This is true. All over the world there is some type of discord or civil unrest occurring between citizens and governments. Democracy is not being expressed in the way it should over topics like gun laws, COVID-19, gas prices, women's rights, etc..

This is very much a dystopian mindset, just like in Pleasantville where everybody was completely rid of emotion, pleasantry was the only thing that existed. Nobody really felt much else and it was stagnant... but that's how life operated there.

I feel like this could be said for Hunger Games, or The Giver. In The Giver, how they throw away one twin to prevent confusion and keep uniformity or they throw away babies who are too small/big/have defects... Like that is a very exaggerated response to achieving the ideal.

I agree with this, just like in What Happened to Monday and Battle Royale where the world becomes too overpopulated, or the youth start outnumbering the elders.. There's are real world-issues that could be the future if some real changes aren't made. Global warming, overpopulation, viral diseases, unemployment rates, world hunger etc... are always issues that could lead to a dystopian-like future

This is a very interesting yet accurate take on utopias and dystopias, it relates to the actually meaning of each: "no place" and "bad place." Turning our hopes/dreams into reality always seems so impossible, while confronting our social fears could end up badly, so this thought is very true.

It feels like everyone will be equal this way, there’s no oppression or bias. It will be chaotic & without structure, but there’s no way to say who is inferior to who. It sounds like the worse utopia, but a perfect dystopia, it honestly has me 50/50 about it.

His pro-sovereignty is really exposed here. Hobbes does not believe men can live without a form of government, he alludes it only leads to chaos & misery.

Could this be the ultimate utopia we seek? A world where there’s no fear, so no government in necessary?

He makes a fair point on how we as humans display everything he discussed in every day life without even realizing it. Maybe this draws the conclusion that these are instincts of ours: competition, distrust & glory. If we so easily act in the manner, but then can we really be born with such instincts if when we’re younger we’re always taught not to interact with strangers & always keep ourselves safe/aware of others, so once again are these behaviors taught/learned or have always been apart of us?

War of man vs. man hinders the production of anything. It’s as if the world stops & who wins in that? Nobody benefits with war, actual or the mindset of.

This seems like a mentality that some people have today. That me vs. you mindset & which is why some say (social media trope) that’s why your closest friends are never the ones to show you love/support first, but will be willing to support celebs; it’s like they hate to see you in the position because its not them or they didn’t get there first. This is very common in today’s society.

For some reasons this reminds me of the 3 G’s linked to European colonialism exploration/imperialism: Gold, God, & Glory. Gold was to increase the wealth of the nation, & whoever discovered it first in the New World would be deemed superior which reflects on competition. God was a motivation in terms of escaping religious persecution which can be linked to distrust & then Glory was found in the expansion of one’s empire which ultimately related to more territory= more power. The parallel is quite fascinating.

This may be a reach but could this be a cause for why men like to get together to watch sports games & place bets with each other? Could these activities be seen as a “common power” whereas we really don’t ever see men go out on vacations, or shopping with each other like women. Do they need some form of competition present in order to engage with each other?

This need for more & more is the basis of imperialism. Man can never be satisfied with what he has, as if the ultimate goal is power & land. This is the cause of the greatest wars & feuds between countries, one always has to been seen as most superior despite that each have equal amounts of land/power. This could relate to Young’s idea of cultural imperialism and its connection to oppression.

I feel like this notion of distrust could be aligned with survival instinct; like an eat or be eaten mentality. But I also feel like any man may feel threaten in the presence of another based off being done wrong prior to. Is distrust innate or grows from experience?

So he can die or become enslaved at the hands of an invader, over property he put all his hard work into... where is the competition in that? If it's a group v. one man?

The equality is highlighted because everyone thinks they're the best. If everyone is thinking so highly of themself it exposes how everyone thinks the same.

"vain sense" aligns with the idea of human wisdom which means knowledge of one's own ignorance. "Vain" sense gives off the vibe of there not being any acknowledgment of what one does not know.

