instead of romanticizing blow-ups of society, escapism as a means of complacency, or even just settling with how the world is, one can redefine what social changes means so that it takes all components of social change into consideration by modifying the very way in which every aspect of society functions

"the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment" (Oxford).

History shows that "blowing things up and starting over" is not only ineffective but a quick way to often end up right where you started. Is this another form of escapism: the what-ifs of radical, rapid change in hopes of extreme reform?

alternately, to the question posed earlier: Do humans looks for reprieve in fiction, finding a reason for complacency as "things could always be worse?" Is release from dystopian circumstances therapeutic?

surrealism is an artistic movement surrounding "unnerving, illogical scenes and developed techniques to allow the unconscious mind to express itself" (Oxford).

Does dystopian literature exist as a depiction of humans' unconscious desire to experience extreme social oppression? Do our minds thrive in the face of chaos?

this was a concept that I did not consider when consuming dystopian media; fear is a powerful social force, and it is fear which draws people back to dystopian media

proleptic was defined as "being anticipatory; foreshadowing" by dictionary.com

in other words, predictive fiction

individuals are a product of their society and the socialization that occurs within it; thinking that people are oppressed due to the institutions within their society can be true but to say people are suppressed is something completely different, as someone cannot be something to which they have never have been exposed. We adopt what we consume and are told is acceptable

definition of panopticism; can function in a "diffused" manner, spreading out and working in multiple spaces in society simultaneously due to the circular structure of the panopticon

works the same in society; if people naturally believe that they are either inherently superior or inherently inferior, then they need no help from outside structures to perpetuate oppression or to withhold themselves from social progression

society functions this way in the United States, creating circumstances where some people are the "in" group, and some people are the "out" groups, and the out groups are set up to be disadvantaged by the way that society is structured as it is engrained into the very way sociopolitical structures function

surveillance as a means of violence and marginalization; everything is so heavily monitored that oppression is perpetuated (five faces)

surveillance with the promise of protection from the disease - begs the continued question of how much are people willing to sacrifice their rights if it brings them peace, security, protection, or all three?

element of classism, dehumanization of those who occupy certain classes/jobs; also, lack of social mobilization, individuals are stuck where they are placed to fulfill their role. reoccurring theme of dystopian circumstances arising from crises

another interesting assertion, that a part of the motivation for progress is the usefulness and how enjoyable the advancement is to humanity as a whole. in other words, humans seek things which serve a purpose and feels good; this reminds of makeup. makeup serves the purpose of helping the woman to feel good about her looks thus (if thinking in the context of the early 1900s) obtain male attention for reproductive efforts while helping the woman to feel beautiful (so it feels good). to think more systemically, makeup serves the purpose of making women feel aesthetically inferior to the point of needing to use something to cover their face, thus making men feel good by having that systemic advantage over women and maintaining male domination. This reminds me of Young's concept of marginalization.

To say that humanity has become its own God (especially in 1930 with so little societal advancement in comparison to the modern age) even if it is prosthetic, speaks to the grandeur of humanity's perception of itself. Humanity has been around for so little of the Earth's existence, and even in 2023, we have not "conquered" this land, only destroyed it and thus created more pathways for it to destroy us, making us more vulnerable in a never-ending search for domination over nature. This relationship is somewhat paradoxical, in that sense, where humanity is outsmarting nature at the same rate that nature is fighting back and destroying us.

Freud asserts that cultural activities are those which are useful to humanity for the progression of humanity by protecting them from the natural elements and allowing them to navigate the world with less restrictions and limitations, such as through boats or microscopes.

This is an interesting take. Freud asserts that overcoming nature (assumably through infrastructure and medicine, among other things) is not the only influence or appreciating aspect of happiness and cultural creation, though it is assumed to be by most.

Rather, happiness has been cheapened by the "convenience" (for lack of a better word) of civilized life by breeding disconnectedness and ingratitude for the things which made life precious and enjoyable.

For course, this take lacks a lot of nuance because it is from the perspective of a white man in a white world, and there were (and are) many people who do not get to experience or benefit from the convenience of civilization due to structural inequities. So, in this sense, they do not get to experience this ingratitude. However, this is another way in which individuals are removed further from happiness.

This assertion assumes that being in a civilization and not the people themselves are a reason for individuals' unhappiness.

In the context of dystopian literature and the events happening today, this may be true, but I feel that it lacks nuance such as the conditions which make life livable in civilizations which could contribute to safety and in turn, happiness.

With this assertion, it begs the question would it be more beneficial to ignore the construction of groups altogether? Not in the sense of saying that the differences do not exist, but in the sense of acknowledging that most of the terms with which we identify ourselves, such as gender distinctions, race distinctions, etc., only exist because humans gave those distinctions meaning. So, relying more on acknowledging humans as humans than by their groups could potentially be more sustainable than forcing people to choose distinctions.

This reminds me of the concept of "color blindness" in spaces which are predominantly white, a concept which is extremely counterintuitive. Ignoring another's differences does not make those differences disappear; acknowledgement and mutual respect are the key to social growth and justice

This reminds me of the concept of othering which refers to the social exclusion that occurs to people identifying with minoritized identities by those belonging in the majority.

While the majority outcasts the minority, the minority also forms their own social groups and concepts of what is and is not acceptable, creating a cycle of social exclusion.

Martin Heidigger, 1962: The concept of thrownness as in one finds oneself as being defined a member of a group due to how the people around you view the stereotypes, norms, and attributes assigned to a particular group. Thus, the individual adopts these characteristics as they fall into the identity in which they were thrown.

Philosophy of Consciousness: individual identity exists as a result of one's verbal and practical social interactions as one is socialized and creates a sense of identity and self-perception internally in relation to the social categories in which they reside

The individualist Social Ontology suggests that identity is shaped by the individual, free from external influence.

This theory is ill-informed, at best, because it ignores the ways in which social structures can remove autonomy from the individual against their will. To be free from social disparities is to be privileged and existing outside of the social distinctions which are affected by oppression, which is not a common occurrence.

Young makes the claim that groups exist because of history, context, and one's sense of identity, whether forced or forged, and I agree.

Often, there is a misconceptualization of naturalism when it comes to topics of race--that an individual is born with a certain skin color, and thus, they immediately know and identify as Black. However, the concept of Blackness, along with any other identity, comes from our parents, socialization, and one's interactions with the world, making social interactions truthfully the basis of social construction and relations.

this concept is interesting as it pinpoints the nuanced nature of how the words one uses to describe themselves has specific requirements, stereotypes, and roles which they are assigned once they choose a set of personal designations.

social groupings designate how people understand themselves and others, creating a somewhat natural hierarchy due to cultural beliefs

This is related to the concept of intersectionality, a theory created by sociologist Kimberle Crenshaw in 1989. She essentially discusses the ways in which the multiple facets of individuals' identity intersect to curate their individualized experience of society, and in the same thought, of oppression.

primacy refers to the act of being primary; and thus she is saying that one form of oppression cannot casually or morally be assigned as more important than the next, as importance and urgency is subjective

This sentence almost completely contradicts the comment she makes in the previous by implying that though individuals from marginalized groups experience oppression, thus making it relevant in their sociopolitical discussions, they do not know how to define and explain the concept.

In saying this, it diminishes the intelligence and verbal capabilities of these groups, as a lack of academic jargon does not equate to a lack of knowledge or understanding. Especially if one acknowledges the validity of anecdotal evidence as a means of explanation--when used correctly, of course.