Heeheeheehoo

In our ongoing discussion of stress, I’ve seen/heard a fairly consistent theme, which is that we should actively work to avoid and reduce it. To me, the rationale behind this would be fairly straightforward: in stressful situations, our bodies react, which over time, can have profound impacts on our health. And in many situations, I would agree that avoiding stress or finding ways to lessen its physical impact is the best thing to do. To me, though, there are two main categories of stressors, which I try to deal with differently: those that can be eliminated or lessened through your actions and those that can’t.

If, for example, I accidentally throw my phone off a bridge, I may be stressed because I would like for my phone to be in my pocket. Unfortunately, though, there is really not much I can do about the fact that it is now at the bottom of a river. In this situation, for me, the best response is to try to not worry about it and to relieve any stress that it has caused me—any physical reactions I might get from this aren’t going to do anything about the fact that my phone is at the bottom of the river, so there’s no benefit to them.

Say I’m taking an exam and I care about its outcome (in this scenario, let’s assume a desirable outcome is one in which you get a high score). Now, let’s suppose that I’m taking the exam and I look up to see that there are 5 minutes left and I still haven’t started the last question. This makes me stressed. In this scenario, if I act in a certain way (solve the last question) I could be less stressed when the exam is over. If I act in a different way (say, turn in the exam immediately after checking the time), I will likely be more stressed after having done so. As opposed to in the first scenario, here I do have the power to eliminate this stressor (by answering the first question). In my opinion, being stressed (or rather, having the physical reactions of it) in this kind of situation is a great thing. If your heart pumps faster, blood pressure rises, breath quickens, etc., your body is rising to the challenge and providing you the resources you need to succeed. In my opinion, the worst thing I could do in this situation would be to try to calm myself down or reduce the physical reaction—by taking deep breaths, for example.

If we can learn to embrace stress and the physical reactions it causes in situations like these, I think we can also avoid a lot of negative emotions we experience in anticipation of stress. Some people tend to get stressed before exams or social situations, for example, because they’re scared of being stressed in the moment. Understanding that (at least in some respects) stress is a good and helpful reaction to pressure could help calm some of these negative emotions.

What do you think?

-Kevin

NCAA Part II (Duane)

Thank you all for your positive feedback on my last post! Although I probably got the general points across, I feel like taking more time to explain the nuances of the NCAA and their rules and provide some context for the current debates in sports.

For starters, let’s talk about college football. College football is often considered the primary moneymaker for almost every major school. A majority of the money comes from lucrative TV contracts through ESPN, CBS, or FOX. I don’t think anybody has any issues with the universities making exorbitant sums of money off these contracts, as most of the money goes to salaries, scholarships, basic team needs (uniforms, hotels for away games, flights, etc) and athletic facility upgrades for the sports who couldn’t afford it otherwise. What’s important to note here is that the money for the athletic programs is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the university’s general funding. Therefore, these student athletes aren’t taking away resources from the academic programs of the university. Anyway, I digress…

With football in particular, the NFL enacted a rule that doesn’t allow players to be drafted until 3 years after they graduate high school. From a rational standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Football is a highly physical game, and having 18 year olds being tackled by grown men at full speed sounds like a recipe for disaster. As sports fans saw this year with the failure of the AAF (an alternative football leave), it is virtually impossible to create a professional football league to compete with the NFL. That leaves college football as the only option for a recent high school graduate. Although this isn’t true for a majority of players, truly elite high school football players have to twiddle their thumbs in college for 3 years before they can be paid for their abilities. The coaches and athletic departments often put winning over education, as their exorbitant salaries are dependent on how many games they win. Because of this, these kids are often steered into programs like “General Studies” or “Recreation, Sport, and Tourism”. These degrees provide arguably the least return on investment of any career path in the school. What this means is that the student-athletes aren’t getting their money’s worth out of their education. Add to this the fact that college athletics is a significant time commitment (30+ hours a week), and you can see how the pure system of “education for athletics” has been exploited.

College basketball follows similar guidelines. However, college basketball players are only required to stay one year in college. Given the basketball season ends in March, they effectively only have to stay one semester to be eligible for the NBA Draft. Because basketball is an international game, there are various other leagues in Europe/Asia that will pay players. The NBA even has a development league, called the NBA G League (G for Gatorade in the name of corporate America).This system gives the players more agency than their football counterparts, but the system itself coerces players into college as many scouts believe European basketball is drastically different than that of the NBA. Although these systems don’t explicitly force players to play college sports, society dictates they do.

