. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, an encyclopedia is “a literary work containing extensive information on all branches of knowledge”. While Wikipedia contains copious amounts of information available at the click of a button, it cannot be relied upon for accuracy. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit the information that exists upon the site. This means that even those with little or false knowledge on a particular subject may provide information to millions of users relying upon it for valid information. Despite this, a newspaper article reveals that “it has become the fifth most popular website in the world with about 325 million visits a month” (“Fears over future of Wikipedia as 49,000 volunteers leave site”). Currently, millions visit this site on a monthly basis because it provides instantaneous access to an abundance of information, without requiring research effort. With such emphasis in today’s society on instant gratification and the quickest ways to retrieve information, it is no wonder that Wikipedia is such a popular source for attaining information. When the focus of acquiring knowledge becomes time rather than accuracy as it is today, people are willing to accept tentative information as truth.

Wikipedia is an example of the degradation of information available on the internet today. Since anyone has the capacity to edit an article, whether it be a confused student or a scholarly professor, the internet degrades credible information. According to Andrew Keen’s article “The Digital Emperor Has No Clothes”, this reveals “the dark side of Web 2.0, where focused expertise is replaced by rampant amateurism; opinion is mistaken for knowledge; and credentials, degrees, and years of experience mean virtually nothing” (24). In the virtual world of the web, the most accessible information is the most viewed information, whether it is accurate or not. Is it possible then that eventually “school [will be] shortened, discipline relaxed, philosophies, histories, languages dropped, English and spelling gradually gradually neglected, finally almost completely ignored” (Bradbury 55), as Bradbury suggests? Well, if Americans knowledge is largely acquired from sites such as Wikipedia, then Bradbury’s world may not be too far away.

Even though the internet provides many valuable resources and tools for interaction, it is necessary to be aware of the detrimental costs of the internet on American society today. The internet promotes instant gratification and provides limitless distractions from real time and truth. Instead of being fully aware of the significant occurrences in our world, many people get lost within the superficiality of cyberspace. According to Jodi Dean’s article, “Virtual Fears” the internet “disrupt[s] the distinction between the natural and the virtual [and] replace[s] the authentic experience with simulations” (1069), furthering the individual from reality. The instantaneous nature of the internet promotes the individual to rely heavily on instant access to information, as well as the internet as a source of immediate satisfaction. Who has time to really research about the war in Iraq when there is so much to say, write, and skim online?

Although Fahrenheit 451 may seem far-fetched, we do not actually need to burn books to destroy communication and credible information. It is occurring today through the emphasis on instant gratification and meaningless interactions. Bradbury and Truffaut present society with a critique of its growing reliance on technology and its respective consequences in order to inspire change. Although some may choose to dismiss the message that Fahrenheit 451 exposes, it is becoming increasingly hard to deny the costs of a heavy dependence on technology. America can no longer ignore the costs of the internet on knowledge and communication. On the surface, the internet may appear to be promoting individual advancement, but critical analysis reveals the internet to be a source of technological de-advancement. The time has come take a moment to stop twittering, facebooking, and wiki searching, and to start focusing on reality.
 




Works Cited
Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451. New York: Ballantine Books, 1988. Print.
Capozzoli, Cheryl, et al. "Can Facebook replace face-to-face?" Learning & Leading with Technology 37.3 (2009): 6. General OneFile. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. .
Dean, Jodi. "Virtual Fears." Signs 24.4 (1999): 1069-078. JSTOR. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. .
Fahrenheit 451. Dir. François Truffaut. 1966. DVD.
"Fears over future of Wikipedia as 49,000 volunteers leave site Mail Online." Home Mail Online. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. .
Hart, Christopher, and Pete Blackshaw "Communication breakdown." Marketing Management 14.6 (2005): 24-30. Business Source Elite. EBSCO. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.
"Internet Usage (U.S.) Statistics From the 2009 Digital Future Report." ResourceShelf. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. .
Keen, Andrew "The Digital Emperor Has No Clothes. (cover story)." Associations Now Nov. 2007: 28+. Business Source Elite. EBSCO. Web. 15 Dec. 2009.
Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Electronic.
California State University, Northridge University Library Online.
13 December 2009.
Persky, Bill. "We're killing communication." USA Today 2 Nov. 2009: 9A. General OneFile. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. .
Yadav, Sid. "Facebook The Complete Biography." Social Media News and Web Tips – Mashable – The Social Media Guide. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

