1. what to make of "Harrison Bergeron"

In 1961 the Cold War was still icy, and all things communist were feared and distrusted in the U.S. (just as capitalism was feared and distrusted in the then-U.S.S.R., mainland China, and other socialist countries).

In "Harrison Bergeron" Kurt Vonnegut gives an exaggerated view of government control and social sameness suggested by Marx and Engels and other proponents of communism. He was also wary of social programs in the West where government interfered in mandated equality/sameness--socialized medicine and welfare, for example, and he was anticipating other programs such as Title IX and affirmative action.

Undoubtedly there are inequities in the U.S., but what Vonnegut suggests in his futuristic (?) short story is that as these social and economic equalizers grow, the incentive to excel which characterizes capitalism will eventually vanish.

So what?

Well, why would a Bill Gates lay the groundwork for Microsoft if he could not look forward to some sort of reward (he is, after all, the richest man in the world)? Why would someone on a production line work hard knowing that his needs would be met even if he produced just ten widgets rather than the fifty that he could make?

There is pride of accomplishment. But, realistically, that is not the key motivating force in many people's lives. Some people would work hard, invent, create, initiate, implement; others would just goof off, and they would be rewarded equally. What would be lost? Excellence and productivity.

Here's a practical (and real) example. In the '90s a star pitcher from LAHC was wooed by several schools; he was offered a full scholarship by each, and he shopped around for the best offer. A local Californian, he finally decided to accept a scholarship from one of the Cal States; he would be near family and friends, and the baseball program at the University was very highly touted; he would be seen by serious professional scouts.

That first year the program was cut because the school was not spending as much money on women's softball as they were on the men's baseball team. The school argued that the baseball team was both successful and enormously popular; the games were well-attended; it was a big program that was partly subsidized by ticket sales. Few women went out for the softball team (which was modestly funded), and although the team always finished among the top schools, few people were interested in watching the games. Nevertheless, the school was forced, through a government mandate, to spend as much on the women's team as on the men's.

They tried to recruit top women softball players to keep step with the men's baseball team. But in the end the fans didn't come. They just weren't interested in spending as much money to watch the women's softball team. The school could not afford to support both teams at that level, so they shut down both programs (something the government approved of).

The pitcher? He was without a team for part of his rookie and all of his sophomore years; he lost his scholarship, and he lost a lot of ground.

The rest of the team lost their scholarships, and even those women who had been on scholarships for softball lost those.

The fans lost a very vital program, one they supported and one that gave them a great deal of pleasure and spirit.

So Vonnegut is suggesting that fine artists, movie stars, sports celebrities, music greats, highly-skilled surgeons, deeply-incisive mathematicians, master carpenters--genius should be rewarded; excellence should be promoted.

In "Harrison Bergeron" he does not deny that people are "created equal," with opportunities to rise from rags to riches or to blow all of those riches and descend to rags. But he does not agree that everyone is the same. Some people shoot hoops with flair and almost-magical precision; some craft algorithms which are amazing in their complexity and efficiency; some marry ingredients to produce doughnuts people will line up for hours to buy. And these people are rewarded for their excellence.

Of course, we do not have to agree with him. This is a topic that can be (and is) hotly debated.

But before we can agree or disagree with an author, we first need to understand what the author's work suggests. This is at the heart of literary analysis.

2. questions from Creighton University
     by Dr. Fajaro-Acosta

Here are some excellent study questions on "Harrison Bergeron"; they aren't mine. I did modify them because most referred to other stories and topics we've not covered in our class, but the credit goes to Dr. Fajaro-Acosta who teaches World Literature at Creighton University (a quite-famous Jesuit University in Omaha, Nebraska). These should give you plenty to think about as you prepare for my question for you on this week's discussion.

  1. What are the implications of the opening sentence, "The year was 2081, and everyone was finally equal"? What happened? Are capitalism and American democracy dead? Did Soviet-style totalitarianism finally prevail? What do the elimination of advantages, difference, and competition suggest about the nature of the changes that have taken place?

  2. Are such changes impossible under American capitalism, or are they likely results of just such a system? What human tendencies underlie the sort of world described by Vonnegut? Are these the end results of the progressive spread of middle class greed, envy, and pettiness? What does the experience of America in the late twentieth century suggest? Why are such figures as Oprah and Dr. Phil now considered role models? How about certain trends in elementary/secondary and even higher education (e.g. grade inflation)? What of practices in organized sports for youth such as giving equal playing time regardless of ability, of not keeping score (and acting as if one didn't know what the score was); of giving medals to players on teams regardless of how they finished in their league?