However, these issues involve a rare subset of individuals in college sports. For most sports, the education is more relevant. The prevalence of Title IX has actually made a huge impact on the non-revenue sports. Title IX states that resources for men and women must be the same, and this relates to athletic department finances. Since a football team has 85 scholarships, the women’s sports need significantly more scholarships to even it out. But, because these sports don’t have revenue, the NCAA arbitrarily “caps” total scholarships at different values to provide “balance”. However, the Title IX “balance” means that neither the men’s nor women’s non-revenue programs adequately support their genuine student-athletes. Golf, for example, is capped at 4.5 scholarships for men and 6 for women. Often, these teams will have anywhere from 7-12 players, which means most of these players are on at most partial scholarships. Football and basketball, on the other hand, pretty much guarantees their players will get full academic scholarships all 4 years on campus. What ends up happening is NCAA rules prohibit the majority of student-athletes who actually use their sports to gain a real education from attaining full scholarships. Rather, this money goes to players who are just biding their time until they can enter the lucrative professional leagues and don’t effectively leverage their free education.

So how do we fix this? Perhaps the best solution is that employed by college baseball and the MLB. High school baseball players are allowed to immediately be drafted right out of college. However, if they do not choose to sign, they must wait 3 years before they are eligible to be drafted again. Under these rules, NCAA teams would actually be getting players who are interested in getting an education, as those who don’t have interest in school would just turn professional out of high school. Another great solution would be that used by the NHL and college hockey. NHL teams draft players while they’re in college. However, until they actually decide to turn professional, the NHL team has the “rights” to that player. Their contract control also doesn’t begin (usually there is a minimum contract length) until after they turn professional. Some of their money is also guaranteed, which means players can earn some of their value in the event they get injured while in college. A surprising amount of college hockey players come from Ivy League schools, and this system allows them to continue to pursue their educations without having to worry about their professional futures.

As you can see, the debate of NCAA control is far more nuanced than it seems on the surface. There is growing support of these changes in the media. The NBA is already rumored to have eliminated their single year rule before the 2023 NBA season. However, it is up to the NCAA and their respective professional sports leagues to further resolve these issues before players begin taking their talents elsewhere.

The Police

Out of the three novels, the police from The Parable of the Sower have stuck out to me the most and felt the most like the police we have today. Maybe it was because the police from The Handmaid's Tail and 1984 have different names than just "the police." However, some aspects of the way the police act are very reminiscent of our own police. For example, Lauren accuses the police (although not to their faces) of "finding evidence" to convict whoever they decide is guilty. This definitely seemed like a critique on the corruption within our police system. More specifically, the police's habit of getting false confessions out of people in order to close cases and ensure they keep making money. In many communities (especially in some poor African-American communities), the police will find a way to get a confession out of an innocent person by offering them a shorter sentence if they confess. In these communities accepting these shortened terms is actually a better deal than going to court and losing (which they often do even when they're innocent--maybe because of racism but that's a different issue). It's even become quite common in some of these communities to spend a lot of time in jail having never committed a crime.

Additionally, the lack of cooperation with police from the community and the distrust of the police by the community remind me a lot of the way our own justice system works. The blatant corruption and the public knowledge of the police's tendency to wrongfully convict (or kill) people causes a lot of animosity towards the police. This kind of animosity creates a system where very few people actually trust the police. (For example, even for me as a white guy who also looks pretty harmless, my dad has always told me to avoid police and talking to police at all). This applies especially to certain communities where people just run when they see the police, whether or not they've done anything.

The final thing that reminds me a lot of our society from the parable of the sower is how expensive the police are. In a lot of situations, a functional police force can be a necessary thing to have. They can even save lives. To me, this doesn't remind me of our actual justice system (although court fees are a thing and lawyers also cost money so maybe it's not too far off) it reminds me a lot of our healthcare system which costs way too much and causes people to just not go to the doctor when they're sick. Anyway, what do you guys think, am I reading too much into this or are the police from The Parable if the Sower very similar to our own?

