seeing it from another side

Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is not just a story telling of Africa before a slow colonization took over, but it also takes its time to criticize the dominant view so heavily imposed throughout history. The history books are written by the victors in a war, and the British were somewhat the victorious party in this exchange. However, every story has two sides to it and Achebe's story will "challenge the definitions and assumptions" of both the reader and the writer (Cultural Studies 232). By attaching a post-colonial viewpoint onto an analysis of the story, readers and critics are able to see that the viewpoints are historically designed to be subjective in some shape, thus making reality a "social construct".

The hegemony sets the tone for a culture or group and people will unknowingly or willingly revolve their lives around this single pillar of standards. Society has defined such a thing as normal, but if someone were to oppose the standard how would they go about doing it? It is the minority's voice that brings a different perspective to the scenario and often makes others realize that there is more than one side to a story. If a light is cast, then somewhere in the infinite distance a shadow must also be created. That shadow, no matter how tiny it is, will always exist despite it being smothered by the need to conform. In an attempt to prove this, scrutinizing research and bodies of text while wearing a cap of postcolonial thought will be needed. The quest will be short and simple: How does post-colonial theory contrast and fight against a hegemony? The answer, however, will not be short and simple.

More Robots

What if kings were not decided by bloodline, but by skill? What if the first emperor was chosen through trials and tests rather than through the luck of being born into his father's family? Perhaps, had the most skillful of men been able to take the throne would the world be different.The idea of turning imagination into reality is a captivating thought, but that reality is often oppressed because it is seen as unnecessary by the majority of people. Congressman are given positions of power and influence because of either money or connections. Very few are given such power through their knowledge or skill in a particular subject. But what if all congressmen were actually scholars? A technocracy, according to Neil Postman, would be must more efficient than a congress.

"Those possessed of such gifts could not be denied political power and were prepared to take it if it were not granted," according to Postman (3). Why would we want to spend years on minor problems in the world when we could solve the bigger picture in a heartbeat? Many people given the positions of power are often lacking the necessary skill or knowledge to positively affect their environment. A technocracy, however, does not have to do completely with the people. A world run by technocracy is not what you want. A world that uses technology to augment their needs and wants is more and sufficient. A master should never be outdone by his apprentice, and the same way a computer should never overpower its programmer.

According to Postman, the people in a technocracy would not allow their technologies to "provide philosophies by which to live." Instead, they "clung to the philosophies of their fathers" (4). To him, that is a technocracy. Using intelligence as a gateway to the future is a positive light on the subject, but it was frowned upon because the majority of the masses were not capable of comprehension at such a level. The masses wouldn't want to be led around by the most intelligent of beings because free will is not defined as that. However, a technocracy, is different from a technopoly. A technocracy is still somewhat of a democracy. If a technopoly is introduced, Aldous Huxley's ideas embrace a reality. Technopoly would mean that there would be only one definition of everything according to those who wield the power. "Technopoly, in other words, is totalitarian technocracy" (5).

Robot Remains

What defines a human being? A collection of individual cells that scientifically create a walking bag of organs? How about an instrument of labor or a creation designed for one purpose? What if the definition of human beings wasn't about being an individual walking among civilization, but just being there never to fade away? Technology, as explained by Raymond Kurzweil, will turn us into those fearless, perfect subjects within a matter of years. But is being omnipotent a bad thing or a good thing? It is depends on which way you see technology: an assistance or an alteration.

Human beings aren't meant to be shaped like clay models in a ceramics workshop. They are meant to be formed through life's experiences. From childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood, to parenthood, life has its cycles that it must run through. Obstacles throughout the stages of life, such as disease or impairment or even lack of knowledge, are common to a person. If all of these things were to disappear, what would truly define a "life"? Kurzweil's idea that of the singularity, where humans and technology will merge as one, brings skepticism in my eyes. Removing the human portion from people, despite what the possibilities are, is inhuman in itself. Without human nature, people are nothing more than just animals. Give them technological augmentations, and now you've only created robots. Humanity of people cannot be artificial, it must be genuine.

Kurzweil is only doing what he believes is right for humanity: preserving it. But the way it seems, saving humans from imminent death involves taking away what is human. Technology grows exponentially, according to Kurzweil, so the rate at which we discover methods of healing or destruction will only grow faster faster. Soon we'll be able to "reverse-engineer the human brain by mid-2020s", one of the most complex organs, and next thing you know we'll be making human beings out of factories like toys (3). If we're going to take it that far, might as well remove all reproductive organs from human beings as their born because we won't need them anymore. Making humans will be like printing books, you'll know every single thing from cover to cover. Taking it a step further, just eliminate instincts from the humans such as hunger or self preservation because immortality where "we'll scan our consciousness into computers and live inside them as software, forever, virtually" will be provided (1). Might as well kill everyone at birth and just let the robots take over.