  3. In the story, what are the functions of the agents of "the United States Handicapper General"? What threats to society do such agents combat? How is radical mediocrity achieved and enforced in the story? What social and political movements in the U.S. might be represented by the office of the Handicapper General?

  4. What actual developments, policies, trends involving government-enforced equalizing, "handicapping," in America might Vonnegut be parodying in "Harrison Bergeron"? What ideas about equality seem to motivate these real-world policies and trends?

  5. On one level capitalism is an anti-aristocratic system that promotes social equality or, at least, equal opportunity, while allowing for great economic inequality. This egalitarianism can provoke movements for social equality such as the civil rights movement or the feminist movement, while at the same time continually creating inequalities (at least of income and wealth)? Might the reliance in the story on the government to enforce equality point to a reaction to a system that appears to promote equality while it, in fact, encourages inequality?

  6. Former U.S. Senator from Nebraska Roman Hruska was (in)famous for saying, during the hearing for a poorly regarded (and ultimately unsuccessful) nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court: "Well, mediocrity should be represented in the Court, too." How does that sort of thinking relate to what Vonnegut's getting at with this story?

  7. How are George and Hazel Bergeron described? What sort of life do they lead? What is Vonnegut parodying here? What does the story warn against? To what extent do television, radio, and the mass media generally function like George's mental handicap radio? Consider Neil Postman's observation in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: "this ensemble of electronic techniques called into being a new world-a peek-a-boo world, where now this event, now that, pops into view for a moment, then vanishes again. It is a world without much coherence or sense; a world that does not permit us to do anything; a world that is, like the child's game of peek-a-boo, entirely self-contained. But like peek-a-boo, it is also endlessly entertaining".

  8. Why is Harrison Bergeron such a threat to society? How old is he? Why might his age be relevant to the story? How has he been "handicapped"?

  9. What is the significance of the real Harrison suddenly appearing on the TV set where his escape from prison was being reported? Why does he repeatedly say, "I am the Emperor!"? Is Vonnegut suggesting a return to governmentby emperors, aristocrats, kings, etc.?

  10. What is the significance of Harrison telling the musicians, "I'll make you barons and dukes and earls"? What role do beauty and aesthetics play in Harrison's rebellion? Why would he make artists noble? What does the fact that they are not noble in the equal world of the story suggest about attitudes about art and music and such in the U.S.?

  11. What is the meaning of Harrison's and the ballerina's flight-like dance and kissing? What is meant by the statement, "not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well"?

  12. What is the meaning of Harrison and the ballerina being shot down by Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General? What are the suggestions of her name? What ethos is conjured by the mythological associations of the Greek goddess Diana and the moon (e.g. virginity, coldness, sterility)?

  13. What's striking about Vonnegut's story is its hyperbole (exaggeration): equality is enforced in every identifiable respect. But what are the appropriate limits to ensuring equality and why?

  14. Perhaps the most famous foreign commentator on the USA is Alexis de Toqueville. A French aristocrat himself, Toqueville paid special attention to the American love of equality. Here are three passages from his Democracy in America, ed. J.P. Mayer, that seem especially appropriate for "Harrison Bergeron." (think about how each quotation relates to Vonnegut's story):

    "There is indeed a manly and legitimate passion for equality which rouses in all men a desire to be strong and respected. This passion tends to elevate the little man to the rank of the great. But the human heart also nourishes a debased taste for equality, which leads the weak to want to drag the strong down to their level and which induces men to prefer equality in servitude to inequality in freedom. It is not that peoples with a democratic social state naturally scorn freedom; on the contrary, they have an instinctive taste for it. But freedom is not the chief and continual object of their desires; it is equality for which they feel an eternal love; they rush on freedom with quick and sudden impulses, but if they miss their mark they resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing will satisfy them without equality, and they would rather die than lose it."

    "No matter how a people strives for it, all the conditions of life can never be perfectly equal. Even if, by misfortune, such an absolute dead level were attained, there would still be inequalities of intelligence which, coming directly from God, will ever escape the laws of man."

    "When inequality is the general rule in society, the greatest inequalities attract no attention. When everything is more or less level, the slightest variation is noticed. Hence the more equal men are, the more insatiable will be their longing for equality."