Communism in 1984, an effective critique? (Sammy)

I remember Dr. Majerus said that Orwell wrote 1984 in response to BNW because he believed that a dystopian England would be different, but what aspects/movements does he seem to be criticizing/anticipating will get out of hand? His focus on the "Party", "Oligarchical Collectivism", and removal of private property, seem to point to a critique, or a warning, of communism. A lot of the negative aspects of his society are common attacks on communist states: they're oppressive, there are shortages of everything (food, razors, etc.), and innovation stops (in Goldstein's book, he said that the only tech-y people are working on weapons, and those probably won't ever be made). Individuality is strongly discouraged in Oceania, and one fear of communism is that everyone would be the same. The Party also openly attacks capitalism and its ideals in its propaganda (it claims to have freed the proles from the oppression of the oppressive capitalists). Orwell is pretty clearly attempting to attack communism. 

However, Orwell seems to miss the mark on the defining features of communism. Communism is defined as "political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism) , most of which seems to be missing from the society in Oceania. The means of production are solely in the control of the government, as is everything else in Oceania, the natural resources of the society (and just about everything else) are owned by the inner party rather than the public, and the society seems to be profit based to some extent as the inner party profits from its control over Oceania and its wars. Basically, Oceania's essence doesn't appear to be communist, even though its problems are associated with Communism.

That being said, in Goldstein's book, he states that the pretenses of freedom and equality were abandoned by the followers of Ingsoc, so the novel could still function as some kind of warning. Orwell could be warning that socialists or communists don't actually want freedom and equality, but are simply manipulating people to gain power in order to install their own regime that keeps them on top. Of course that argument could be made against capitalist societies as well, and Oceania has its resemblances to capitalism too (a hierarchical class structure, disproportionate concentration of wealth in a small group of people, war over resources, high demand for cheap labor, etc.).

It seems pretty clear to me that Orwell was trying to be anti-communist here, but it also doesn't seem like he did it very effectively (at least in my opinion). What do you guys think?

1984 is a Brave New World Prequel

I don't actually think that 1984 is a prequel but there are some interesting commonalities between the two of them. These societies also have many differences. However, it's important to note that BNW takes place something like 500+ years AF (after ford) which is like 2450 ish whereas 1984 takes place in 1984. This means there is something like 450-500 years between the two books, so there is enough time for a drastic change to take place.

However, there isn't that much time. Brave New World's society is based very strongly on Ford. The party is destroying all of the past and so it's likely they destroyed Ford and took credit for his inventions. Julia tells Wilson that the part has taken credit for the creation of the airplane (1903). When Wilson was in school the party took credit only for the creation of the helicopter which was in 1939. So the party is moving backward through time and taking credit for inventions as they go. So it's fair to say that in 2000 all record of Ford would have been destroyed and all people who remembered the old way killed. This being said the window hasn't closed. It's certainly possible that some proles still remember ford.

I think that what happened is a Eurasian invasion. Maybe not of all of Oceania but at least what we call Brittan. Eurasia most likely includes what would have been the USSR. 1984 was written in 1948 so it's safe to assume that history doesn't derail until slightly after that date, which is consistent with what Wilson says about what he remembers with his mom. So it's quite possible Eurasia is still communist. If Eurasia is the basis for the world state it could explain why people are named Lenina. However, the story is still more complicated as it doesn't really make sense for a religion based around the biggest capitalist in the world to arise from a society based on communism. Perhaps this religion develops because of the proles who still remember ford. Maybe the deconditioning of the proles causes the Eurasians to build up some figure like ford as a replacement big brother? Either way, it's very unlikely and definitely not what was intended but still interesting to think about.

NCAA: A Modern Dystopia?

The month of March is known as one of the most fun in sports. For decades, Americans have gathered around their TVs to watch one of the biggest spectacles in sports: March Madness. The 68 team single elimination battle to the death is an amalgamation of upsets, buzzer beaters, and cinderella teams. However, behind this amazing tournament lies one of the most oppressive groups in sports: the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The NCAA is a “nonprofit” organization that presides over pretty much all college sports. Through the years, their reputation has quickly declined due to various academic and athletic scandals. However, I venture to say it actually shares many similarities with a dystopia. 

For starters, dystopias often have a utopian ideology. The NCAA stresses how important amateurism is in preserving the sanctity of college sports. But, similar to the Handmaid’s tale pushing religion as a justification for their oppressive ideology, the NCAA uses amateurism as a similar idealistic principle. The NCAA uses the notion that athletes should be playing for the “love of the game” and “as students first” to make millions of dollars off conference TV deals, ticket prices, and marketing their players and their abilities. However, the universities are only able to provide scholarships to their players. For many sports (golf, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, etc), this trade is more than fair. However, for the sports who bring in revenue (football, men’s and women’s basketball, and volleyball), this trade is entirely unfair to the athletes that are essentially being exploited for their labor.  

