Invasion of Privacy Versus Convenience and Safety - Research Paper Example

Invasion of privacy versus convenience and safety Point In the fictional novel, Evey openly totally bashes invasion of privacy measures as this does not guarantee safety of the citizens but increases government restrictions over their basic freedoms and rights. According to Keller (p. 93), this act is brought about by the government’s dread of the citizens’ actions as they were getting increasingly uncomfortable with the economic and social conditions they were living in. the situation was so bad that V asked, “how can you show much concern for porcelain and plastic and show little for flesh and blood” (Keller, p. 71). Benjamin Franklin later noted that those that give up individual liberty for temporary safety do not deserve both safety and liberty. Using a notion that they are controlling crime, they use these gadgets to listen to family conversations at the ‘privacy’ of their home and phone conversations with others. This 1984 story is a description of a society with limited freedom of speech; as V says, “you have allowed them to fill your workspace with dangerous and unproven machines” (Bant and Harding, p. 129). If a society is safe but lacks fundamental freedoms, it is orderly but not democratic. Counterpoint But the citizens could not have had much choice as these security gargets are introduced as a symbol of technological innovation to control rising crime. They have pride at the authority’s move to tackle social upheavals in the land by conducting random audio picks and phone surveillance. Surveillance cameras dot street corners to watch human movements and observers are set to act immediately to any unrest. These tactics are used to monitor topical issues and terrorism acts brought about by characters the likes of V; V says, “this is not anarchy, Evey; this is chaos” (Keller, p. 61). Technology is also advanced as some members of the public get increasingly creative by innovating new ways of avoiding phone taps and close monitoring (Bant and Harding, p. 138). The unrests were serious to an extent that the authorities detained some civilians as Rosemary Almond says, “When they dragged Mrs. Rana and her children off in separate vans we did not even dare intervene” (Keller, p. 93). 2) The Social Contract versus personal liberty Point Social contract is explicitly practised in England as disguise for providing security for the people but in real sense limits personal liberties in the long run. V says that, “you gave them the power to make your decisions; you have accepted without question their senseless orders” (Keller, p. 162). The government used this ideology to gain control of the land and also took advantage of the prevailing security issues resulting from terrorist attacks to demand full legitimacy from the people. According to V, this is against “civil liberties which gives humans fundamental freedoms including speech and association, and the right to rebel and voice opinions” (Rousseau, p. 61). This social contract instilled fear among the citizens as harsh penalties were introduced to quell divergent opinions for instance death penalty if one does not comply with the laid down rules. V was against the fact that actions done out of coercion are still thought of as being free choices and he had to find a way to educate members of the public about fighting for their liberties. Counterpoint According to V, the people recognized that for them to have peace and tranquillity in their communities, they have to transfer their rights and liberties to some form of sovereign authority. This is the government whom they give the legitimate authority to guide their actions. As Evey asked V, “All this riot and uproar, V... is this Anarchy? Is this the Land of Do-As-You-Please?” (Keller, p. 49); he could not understand at first why V was fighting the government. The state is given the authority to rule over peace arrangements between individuals with different cultural attributes. The sense in all this argument is that instead of citizens fearing other personalities, they dread the state and will go to extra lengths not to go against the rules set by the state for them to avoid punishment. The state also acts as a medium where citizens are able to receive property rights, justice and human rights; these only exist within government legislations. The people of England felt that social contract theory is a necessary ideology to keep things running in their land. However, Eric Finch had a different opinion when he says, “I lost my family, and thought following orders could heal that. It can’t; I am following my own orders now” (Keller, p. 117). 3) Conformity versus individualism Point It is only through being individualistic that one develops a sense of purpose and self worth in life (Coleman, p.173). Non-conformists were oppressed in England and they had to come together with likeminded personalities in order to protect themselves. When V talks of how the government has made the people conform to their standards, he says, “they made you into a victim, Evey, they made you into a statistic. But that’s not the real you. That’s not who you are inside” (Coleman, p. 180). According to the story, Evey comes together with V to help others affected by the state denying them application of freewill in making life choices. Evey hopes to get justice by being individualistic and is appalled by the ignorance of his people. V says in the dialogue that “people should not be afraid of their governments, Governments should be afraid of their people” (Keller, p. 49). Counterpoint In one of his exchanges with V, Evey says that “you dont seem to want to face up to any real responsibility; to be your own boss” (Meer, p. 74). Conformism puts citizens in some form of bondage; it is at this state that the authorities exercise full control over their affairs. However, according to Meer (p. 81), conforming in this land meant that you get state protection and can enjoy public utilities and resources as you pay taxes that funds service provision. V distances his own self from the common thought; he says, “I’m the king of the 20th century. I am the villain; the black sheep of the family” (Keller, p. 105). 4) Vengeance versus forgiveness Point In the fictional novel, V and Evey implies that the society is the main cause of the governance ills affecting them. Vengeance in this case means fighting for what is believed to be right; rather than the public ignoring fraud or corruption bedevilling the society. V says in his dialogue that “the only verdict is vengeance, a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain” (Keller, p. 116). The passion for vengeance is serious to an extent that V says that what the government has are bullets, and hopes that when their guns are empty; he will not be standing because they will all be dead before reloading. The book stresses that a rebellion requires more than mere commitment in order to be achieved; Evey tells the people that “you have to get to a point of desiring death over being in permanent bondage” (Klebanow and Jonas, p. 84). It also requires strong personalities, leading a stronger pack of followers with conviction that they are fighting for a just cause. Counterpoint Forgiveness in this case means that the people unconditionally accepts everything that the government brings forth be it policies or by-laws meant to restore public order during unrests. However, you cannot entirely blame the citizens for the problems they found themselves as they had been brainwashed over time. This was done by introducing programs and news materials on TV that portrayed favourable attributes to the ruling class. Examples are ‘Storm Saxon which is a depiction of Anglo-Saxon dominance over other regions and territories; the program is against those advocating for individual liberties at the expense of popular will. News was filled with contents showing superiority of English troops over domestic terrorists. V says to Evey, “happiness is a prison, Evey; happiness is the most insidious prison of all” (Keller, p. 135). For an autocratic society to thrive, enlightened personalities like V and Evey have to be brainwashed and fed with media content that the government wants them to consume. Works cited Meer, Zubin. Individualism: The Cultural Logic of Modernity. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books/Roman & Littlefield, 2011. Print. Coleman, Stephen. Popular Delusions: How Social Conformity Molds Society and Politics. Youngstown, N.Y: Cambria Press, 2007. Print. Keller, James R. V for Vendetta As Cultural Pastiche: A Critical Study of the Graphic Novel and Film. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland, 2008. Print. Bant, Elise, and Matthew Harding. Exploring Private Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Internet resource. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract, Or, Principles of Political Right. United States: Kessinger Pub, 2004. Print. Klebanow, Diana, and Franklin L. Jonas. Peoples Lawyers: Crusaders for Justice in American History. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe, 2003. Print. Read More