New Eugenics - Less Accepting World

Kerr’s “Eugenics and the New Genetics in Britain: Examining Contemporary Professionals’ Accounts”, necessarily exposes issues of new genetics that may affect our future. Personally, reading this not only shocked me, but really scared me as well! Although I have heard about finding developments in science to eliminate diseases, I never before heard of that entailing the abortion of a fetus. It’s a confusing issue because although I do support Pro-chocie, I feel in this case it would be taking it to an extreme. Interestingly enough, Kerr quotes many scientists that seem to be talking in circles. They try to reiterate that new genetics is nothing like eugenics, but they also reveal how easily it can become eugenics. As Kerr point out (as well as some of the scientists themselves), most diseases are both behavioral and natural. How will individuals be able to determine when a fetus should be rightly aborted or not? And for what purpose? Would the purpose be just to make the lives of a family easier? Interviewee #22 discusses the issue of homosexuality. Kerr explains that in this instance “homosexuality was viewed as at least in part a result of genetic abnormality. The interviewee also suggested the possibility of intervention to correct homosexuality by hormonal manipulation” (182). This is outrageous! It is utterly inhumane to interfere witho an individual’s sexuality (and more so outrageous even before they are born!). With fetal genetic manipulation people will play both parent and god to their unborn children. If this becomes an option, parents will become the deciding factor of the lives of unborn individuals in an increasingly less accepting world. The scientist say that it will be a completely individual choice but as Kerr points out “Individual clients of genetic testing may make the ultimate decision concerning their participation, but these decisions are embedded in a complex array of familial, cultural, economic and social experiences and pressures (192). Individuals will be making choices, but based on a larger societal influence. This could become extremely out of hand. Although ideally, it would be great to prevent diseases, but realistically this is a very dangerous route to take. I think the best course of action would be to take the information of the fetus for potential diseases and in the future each person can be educated on how to live a healthy lifestyle to prevent the diseases they are at risk for. In other cases, such as Down Syndrome, the fetus should not be aborted! These individuals have as much right to live as you or I do. If new genetics were to become traditional, we as a society would only become more discriminatory instead of progressing towards a better future.

Animal Cruelty - or In this Case Human Cruelty

Pierre Boulle's Planet of the Apes is an interesting social critique, where we the humans are treated the way we treat animals (more specifically apes). By assigning humans animalistic traits and rendering them incapable of thought, Boulle is making critiquing animal cruelty. Throughout his novel he poses the question : If humans were unable to communicate coherently would it be ok to treat them as animal? And if not, then why is it ok to treat animals with such cruelty? The main character Ulysse Merou is challenged with trying to keep his humanity (or at least what we define as humanity) while locked up in a cage like an animal. While "most of [his] companions were restlessly pacing up and down their cages in the manner of captive animals" he had to control himself to assume "as human and as pensive an attitude as possible" (88), hoping that someone would take notice. Unlike his companion, Professor Antelle, Ulysse sustains his humanity and due to the compasion of Zira is able to escape. Antelle is a foil for Ulysse's character because he is unable to escape the opression of the Ape society and becomes what has been projected onto him (a mindless human). When Ulysse comes to set him free at the zoo, Professor Antelle "showed not the slightest sign of comprehension but, with another frightnend gesture like that of a startled beast, recoiled still further" (186). Through Antelle, Boulle is showing that even a very intellectual human is capable of losing his humanity when treated in the same way we currently treat animals. Planet of the Apes critically represent our society and the question of humanity.

