Lens for Things Fall Apart

Throughout history, women have been discriminated against in most cultures, and were not of an equal stature to men; feminism’s goal is to end this discrimination. After reading Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart, I have decided to look at the story through a feminist lens in order to analyze the text from that particular perspective.  Specifically, feminism advocates “equal rights for all women in all areas of life: socially, politically, professionally, personally, economically, aesthetically, and psychologically” (Feminism 167). The theoretical text discusses in large the overall plight of feminism by describing its methodology, history, and criticism along with other things. I’ll use these different aspects of feminism to get a good grasp on how it relates to the story in the sense of the male dominated society which it takes place in. An insight within the theoretical text that relates to Things Fall Apart is the way in which women were seen in history. For the most part, women have been seen as nothing but a piece or property historically (although in some cultures they are still seen that way today), and it is shown through the novel in the way that the number of wives a man determined what his social status was. The value of women went to the extent of them only being mentioned as the bearers of children, implying that they are nothing but tools of reproduction. The fact that a man could beat his wife freely is another depiction of the discrimination against women and how they had no rights compared to their male counterparts, which connects again to the theoretical text in the sense that it describes how women have had very little civil rights—let alone human rights—throughout history. Looking at these, as well as other events in the story through the perspective of the theoretical text will help characterize the objective of the feminist movement because of its goal to end the way women were treated in the novel. 

The formation of a Technopoly

                Neil Postman’s Technopoly discusses the transformation of a technocracy into Technopoly and the characteristics which America possessed that allowed this to happen. Postman describes a technocracy as “a society only loosely controlled by social custom and religious tradition and driven by the impulse to invent” (41). This depicts many societies in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, England specifically—being the first—and later America among other nations. The fact that people in these societies were in a pursuit of invention left little room for things such as myth and rituals, although they were still around albeit at risk of “being left behind” (45). This was the main underlying conflict of a technocracy: “tools ought to be [the people’s] servants, not their masters” (48). Fredrick Winslow Taylor’s book The Principles of Scientific Management indicates a shift from a technocracy into Technopoly, expressing that the “primary… goal of human labor and thought is efficiency” (51), signifying the rise of machine over man. The idea of scientific management was expressed (not directly) in Taylor’s piece, attempting to pursue an “increase [in] profits [and] higher wages, shorter hours, and better working conditions for laborers” (51). This was to be done through making a more efficient industrial setting. Technopoly is specifically described as “a grand reductionism in which human life must find its meaning in machinery and technique” (52). This differs from technocracy greatly in the way that there is no room for Old World values. A technocracy was not a definition of human life but rather a drive to invent, where “science and technology did not provide philosophies by which to live” (47). In contrast Technopoly is what society bases its beliefs around, an alternatives are made “invisible and therefore irrelevant” (48). This is where it relates to Brave New World in a sense that instead of making things negative, immoral, or illegal—such as in 1984—it completely eliminates them from any form of a possibility for a person to believe. This is done by “redefining [our world view] so that our definitions fit its new requirements” making it a “totalitarian technocracy” (48). This expresses how in today’s day and age, society is directed by technology instead of technology complimenting society.

The Brave New Singularity

The concept of a Singularity where man and technology merge into one can be hard to grasp, but it is inevitable. Some people see this as a frightening event, and others think it is all just gibberish. I believe that humanity will reach a point where man and machine both become one, due to the fact that technology is an “exponentially accelerating progress” (Grossman 2) as found by Raymond Kurzweil. A point will be reached where “every hour brings a century's worth of scientific breakthroughs,” (5) making it almost unavoidable for such a thing to happen. This can be seen as both a good and bad thing. Humans will theoretically be able to live forever, to cheat death, because of an infinite wealth of knowledge which would allow us to “scan our consciousnesses into computers and enter a virtual existence or swap our bodies for immortal robots and light out for the edges of space as intergalactic godlings” (5). One of the main issues of this is what will happen if a being of higher intellectual power were to join us; these new cyborgs may decide to wipe out the human race as we know it. This convergence would make us less authentically human, because we would no longer be ourselves. The new human race would be aided by robots making us physically indestructible, while super-powering our minds and making each and every human into a supercomputer of their own. This goes against the commonplace acceptance of an authentic person, which would be someone who ages, learns, and grows. In A Brave New World Bernard is onto something when he believes that there is a perfect state of existence in which man can achieve. Humanity is in severe danger of completely losing its sense of self as it progresses indefinitely toward becoming one with technology, which may cause the downfall of the human race. 

Immigration, and What it Means to be an American | By Cody Brotter

            In this piece, Brotter is trying to exemplify how immigration in America has “turned backwards” in its connotation, and mainly wrote it in order to inform the reader, and maybe open their eyes on the way immigration is looked at. This article has no specific target audience in which it is trying to persuade, but it can be inferred that it is directed mainly towards individuals who are concerned with the immigration issue. The main point of this essay is to demonstrate the fact that American nationalism regarding immigration is on the decline, and that the essence of “newness” which a new immigrant felt is no longer what it used to be. This shows the audience the way immigration has been looked at in the past, and may give them new insight as to what it is like to become an American, instead of being born as one. Although the topic of immigration is controversial when it comes to illegal immigrants, the part of it which Brotter is discussing has nothing to do with the legality of the issue, but the way in which it has been looked at in the past compared to how it is viewed currently. He uses an example of a story which he found in "Immigration: How It's Affecting Us," about a family of Vietnamese immigrants to evoke an emotional reaction in the reader, describing how they faced hardships as a family going from “rags-to-riches,” illustrating the way “new life” no longer means opportunities but represents new struggles. Using emotional appeals works exceptionally well in terms of trying to write about this kind of topic, whereas logos—logic—would not have as big as an impact, because looking at something such as statistics would not portray to a reader how different the lives of immigrants are in today’s world when a certain kind of connotation is attempting to be implied. Brotter continually compares two analytical pieces throughout the article. He structures them almost in a rhythmic volley as he will describe how one interprets the life of an immigrant in one way, but then has the other fire back with an almost opposite view. This effectively demonstrates to the audience how very different each interpretation of pride amongst immigration is felt from past to present. Brotter ties together the work effectively by not allowing cliff-hanging ideas to remain as well as creating a unified flow to allow the article to be easily read as one idea transforms into the next. He uses reasonably formal diction, which allows the audience to be able to fully grasp the concept which he is trying to portray while still giving the essay an intellectual feel, allowing him somewhat establish a sense of authority upon the subject. He also does this by thoroughly showing examples of each of his sources, while still citing them. There are no contradictions within the article as well, which notifies the reader that he most likely is well informed upon the subject he is discussing.

            Examining this essay has demonstrated to me the true meaning of writing an article or essay, which is that it should be focused on the content primarily, and how well a point can be made about a topic. As a student, this is always what I have strived to try and do, but guidelines that teachers have made me follow make me feel like I have been hindered in a sense. Although different from what I am used to seeing, the results I saw were no different from what I expected them to be in the first place.