What does he mean by science is a skill?

I learned in my philosophy class while reading Socrates' Apology that to be prudent is to be know what is in your best interest, or to be advantageous. Not being a fool basically. During this time being "wise" would be equivalent to having prudence.

I feel like this is kind of what Winston wanted to happen, he wanted the Proles to assume their true authority within the social hierarchy as their numbers outweighed any other group. He wanted them to become the majority with power

cause (a fluid) to change to a solid or semisolid state.

Sounds like The Party, there’s no organized system w/o contradiction

This refers back to his earlier statement of the power /spread of fascism being the underlying feelings attached to keep it going. Emotions are the most powerful thing, without being able to heart/mind, no political movement can persist.

Reminds me of groups like SDS & SNCC which were student-organized groups fighting what they believed in. Protests would occur on campus, like the youth at Kent State who were an anti-war movement. The youth really have the power/influence for any political movement to spread or cease.

Also similar to 1984, The Party (Oceania) was at war with Eurasia & allies with Eastasia, then began war with Eastasia & allied with Eurasia, it was never really clear who they were loyal to & who were they were in opposition with.

Seems like Eco is saying the Fascist movement was built on contradiction. It claimed to be revolutionary but followed historical ideals which makes sense being that Mussolini was chasing a more-monarchial rule based on the greats of Ancient times. This could be compared to The Party, they too saw themselves as being revolutionary by just altering past events in their own favor. They created words based on contradictions in hopes that the language would bring about a complete new reform.

This refers to being a man of royalty, or the “next in line in the succession of sovereignty.” Monarchy should’ve been his angle, not fascism.

It seems like he didn’t know what he wanted to do as a ruler, as long as he was in complete control/power. This would make sense as to why his reign is not as relevantly discussed as Hitler’s or Stalin’s, they both stood on whatever they said which gave them more credibility/induced fear.

Is this why we don’t learn more about the movement? Was it “less” extreme in comparison to the Nazis & Russia? We hear about dictatorships today, but it seems like America rarely gets involved with those kind of countries besides cut off trade, but as far as placing military aid in the country I feel like I don’t hear much about it.

entartete Kunst = Degenerate art = is the label the National Socialist (Nazi) party, under its leader Adolf Hitler, applied to art they did not approve of, in an attempt to bring art under their control.

This emphasizes Eco’s point of linguistic symbolism. The reason they used the term 30 years later was because they had something that represented what it was & it was well-known. This simply is like “putting a name to a face,” and demonstrates how language plays a part in the rise to fascist regimes. This could be paralleled with doublethink, as the Party created their own form of language to essentially put a new name to a similar face(s)

Is Eco suggesting that people should focus more-so on the underlying feelings of fascism, rather than fascism itself?

I view this as the same as reparations for those who ancestors were slaves. Recognition/acknowledge of wrong-doing isn’t enough. The fight for reparations is something that has been ongoing in the US. Many presidents, Obama, especially spoke of getting them for AA but no success came from his “efforts”

This is still true today, liberation is often the common goal of those who face any form of discrimination or are considered inferior based off the color of their skin. Some things just never change, and this is interesting b/c Italians are still Euro-Americans they just come in tanner shades, so I wonder if thats what he is referencing here.

Toralv Øksnevad (13 January 1891 – 31 July 1975) was a Norwegian politician, journalist, newspaper editor and radio personality. He was known as the "voice from London" during World War II, when listening to foreign radio in Norway was illegal, and from October 1942 implied risk of death penalty.

This reminds me of how BB/The Party said all Goldstein did was spread lies and made him out to be the evil/bad guy. The Party wanted to ensure everyone stayed in line and even made up their own "myth of resistance" to keep the supported flowing for BB

to have this level of understanding at this age, is remarkable. His generation was probably had wisdom way beyond their years. That wisdom deriving from war which can affect one's minds in more ways than one. Resistance was sort of the part of war they could be happy about and to know it wasn't all for nothing -- all being the pain, suffering, grief, restrain etc...

