Social Deviation in Ray Bradburys Fahrenheit 451 - Research Paper Example

“Social Deviation in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451” Fahrenheit 451 is a novel by famous American Rat Bradbury. It is considered to be his most famous, widely popular and decent work. Fahrenheit 451 is a science-fiction dystopia. This literature piece is often put alongside 1984 by George Orwell and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. All three of them being anti-utopian novels describe possible alternate human history by showing it dehumanized way of living. Main characters of each of these three works are shown as dissocialized and with their detachment from society author shows what is horribly wrong with world where individual values of each human are treated as unnecessary. In Fahrenheit 451 main hero Guy Montag puts himself in opposition to the common behavior that is considered proper by government, society and wide public. Going through massive character development Guy confronts generally accepted norms and rules of behavior. He is an example of a classic, rebellious non-conformist who stays true to his opinions, feelings, and emotions despite opposing material reality of his environment. He escapes from being part of a society that burns books and encourages people to be deaf, blind, silent and dumb. Though working as a fireman and burning books himself he radically changes his point of view upon the things happening around them. During this process of schism between the social public image of Doug and his character’s inner nature Montag’s mind, emotions and perceptions change. This change is a psychological change of mind’s condition. Describing, discussing and analyzing this change are tasks that will be achieved in the following essay review. This will be managed with a help of novel’s plot, its historical and cultural context, character’s appearance as well as social, moral and ethical background of Fahrenheit 451. All the mentioned details will be mentioned and noticed to provide a diagnosis of a man who rejects his environment which oppresses his individuality and limits his humane capabilities. Fahrenheit 451 is a book about individualism. Like 1984 and Brave New World it tells how valuable is any human, his individuality and the way he perceives his social position in material world. Guy Montag lives in a highly developed future society. It is America of distant future, industrialized, mechanized and machinated. Critical approach and skepticism towards modern technologies can be seen in Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury anticipated all those people after him and followed those before him who thought of progress and machinery as tools that dehumanize people and make their work, life, existence cheaper. Doug Montag starts to notice that his life became tasteless, meaningless and senseless. His loss of orientation and purpose shows itself after he sees how a woman refuses to give a book that his crew wants to burn (Bloom, 44). This woman stays in a burning house and dies with book in her hands. After that Doug falls in a state of deep existential crisis. His mind starts to wake. He begins to question reality that surrounds him. “We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against. (Bradbury, 66) His wife can’t understand him. His colleagues can’t see a problem because socially accepted norm and specially created government task forces to implement this norm are accepted by public as normal. Montag deviates from commonly accepted belief and refuses to follow generally allowed books destroying and prohibition of literature as a craft. He realizes that a human being can fully think and live only with individuality inside him (Bloom, 117). He then notices that basic human need of understanding, tolerance and patience are not among the things that government serves. Above that books that are a symbolical and literal representation of intelligence are burned which correlates the fact that public opinion burns individual features. “We have everything we need to be happy, but we arent happy. Somethings missing” (Bradbury, 112) Good examples are using technological devices like headphones and huge TV sets instead of ordinary walls. Though only a superficial details they clearly show Montag’s dissatisfaction with his environment and social patterns that surround him. As for him headphones that his wife uses only distracts person from concentration. Same thing with walls that show pictures, serve as communication channels and are never turned off throughout a day. This overloads individuality with information and makes external factors of macrocosm dictate behavior roles for the inner individual microcosm of any person. Same thing is government and authority that shape society and public opinion where social norms are the main rules (Quinney, 56). People can hide from law but it is harder to hide from people that surround you everywhere. Once Montag comprehends that he is no longer part of the world around him as he becomes a castaway. Being a vagabond he finds himself in a position of a runaway. Society treats him like mad, crazy, even inhuman, criminal that should be distanced away if he is too strong or be made to change his mind (Lement, 67). In 1984 government treats traitors, individuals, those who are not part of a bigger whole, renegades with either eliminating them (no person – no problem) or remaking them (concentration camps, prisons, madhouses). In Fahrenheit 451 this process happens in a more hidden and underlying way. It is also necessary to add that optimistic end of the book is rather positive so it is implemented that society grounded on wrong principles can’t be changed and should only be rebuild from beginning. What happens in 1984 in Ministry of Fear with Winston Smith happens with Montag during his encounter with robotic Hound that pursuits him (Orwell, 271). That is a climax of novel. Montag comes to an understanding that technology and unnatural devices, industrial progress and