Deconstruction

Deconstructing the Scary Truth of "Harrison Bergeron’s" Idea of Freedom

By Austin Wasmund

Everyone, please rise: Court has begun. The case on trial today is "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut and our modern technology. This case will be looking at the unnecessary procedures both sides are taking. "Harrison Bergeron" is on trial for having people be put into groups of what is considered to be equal and unequal in society, and not understanding the structure of equality. Along with it, they murdered a human life within the story that being of the main character of the story, Harrison, because of him questioning an absurd idea. Honestly, there is a much better way to take a look at the absurdity of technology, so let us throw that idea of measured consideration aside because all it does is cause bigger problems with our analysis. For this matter, we need to see the bigger picture of both sides in the story: the government and technology. While we are at it, lets throw in the humans as well because they will play a big part at the end. While Vonnegut seems to tell the story of how technology takes freedom away from humans, it is in fact, the humans who had willingly given up their own freedom.

For the first example of freedom being given up, Vonnegut introduces us to polar opposite adults that are Harrison’s parents. Harrison’s mother is free from what the government does, but as for the father, they have him wear an earpiece that sends absurdly loud distracting sounds every 20 seconds to change his train of thought (1). The strange part about this, is how does he sleep or drive without encountering any problems? Knowing this, we can see that this earpiece can be damage the human memory with distracting sounds. It is even evident when Vonnegut shows Harrison’s father, George, going into the train of thought of why ballerinas needed to be handicapped, and “he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts" (1). If this means George can get very far in thinking then why doesn't Harrison’s mother or Hazel have the same thing, can’t she think for herself like George tries to? The answer for that is no, since she has her own form of a handicap and it is called a television.

Benjamin Reed, a professor from Texas State University, focused on this idea of mental handicaps with his college class and got this as a result:

Reed: ….The third question: "Why doesn't Hazel need a mental handicap?"

Student: "Because she's stupid?"

Class: [Laughter]

Reed: "But that's circular. Hazel doesn't need a mental handicap because she doesn't need a mental handicap" (58).

The answer is that Hazel doesn't need a device to arrest or interrupt her thoughts because she already has one: the TV set. It's the focal point of the story's physical environment, one we only "cut away from," as it were, to see the inside of a television studio. We never actually drop our focus from the TV until its tube burns out, and fully half the story is the action on screen (58).

In Vonnegut’s story, there is one high flaw that connects with our real worlds form of technology. The technology we have now today and in the story is mostly controlled by the government, and it is no lie, think about it. The government has access to spy on us from your phone or computer they could even track us where ever we go. In all honesty, the main case that I wanted to argue was that technology is stealing our freedom-- or is it actually the government who controls our freedom? Well, in Vonnegut’s story he pushes the blame on the government itself with the main case being when he claims:

Nobody was smarter than anyone else. Nobody was better looking than anyone else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of the United States Handicapper General (1).

In Vonnegut's eyes, it seems like Communism is the true freedom. But is it really the true freedom? The way the government uses technology to put people into the prison of equality, however, says otherwise for this idea. But didn’t Vonnegut just mention everyone was equal? Yes, on the surface it may look that way, but he gives us a big picture that says otherwise. He showed us Harrison’s parents, who are practically opposites. One of his parents is an “average” human while the father has a few abilities that makes him “unique,” so the government makes him wear a few items to make him on the average level of everyone else. The problem is what exactly does “average” mean in this point? And what is considered unique? These words are ambiguous, and their meaning is arbitrary. In the idea of average and the human being there is no clear definition since every human being is different in their own way so wouldn’t that mean the government and all the “average” people would need this harsh treatment that is being used on the “unique” humans?

The answer is clearly no. Why? When a big power is in control they get to decide the rules of what is average and what is unique and who suffers and who doesn’t. Especially this story. Harrison’s father has a weighted bag full of balls on his neck. If he were to empty this bag he would go to prison for two years and pay $2,000 for every ball he removed (2). This detail is clearly absurd. I thought this community was the communistic happy place where EVERYONE was equal. That itself is a lie. It is almost like this government is stealing these people's freedom. Ha, like that would be the final conclusion. There is more to this picture we still have to look at.