I remember learning about this in 8th grade, the resistance group here toughed it out for months. The Warsaw Uprising is an important part of history during this time period, it lasted about 63 days. They resisted in even the most horrid conditions. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/warsaw-uprising-ends

Dick Tracy = American comic strip intelligent/tough police detective Li'l Abner: a satirical American comic strip that appeared in many newspapers in the United States, Canada and Europe, featuring a fictional clan of hillbillies in the impoverished mountain village of Dogpatch, USA

Freedom of rhetoric, means freedom from propaganda, they no longer have to be under the influence of any wrongful persuasion.

volleys: a number of bullets, arrows, or other projectiles discharged at one time.

This gives off dystopia vibes, making the people a collective, in support of one big party/person. It also gives off that brain-washing aspect.

This can come off sarcastically or as a form of dark humor, or he could just be being honest due to the time period, either way its kind of eerie.

This kind of reminds me of The Hunger Games, as Rue, was just a young girl as well forced to participate in something so ruthless. At this age you can't really comprehend what's going on you just obey the authority figures around you.

Him being a smart boy could be interpreted as he didn't really want any involvement, but for the sake of his safety it was in his best interest to say yes or he could be a smart boy in the perspective of the political majority.

Love is founded on sexual satisfaction and interests, therefore that's all it can amount to?

the reluctant acceptance of something without protest

I like how he points out the fact that in regard to the constitution it only applies to a few rather than the many. It seems like Freud knows happiness is not for all to seek.

"By allowing," kind of touches on marginalization as people pick/choose who they feel is best fit to be apart of society. Now that I think about it this parallels with natural selection.

I feel like as long as oppression remains, it cannot be reached it will remain nothing but a distant thought.

Examples: Jonas in the Giver, the sisters in What Happened to Monday, Offred in Handmaid's Tale etc.., Real life: African Americans, women, minorities, LGBTQ+

This thought of "original personality" makes me think of how in dystopian literature or films there is always a character trying to protect his individuality or reveal to others that their personalities and uniqueness is being held hostage by the leaders of their society. As in most dystopian societies any sense of individuality or personal salience is "hostility to civilization"

This is true, civilization is heavily impacted by those who govern it. Laws and the justice system that was not built for everybody is essentially the "restrictions" Freud implies.

Freud makes a fascinating point that alludes to the fact that no matter what society does, it will never be enough and I feel like that is true if we think about how the world operates today, for example: APPLE comes out with a new phone, a new pc, new headphones, new tech gear every year. Every year there is always something "new and better" that just slightly enhances what was already there. As humans, we're just slightly enhancing civilization in hopes the void of unhappiness will someday fill itself, but I think all the advances are just distractions from the fact that happiness is unattainable within these conditions.

It is crazy how we are the future ages he's referencing and he's not completely wrong. We as a society have cracked the code to a lot of things that those who lived before us would believe it to be God-like.

Freud is saying with every new invention comes the possibility that it can either perfect man or destroy him which I feel is true, some tools that are useful to one may be harmful to another.

the ancient past, especially the period before the Middle Ages. This in reference to Ancient Greece/Rome

Those who are not obsessed with money, power, or fame, and are always those who are most content with life. Some cultures live rather primitively and found nothing but joy/peace in it.

I agree with this statement, humans were never meant to be civilized or so technologically advanced. If were more primal, we wouldn't focus so much on what makes us different but how we could work together to survive.

I feel like Freud is making an interesting, but accurate point. Humans were never meant to do so much when placed on Earth… we were supposed to be simple beings, but over time everything has evolved that has forced us to try to alter our bodies in ways to submit to evolution. The reason why we could never be truly happy may be because we will never be satisfied that being “perfect” is not the achievement we should be seeking, because that is very much unattainable.

pg 57 "Violence is a social practice [...]" interesting take on violence, is Young suggesting that all people have violence within them or are all people capable of violence?