mechanical development led people to become hedonistic soulless and spiritless parodies on humans. He wants to become real because he feels that outside reality is too limited for him. Criticism of technology occupies necessary space in the structure of the novel. Clarisse is hit by a speeding car. Montag himself doesn’t like to travel on a speed train. Robotic Hound that pursuits him and further possibly nuclear disaster are all details that show wrong grounding of the society which Guy opposes. At first Guy feels himself rejected by what he thought was part of him. Being unable to understand he amazes how others could continue to live not noticing all the problems. In a society of blind men one with vision is treated like a mad man. In a city where all clocks and watches show wrong time the one with the right time won’t do any difference (Bloom, 54). He is the only one knowing the right time but what’s in it for him if he bound to live according to the majority. He tries to over-persuade others. He fails though he is not alone. Clarisse is the one who understands him. And woman that burns down. Also there are a group of exiles who memorized books in order to safe their content for further generations. Conflict between the spiritual values and material ones is a factor that makes Guy a rebel. He can’t be satisfied with something that he thinks is wrong. He ignores what pleased him before (Bloom, 142). He sees the same object but from a different perspective and so he obtains a new comprehension of his position. Psychological process of deviation has different stages. After alienation comes meditation. Then there’s comprehension and after it appears action. Montag checks, thinks, acts and finally puts himself outside conditions and circumstances that were too hard to handle. Society in Fahrenheit 451 is an enemy. General public opinion that encourages and approves tasteless living without self-perception struggles with individual power of a person. This is not only limitations of moral, cultural, political or ethical character. Limitation of personal expression and dictated rules create a feeling of trap that restrains those for whom it exists. Kafka was talking about bureaucratic oppression, Orwell wrote about political and social dictatorship, and Huxley presented cultural rebellion. They are all like Bradbury show tremendous power that quantity holds over the quality. Sociological roots of Montag’s deviation can be seen in many historical examples. By refusing to follow crowd person makes himself look like a more knowing, better informed individual. Other people of whom the society and wide public is composed think of it as of an insult (Lement, 70). It is always harder to admit your own mistake than accuse other person of making a mistake. Galileo’s and Giordano Bruno’s cases are exceptionally bright examples of the fact that sometimes 99.9% can be wrong while 0.1% will be right. But that is not an easy thing to admit. When you have majority on your side easy arguments like these: “ask anybody, everybody do so, just like everywhere, anyone will do so” talk louder and more convincing than any other arguments. It is harder to be heard in a crowd and it is difficult to swim against the stream. “But remember that the Captain belongs to the most dangerous enemy of truth and freedom, the solid unmoving cattle of the majority. Oh, God, the terrible tyranny of the majority.” (Bradbury, 187) Montag’s assumption that something must be changed for him to live a full life is put to a tremendous challenge. It’s not tough to check whether you really are right and others are wrong or it is otherwise. Any person in such a complex situation can depend only on himself and his abilities. In case such a person is lucky he can find others like him who will make his belief stronger. However assurance rises from assumption (Bloom, 88). Montag’s quest is a self-search for knowledge, for reason and for sense. He seeks truth not because it is comfortable or because he wants to be not like everybody else. Guy wants to become a complete human being in a society where to ignore your existence is considered normal. He doesn’t want to be idle. “We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?” (Bradbury, 211) Every quest for self-perception is a lonely road. Alienation from society becomes naturally justified when Montag realizes that society goes at odds with his individual needs. Society tries to dominate individual in order to create a practically useful hierarchy each part of which makes the whole machine works better. Mass society treats individual features like a deviation from norm and normally this oppression is implemented with an agreement of those towards whom it is directed. To strengthen public opinion and social norms minorities are always treated as mistaken. Gays, Afro-Americans, gypsies and Jews are all historical examples on intolerance towards those who can’t make difference due to the fact of their minority itself. For majority of people even the most horrible thing, for example slavery can be treated as something normal only because people traditionally used to it. To quit being dehumanized live out of balance with his identity Montag puts himself outside the society that he think is built upon the incorrect basis. He establishes a self-comprehension that contrasts with his environment but he struggles for the clear vision instead of dictated behavior considered normal. Only with his personal vision we as readers comprehend all the falsehood of what is generally accepted as truth. Works Cited Bradbury, R. Fahrenheit 451: A Novel. Chicago: Simon and Schuster, 2012. Print Bloom. H. Alienation. Boston: Infobase Publishing, 2009. Print Bloom. H Fahrenheit 451. Boston: Infobase Publishing, 2011. Print Orwell, G. 1984. Chicago: Sayre Street Books, 2014. Print Quinney, R. Bearing Witness to Crime and Social Justice. New York: SUNY Press, 2001. Print Lement, E. The Trouble With Evil: Social Control at the Edge of Morality. New York: SUNY Press, 1997. Print Read More