This is where the television comes in. On it we see Ballerinas dancing with weights on them so they all dance equally and no one can outshine the other (1). Is it me or this more like a Twilight Zone of perfect people of Body Snatchers, if so these people need serious help. The scary thing about this society is that it doesn’t allow any growth into becoming a better human to understand the straight fact that is in front of them. This fact is evident in all the absurd punishments to make everyone equal. But Harrison’s dad helps point this fact out for us after telling his wife he can’t remove the bag on his neck. In the words of George Vonnegut states, “‘If I tried to get away with it,’ said George, ‘then other people’d get away with it-and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that would you?’” (2). What exactly is George talking about? Well, this story was made in 1961, and in the year 1961, the United States competed with Communism leading the country close to another Cold War. So in Vonnegut’s eyes, he might be referencing to this idea while also deconstructing the whole idea in this very same quote showing how absurd the idea is. But from my point of view I can see even more than just deconstruction within this quote. In all actuality the whole story could be Vonnegut’s "what if" scenario, if Communism took over the United States and a deconstruction of the absurdity of Communism within itself. This point can be proven when Harrison is announced as an escapee from prison and then seen on the television in the studio broadcasting the ballerinas dancing.

Why was Harrison a criminal though? Well in the news broadcast before he appears the reporter states, “he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius…” that word genius says it all (3). The thing big governments hate the most is the questioning of authority. Why? The obvious answer is because they want control. In all being so did Harrison. Harrison wanted to create a Monarchy it is plainly obvious when he states, “I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!” (4). In a way, this was Vonnegut’s way of saying to have your freedom you need to control your own life if you want to live however you want. Harrison spreads that idea to a Ballerina by making her his empress and danced with her to show her what it felt like to dance without chains weighing her down. But are the two characters now free? Nope. It’s when they are killed by the Handicap General that they become truly free. For one reason, they have no form of rules or laws weighing them down. Nothing to erase their memories of amazing moments. They are equal in death since they left the world with nothing the same way they came in the world with nothing.

In life, my fellow jury, the truest freedom is death. That is an undeniable fact, welcome to real life. But the reason why this fact is so true is because when we entered the world we came in it with nothing and when we leave it we will leave with nothing. So, that means we won’t be able to take your favorite coffee cup with you because all it is a chain that holds you back from true freedom. So what does that mean for us humans well guess what we are our own jury, judge, and executioner. What does that mean for us? It means we are our own court system that makes rules and laws for us to live upon meaning we create our own chains to our own government we created. Way to go, nice going, we just ruined our lives we aren’t free. Meaning in the word of John Green from Crash Course he quotes William Faulkner's acceptance speech stating, “our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: when will I be blown up?” A little dark yes. But like I said the ultimate freedom is death meaning the only way we can escape the court system we created is to die. Now I’m not saying to go kill yourself seriously that would be just wrong. All I’m saying here is that our ultimate freedom from life is death.

Work Cited

Green, John. “The Cold War: Crash Course US History #37.” Crash Course. 8 November 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C72ISMF_D0

Pearson, Steve. “1960s Important News and Events, Key Technology Fashion and Popular

Culture.” What Happened in 2006 Inc. Pop Culture, Prices and Events, www.thepeoplehistory.com/1960s.html.

Reed, Benjamin. Technologies of Instant Amnesia: Teaching Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison

Bergeron" to the Millennial Generation. Vol. 8. No.1. Teaching American Literature, vol. 8, no. 1, Spring 2015, pp. 45–69. EBSCOhost, cwi.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=108544629&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Vonnegut, Kurt. “Harrison Bergeron.” In Welcome to the Monkey House: Stories. Dial Press, 2007, pp. 7-14.