Fear as a Tool/Idividuality Vs. Conformity (Reflection)

Is it more important to conform to society’s ideals or to preserve individuality? Literature is a tool for artistic and individualistic expression in existence of a particular society. O'Flinn's article "Orwell on Literature and Society" expresses the importance of literature and its undeniable political nature. Instead of blindly conforming to the ideas of a society, O’Flinn emphasizes the importance in Orwell's belief that "out of this tension [with society] will grow much of the value of his [the writer's] books" (606). O’Flinn identifies Orwell’s claim that literature is as important to society as society is important to literature. He expresses that “on the one hand society influences and on the other hand is influenced by its writers” (608). In fact, Orwell’s writings have a major influence on society as he reveals the dangers of a much too powerful government without any outlet to express individuality in his novel 1984. This vision Orwell has created in 1984 is both outrageous and terrifying. Being constantly monitored by the telescreen, Winston and all others in this dystopian society had to live under “the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized” (Orwell 3). Living in constant fear of being overheard or seen doing something that is considered illegal is oppressive. Not only are people unable to do as they please in their own homes, even their thoughts are monitored by the “Thought Police”. In a society without self expression, without art, without love, and without individuality life becomes robotic, and meaningless. In order to establish this complete conformity, Orwell presents that individuals must live in constant fear. Similarly Foucault’s “Discipline & Punish (1975), Panopticism” expresses this same principle. Bentham’s Panopticon “induce(s) in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (Foucault np). If individuals feel it is possible to constantly be watched, they will be more conscious of all their actions and assume they are being watched at all times. This is no way to live, even for an inmate. There is no chance for wiggle room, no chance to make mistakes. This is not what being human is about. Often times the way to truly learn is through making mistakes. In answer to the question above, I feel that it is more important to preserve individuality than to conform to society or in the worst case to allow a totalitarian type of government to exist. Still, there needs to be a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the society. This may not be Utopia, which has evidently the power to be corrupted, but may be more of a utopian-like society. What I mean by a more utopian-like society is a society where the needs of every individual can be met, without stripping of individuality. Maybe it isn’t possible, but I sure hope it is!

Technological De-advancement

Imagine a world without individual thought, a world in which words exist only in the form of entertainment in order to distract from serious contemplation. In Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 and its respective film adaptation by Francois Truffaut, this world is able to exist because society convinces its inhabitants that books contain nothing but “silly awful hurting words” (101) that should be burned. In this society, Montag represents the formerly naïve member that blindly lives his life as is expected until he becomes conscious of its injustice. Bradbury’s futuristic novel and Truffaut’s film adaptation critiques mass dependence on technology through a society devoid of deep thought, relevant to America today.

In both the novel and its film adaptation, books are burned in order to eliminate intellectual conflict. In the novel Montag nonchalantly explains to Clarisse that burning books is “fine work. Monday burn Millay, Wednesday Whitman, Friday Faulker, burn ‘em to ashes, then burn the ashes” (8). It is no coincidence that these influential works that would stimulate the reader’s mind are discarded without a second thought. Through his nonchalance, the outrageous act of burning books is made insignificant, an everyday act undeserving of consideration. Bradbury represents it as such in order to mirror individuals’ blind acceptance of the status quo even in the most ridiculous of circumstances. In the film version, the Captain explains the reason they burn books is because “Robinson Crusoe, the Negroes didn't like that because of his man, Friday. And Nietzsche, Neitzsche, the Jews didn't like Nietzsche. Here's a book about lung cancer. You see, all the cigarette smokers got into a panic, so for everybody's peace of mind, we burn it” (Trufautt). According to the Captain, or the enforcer of society’s laws, books cause a conflict of opinions. In order to eliminate this conflict of interests, or individual thought, the source of it must be destroyed, which Bradbury argues is books. As Montag reads “Dover Beach” to his wife and her friends, Mrs. Phelps begins “crying. The others in the middle of the desert watch her crying grow very loud […] They sat, not touching her, bewildered with her display. She sobbed uncontrollably” (Bradbury 100). As a direct result of the destruction of books, the characters in the novel are unable to cope with the emotion that poetry can stimulate. Instead of recognizing that emotion as powerful, the characters become very uncomfortable and denounce it as negative. On the contrary, Bradbury is arguing for the intellectual and emotional stimulation that books can provide and against the meaningless instant gratification that technology supplies to the unconscious masses.

