The Questions of Conquest by Mario Vargas Llosa and We by Zamyatin both describe very similar aspects of a society, or in the case of We a utopian society. Llosa talks about the same high power of people dominating over the the majority of lower class people who were"incapable of taking individual initiative". In the structure of the Tawantinsuyu, an individual had zero importance and "virtually no existence in that pyramidal and theocratic society whose achievement had always been collective and anonymous". This concept individualism as being insignificant is displayed endlessly in Zamyatin's We, where the entire community of the One State worked as a whole rather than individually. Another huge similarity between the One State and the Inca society as that a "state religion", in the case of We, the Benefactor, took away the freedom of individuals and "crowned the authority's decision with the aura of a divine mandate". Llosa uses the term "sovereign god" to describe this authority, in We the Benefactor is constantly characterized with a God-like ambiance thus making him equivalent to a "sovereign god". Another similarity is that the life of an individual was completely planned and supervised by a network of administrators in Tawantinsuyu , this in We, could be analogous to the Table of Hours where basically each hour of a number's life was determined.
The concepts used in the Tawantinsuyu are directly similar or relate with the concepts used by the One State of We.
Do you believe that the ideas in both 'We' and 'The Questions of Conquest' are both what is better for society? Even though the given evidence shows that individuals function more efficiently, and do not need much beyond what they are given, when individualism is given away, it is hard, especially for humans, to give up what we own, what we know as being ours. This is largely true in our modern society, as humans are internally, naturally greedy. TV, billboards, movies, and so many other sources are constantly telling us individuals what we need to set us apart from others.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, because I noticed your post is very narrative, and you don't necessarily expand on present ideas, rather make direct comparisons. With this point, however, I would like to point out your comparisons are very well defined and made.
In subsequent posts, I'd recommend expanding your posts, and developing your ideas much further than a narrative comparison of the texts. Also, I was curious on where comparisons or ideas to/from 'Freedom and Democracy' were. Overall, it was an enlightening post.
-Wez