Pg 50 Why is marginalization considered the most dangerous form of oppression? Even over violence?

Pg 48 "To summarize [..] wage workers" this relates to sexism in the workplace. It has always been an issue since the days women were factory workers/textile laborers. Times have changed, but the issues have not. Women are becoming more progressive in attaining occupations deemed "male jobs," which is a huge win for us, but the issue of pay always seems to still linger --> its exploitative.

Pg 47 "The norms of heterosexuality [...]" in the wise words of Summer Walker "Girls Need Love To," it can't be all about the male counterpart. Very prevalent topic today.

Pg 47 "Does this mean that [...] or can the concept of exploration [...]? I feel like the concept can be broadened, to reserve distinct categories for the specific forms/types of oppression seems like an oppressive act in itself. If the basis is the same: guidelines for exploitation (domination/oppression) then it should all be valid for the concept.

Pg 47 Her mention of the transfer of women's energies to men is so important and relates to the emerging conversation of that warns women to be careful who they share their bodies' with on a sexual level b/c it goes deeper than just the act itself, and the convo mainly touches on the energies two souls share and how it could hinder one or the other if one's energy is negative or unaligned.

Pg 47 "Gender exploitation has two aspects [...]" I agree and when the feminist movement tries to oppose these poorly instilled notions the rage of the oppressor truly comes to light.

Pg 46 "These relations are produced and reproduced through [...] of the haves," sound like a endless cycle of the same processes that came from feudal society and beyond that.

Its ironic when you see history repeating itself. The same concepts through and through just with new titles.

This is a great example and reminds me of the concept of being transracial. As there was a White women who identified as Black, which some would feel is wrong, but this causes me to think she may have felt she aligned with the Black community socially.

I like the use of this "rubric" to define oppression, it is hard to define in any one particular way in fear of excluding a specific group. It will be interesting to see how different groups adhere to the 5 categories whether similarly or dissimilarly.

I feel like this links to oppression inflicted on LGBTQ+, but furthermore trans-people usually face oppression from others within their community, specifically Black trans-women. This could also apply to the oppressive acts towards African Americans, but then African American women are further oppressed by or within their own community. This is my outlook on class oppression.

"The conscious acts [...]" this is true especially for those in the medical field or law enforcement, oppressive acts primarily on people of color or women (for the med field) is something that seems taught b/c when things go badly the common response is "I was just doing my job"

"We cannot eliminate this structural..." I agree changing who is in power or the laws is not enough, the system itself needs to broken down and rebuilt from the inside with a diverse collection of those who truly understand what it means/feels like to be oppressed.

pg. 39 "people suffer not bc a tyrannical power coerces them, but bc of the everyday practices of a well-intentioned liberal society," everyday practices is critical here as oppression can be small-scale nowadays.

Pg. 38 "all oppressed people suffer some inhibition of their [...] feelings." Young reflects on the most general sense, but I feel like even this is changing today. More of these oppressed populations are getting more comfortable demanding their thoughts to be heard and feelings expressed through social media campaigns, protests, forming groups/organizations, etc... but for the 1960s this is definitely more-so true.

This is sad, but true. The only thing a lot of older generations know is oppression, its like an inescapable monster. "Social experience," just indicates how it forces the oppressed to live life a certain way; some with more restraint than others. It has become who we are regardless if you are the oppressor or the oppressed, it directs the way of life: social interaction, politics, education, in the workplace, etc...

Well-put way to stay that oppression and the need or greed rather of power/money are the backbone of injustice. I feel like you can't have a conversation addressing any injustice act without mentioning the two: Civil rights, slavery, reproduction rights, women suffrage, etc... all are built on someone needing to be superior by allowing the "inferior" to suffer.

This a moving introduction, especially in the description of the two acts. It allows the readers to know the author is a representative of the feminist movement, while giving her take on oppression. Oppression is the worst forms of obedience, and sometimes it can be blinding to those who are the oppressors.