Without books, the characters in Fahrenheit 451 are wholly dependent upon technology for happiness. While exposing the truth to Montag in hopes that he will accept society as is, Captain Beatty explains, that “technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time” (Bradbury 58). While books bring conflict and negative emotions, technology is said to inspire happiness. This happiness is as artificial as the technology itself. This is apparent in the parlor scene in the film when Montag’s wife participates in the show by “say[ing] what [she] thinks” (Truffaut) about where they should place a particular guest. The irony is that the questions are shallow and do not require a moments contemplation. In Fahrenheit 451, not only is technology replacing books, but the technology available requires little to no thought. This instant gratification as Beatty exclaims keeps “them moving, don’t we give them fun? That’s all we live for isn’t it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these” (Bradbury 59). Bradbury is critiquing society’s desire for the instant pleasure that technology brings; its distractions are often times mistaken for happiness. In reality, Bradbury argues that without any kind of intellectual stimulation, this dependence on technology creates a superficial happiness while destroying individuality. Ultimately it makes everyone “all be alike” (Bradbury 58) just as society desires.

Although Fahrenheit 451 was first published in the 1950s, it is significantly applicable to the modern fast-paced technological world of 2009. Instead of reading newspapers and finishing books, technology allows quick fixes to issues of time management. Yahoo provides flashy headlines of what is occurring worldwide, while Sparknotes allows individuals to get a shallow understanding of a novel without ever having to read the first page. In essence, thought provoking material is too time consuming to be considered valuable. As the saying goes, time is money after all. Facebook and Twitter, social networking sites that have millions of users worldwide, encourage narcissism and degrade communication. According to an article in USA Today, Bill Persky concludes that this technology is “actually destroying [communication]. How? By making it easier and faster for people everywhere to be in constant contact with each other -- about nothing” (Persky). Like Montag’s wife who participates in meaningless conversation through technology, modern society encourages insignificant communication in order to provide a distraction from the terrible realities of the world. Although there are wars, starvation, and poverty, the average American is unaware or unconcerned by this. Instead, they are constantly distracted by the endless, mindless entertainment available at the click of a mouse or button. Maybe with the destruction of communication, individuals will “all be[come] alike” (Bradbury 58) as Bradbury foresees.

Although Fahrenheit 451 may seem far-fetched, we do not actually need to burn books to destroy communication and individuality. It is occurring today through the emphasis on instant gratification and meaningless communication. Bradbury and Truffaut present society with a critique of its growing reliance on technology and its respective consequences in order to inspire change. Although some may choose to dismiss the message that Fahrenheit 451 exposes, it is becoming increasingly hard to deny the costs of a heavy dependence on technology.

Works Cited

Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451. New York: Ballantine Books, 1988. Print.

Fahrenheit 451. Dir. François Truffaut. 1966. DVD.

Persky, Bill. "We're killing communication." USA Today 2 Nov. 2009: 9A. General OneFile. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. pName=csunorthridge>.

Farenheit 451 Group Work

Being a part of this group was a really cool experience. Usually in group projects I have found that one or two people do most of the work while the rest of the group slacks off, but this group was different. As a group we decided to make it more about class discussion then the group members talking as individuals. We did this by having a few meetings with multiple discussions. First we met on a Sunday at the library for a few hours where we all exchanged ideas and set a basic plan for our presentation. We then met a second time to sharpen our basic plan to a more developed one. In this meeting we each were assigned a part of the presentation that we would be responsible for introducing. My part is to introduce the climactic scene of the woman burning with her house. This means that i am responsible for briefly introducing the ideas to the class and making sure that a discussion proceeds the clip. During the second meeting, I was also filmed in a clip along with my other classmates for introducing scenes. We each discussed how to appraoch this project in the most fun and educational way possible without being too overbearing with information. We decided it would be fun to replicate the movie and introduce scenes as the parlor scene is shown in the movie. We also as a group decided on discussion questions, poll questions, and the most important scenes we were to discuss that are a part of the book and the movie (or question why it is part of just the book and not the movie). Overall, the preparation for the project was really a group effort.