However, the figure known as Death is someone almost everyone fears. If there were some way for a person to delay, or possibly eliminate, the date on which a meeting is due with the Grim Reaper, I'm positive almost everyone would take it. Kurzweil even uses his personal ideals to preserve his life by taking "up to 200 pills and supplements a day", and even claims that his "biological age is about 20 years younger" (3). If somehow that science were to be simplified and given to the public, our efforts as a human race could be pointed elsewhere, essentially making humans into more efficient machines. Additionally, what if a person could have a computer in their brain? Long division wouldn't be impossible to do anymore. Instead, it would only take microseconds to finish. Humans would be able to process information and solve problems a hundred, maybe a thousand, or even a million, times faster. But where is the fun in that? The sense of satisfaction from working tirelessly on a problem and finally completing it would be gone. Everything would be a mundane task since every problem or obstacle in a person's way would be dealt with in seconds. Replace the complex, inefficient organs with machines that process everything as efficiently as possible and now what are we left with? Nothing.

What can be defined as beautiful if we lose our sense of being human? The art painted onto a canvas would be seen as merely paint splattered into shapes and patterns. The music played from the hands of a pianist would only be heard as noise that satisfy the laws of acoustics. The words written from a book would be generated by the attempt at expressing one's thoughts, only to find it already countless times over. If gaining immortality and intelligence meant losing what makes us people, then why bother doing it? Kurzweil probably never read Brave New World and saw how "humanity" was, nor did he read 1984 probably. The man was too busy inventing music writing computers to see what others saw years ahead of their time.

The Art of Writing

Alicia D. Costello, spurred by either initiative or requirement, scribbled down her thoughts and formulated an essay by the title of "Rhetorical Analysis: Pauline Inklings in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." The essay, namely about the the story Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, examines the topic of good and evil within a person being explored. Initially, a student is taught in his/her education to write an essay consisting of an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The method is tried and true, for the most part, and consists of analysis of a given article or prompt. The introduction is to provide the background of the target, and usually provides a thesis in which the essay is written about. The body paragraphs support the provided thesis with evidence and commentary of the evidence. The top it all off, the conclusion is supposed to be a restatement of the thesis and somewhat of a summary. Costello's writing methods are not quite matching this method, and instead begins to write on her own tempo.

Costello's opening paragraph follows what some might call a "standard opening" with an explanation of the book she is analyzing, along with a simple statement of her thesis. The majority of Costello's essay is based upon her own analysis of Kevin Mills' essay entitled "The Stain on the Mirror: Pauline Reflections in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide." Her thesis revolves around the weakness in Mills' essay and she refers back to the analytical essay to pick apart Mills' own arguments in her essay, similar to actually quoting from the essay and supporting her thesis. In a standard essay taught in school, she would receive praise for following the format quite closely. What surprises me, however, is the format she formed her essay in. It contains not one, but two paragraphs to state and elaborate her thesis, which is considered foreign in a standard essay.

Costello's thesis is stated in two different places, but they are essentially the same. She pokes and prods at the weaknesses of Millers' essay, quoting directly and then providing the basis on why she provided the quotation. She then commentates upon the quotation and points out how Millers holds so many flaws within his essay. Compared to an essay written by a freshman in high school, this would look just a bit more advanced, but eerily similar to theirs. The standard format of a solid piece of evidence to examine, followed by analysis of the evidence which supports the thesis, and then with additional commentary, is seen. Both theses presented in the initial opening paragraphs are present in each body paragraph, and gives sufficient material that allows each paragraph to build upon. The lengthiness of each paragraph is due to the fact that the statement in question from Mills is attacked by two theses, rather than a standard one.

One of the most foreign aspects of Costello's essay is the method in which she attacks Mills' essay. In a standard essay, one must present both the positive and the negative side in an argument. Costello's essay merely points out the positive but then proceeds to turn it into a negative. Only the mistakes and flaws are highlighted by Costello, when in reality there must exist some positive to the essay by Mills. However, Costello's method of writing is straightforward and on target. A standard essay consists of multiple angles in which a thesis is supported, and Costello is not shorthanded in this aspect. Without hesitation in her writing, Costello writes determinedly about the flaws and holes in Mills writing, intent on proving that Mills fails to bring evidence forward in his own statements.

Schools teach us many things, and among those things is how to write essays. Of course, the method that schools teach at a young age is bound to vary as students age. Students will violate the rules, in more ways than one, as they gain more and more experience. Students will create their own styles and personal flair with imagination and creativity influencing them. However, the lessons taught in the classroom are considered benchmarks that we can always fall back to, and most importantly are what attribute to a student's development.