Further, the NCAA has rules that sound ominously similar to authoritarian rules in an actual dystopia. There are entire offices in each athletic department devoted to making sure student athletes don’t take free bagels without first clearing it through the NCAA. In fact, the NCAA is notorious for penalizing teams for minute infractions (such as providing extra food in buffet lines) while systematically ignoring major infractions by well known teams (such as the UNC academic scandal a few years back). Further, the NCAA is notorious for essentially being a “black box” when it comes to various rules they have. For example, NCAA football and basketball players who wish to transfer have to sit out a year. However, players can petition for waivers to play immediately under various grounds. Their petition is viewed by a committee, and the school then gets an answer. Nobody knows who is in the committee, or what rubric the committee uses to evaluate the petitions. All we ever see is the results. Further, there is almost no reasoning behind their decisions. Ahmad Starks--an Illinois basketball player in 2016-- transferred from Oregon State to Illinois to be closer to an ailing family member. His request to play was denied. This year, a disgruntled quarterback (Tate Martell) who alienated all his teammates at Ohio State requested to transfer to play football at Miami (FL). His waiver was granted. There is no rhyme or reason for this.

When you boil it down to it, if I told you a group was exploiting labor for the benefit of the group, imposing a litany of petty and strict rules, and dishes out formal decisions under a cloak of secrecy, you would think it sounds like an authoritarian government. The NCAA operates under this exact system.

--Duane

Religion in Dystopias (so far)

So far, when trying to compare the two dystopian novels that we've read so far, there are few similarities other than a general lack of happiness for the members of the two societies. However, one thing that was in both of the novels was religion. Both novels portray religion in very different ways than it is usually portrayed in our society. In Brave New World, religion is completely separated from the World State (the society about which the novel was written) and is portrayed as something obsolete, irrational, and restrictive through its appearances in the reservation and John's thoughts. Conversely, in The Handmaid's Tale, religion is an integral part of the Republic of Gilead and shows itself as the justification for many of the republics policies and actions. Religion in the Republic of Gilead is also portrayed as restrictive, closedminded, and unforgiving. This was pretty interesting to me because while both of these portrayals of religion are very negative, they seem to be conveying very different messages about the importance of religion in our society.

Looking deeper into what the portrayal of religion in Brave New World could actually mean reveals two possible views: either religion is primitive and obsolete, or the World State is an example of why we need religion in our society. However, considering Huxley's conflation of basically all religion into one thing that only the "savages" believe in and the way its reduced to human sacrifice and repression of desire it makes more sense to think that Huxley is portraying religion as something primitive. While most of us were probably upset with the way Huxley portrayed the "savage" reservation in general, for me one of the worst parts was his portrayal of the human sacrifice that occurred while Lenina and Bernard were at the reservation. Additionally, this portrayal of the "savage's" religion makes it seem senseless and irrational. His portrayal reminded me a lot of the way many of our movies portray Native American religion in such a stereotypical way and primitive way. On the other hand, this was kind of interesting to me because I had never really thought that this kind of portrayal would be applied to something associated with Christianity (like the religion of the "savages"). This primitive portrayal of religion made me think a lot about what primitive actually implies. To me, it implies two main things: it implies that something is lesser in some way, and it implies that something is obsolete. However, more than obsolete, Huxley tries to portray religion as irrational as well making it seem almost inconsequential.

Instead of dismissing religion, Atwood seems to be warning her readers about religion. The way the "Sons of Jacob" take over the US and completely destroy society is Atwood's way of trying to show the dangers of what she thinks religion can be. On the surface, this kind of takeover might seem really far fetched. However, when thinking about the history of the way Christianity was spread to most of the world (in particular the Americas where it was usually forced on Native Americans and slaves who were forced to work for Europeans no matter what they wanted), there might be at least some kind of parallel with the Republic of Gilead and the history of the Americas. Additionally, the way the "Sons of Jacob's"  policies and actions were justified by their religion reminded me a lot of the way some people will claim God told them to murder someone as a defense or how some wedding companies won't serve LGBTQ+ people because they say it's against their religion. Especially considering how terrible most of us agreed these two societies are its kind of scary to see how many similarities they seem to have with ours (even just about one topic like religion). What do you guys think? Am I reading into the meanings of the books too much or are there genuine similarties between the two dystopias and our world?