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?

"soma"

For me at least, one of the most shocking aspects of Brave New World’s World State is soma. At a first glance, soma is quite a foreign concept in a few ways. For one, soma has minimal direct side effects, so there doesn’t seem to be much of an incentive to not take it when offered. This contrasts with every hallucinogen or stimulant drugs I can think of, which explains why some humans on earth don’t do drugs on a regular basis, but practically everyone in the World State does. Furthermore, the World State hands soma out to citizens and even hypnotizes them into taking it frequently. From what I understand, drug production is very expensive so it would seem quite irrational for any society on earth to hand out drugs to citizens, and even more so to encourage rapid consumption of them.

After some closer inspection, it becomes clear that the oddities surrounding soma aren’t independent of each other, and the World State isn’t actually acting irrationally at all. The fact that the World State has a monopoly on a cheap substance with such positive effects and few drawbacks is exactly why their society is the way it is. The incentive to provide an otherwise positive and beneficial life to citizens suddenly vanishes when the World State can cover everything up with bags of soma. Once the World State becomes egregious in its treatment of citizens, soma serves to control and distract its citizens. And, for the most part, the citizens themselves wouldn’t want to do anything about it. Although many might realize that their society is suboptimal, the soma is just too good, and the potential lack of soma implied by revolting in some way is not worth the risk. And at the end of the day, maybe living in the World State isn’t so bad… so is our society any better?

If we agree that fundamental qualities of soma are that it has positive effects and is distributed by the government to distract and control, I’d argue that there are many aspects of our society that bear a resemblance. Historically, there have been a few blatant examples of “soma distribution” by world leaders. To give a less well-known example, in 1978, Argentina was in midst of a military dictatorship and “La Guerra Sucia” (the dirty war) and World Cup, which was being hosted by Argentina. Leading officials were disappearing and being killed, people, the economy was tanking, etc. Long story short, Argentinians love soccer and are on the brink of being eliminated from the world cup in the group stages (they need an extremely unlikely shoreline of 5-0 or better to advance). After a few alleged phone calls and threats, Argentina pulls off a 6-0 and goes on to win the world cup. Suddenly, everyone is celebrating in the streets and forgets about the dictatorship. Or, in the language of Brave New World, a heavy dose of soma is passed around. Similarly, one could argue that other aspects of society are efforts by the government to cheaply keep control and distract its citizens.

A more widespread and perhaps more controversial example would be religion, which has unequivocally have had positive influences for humanity, particularly in times of hardship (the situations where one might take a dose of soma). Historically, many governments have funded and supported religious institutions, and one could argue that some of these governments have done so to distract and control their citizens. What do you think?


--Kevin