In September of 2012, I was invited to sit on a panel discussing the role of religious people in establishing and maintaining a secular government. The panel was entitled “Secular Government, Bringing Believers into the Fold, and it featured an even balance of atheists and religious people. The videos from the entire conference have recently been posted and can be viewed here. The hour-long panel on Secular Government, featuring me, Matt Sayers, can be seen here.
On Saturday March 23rd several students from LVC presenting their work at the North American Undergraduate Conference in Religion and Philosophy. Professors Jeff Robbins, Matt Sayers, and Noelle Vahanian (with an appearance by Professor Diane Johnson) accompanied seven LVC students who attended and presented at the 7th annual undergraduate conference held at St. Francis University on March 22-23rd.
Five of the students presented papers they wrote for the Symposium on a Living Philosopher, a full-year seminar on the philosophy of Catherine Malabou. Marquis Bey, Devan Glenny, Ashley Ferrari, Dylan Matusek, and Halley Washburn each presented shorter versions of papers they have written for this class, papers they will present to Dr. Malabou herself later this Spring semester here at LVC. Each related the work of Dr. Malabou to topics that interested them. Bey connected the notion of plasticity to identity formation among African American women, Glenny related themes from class to the issue of bullying. Ferrari engaged Malabou’s critic of capitalism. Matusek challenged Malabou’s conception of the synaptic self. And Washburn tackled the connection between neuroplasticity and change.
Daniel Kimmel and Haisam Hassanein both presented works from different classes. Kimmel engaged the religious theory of Erik Erikson and Hassanein described the situation of Coptic Christians in Egypt. All the papers connected the students’ individual work to the conference theme: “New Frontiers of Reason.”
Two LVC students took prizes for most outstanding papers of the conference: Dylan Matusek (1st place) and Ashley Ferrari (3rd place). Presenters included students from Rutgers, SUNY Buffalo, Emmanuel, and Iona College and as far away as Brigham Young University. Dr. Robbins’ pictures from the conference are available on Facebook at this URL. Photos by the conference organizer, Dr. Art Remillard of St. Francis University, are available here.
Plans are in the works for LVC to host the North American Undergraduate Conference in Religion and Philosophy next year.
I recently read a piece by Marilyn Sewell on the Huffington Post Blog (read it here) and a reply by Paul Louis Metzger (read it here) and their thoughts stirred an ongoing effort to think about how best to promote a pluralistic society.
In “Saying Goodbye to Tolerance” Sewell describes her experience being the religious “Other” talking to students at seminary. Her experience is quite similar to that of Ravindra-svarupa Das (read it here) in that they are both brought into seminaries to engage in “interfaith dialogue”, but find their audience less interested in dialogue than in the spectacle of someone who believes something different, either intentionally as with Das or unintentionally as with Metzger. The motive, in both cases was the promotion of “religious tolerance.”
However, “tolerance” is not enough. Years ago I saw Elie Wiesel speak and he addressed the inadequacy of the word tolerance when applied to a pluralistic society. Not only is religious tolerance not enough; it is insulting; it reinforces a power differential that is oppressive; it fails to stimulate real exchange or respect, or, even the possibility of more.
The Oxford Dictionary online defines tolerate in two ways 1. allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference and 2. be capable of continued subjection to (a drug, toxin, or environmental condition) without adverse reaction, and informs the reader that it comes from the Latin tolerat, “in the sense ‘endure pain’”. The first definition highlights the power dimension that Sewell and Metzger seem to recognize, but do not address well. Only those in power “allow” the existence of differing beliefs and practices. The sense of subjection in the second definition gets to the way this word is usually used. That is, when we tolerate, we “put up with” we “endure” something unpleasant.
As an example, Obama’s recent speech at the UN has been lauded as a call for religious tolerance and some have claimed that America offers a model of religious pluralism. However, if you read carefully how Obama uses the word “tolerate” you will notice he always uses it with negative things. “We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict.” And later: “That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated.” And finally, “The people of the world want change. They will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history.” I think the word “religious tolerance” implies similar, insulting things about “other” religions.
Further, in this first sense religious tolerance is used by those in power to either de-legitimate those who are different—that is, they must be “put up with”—or deployed by those who are in power, but feel oppressed, to legitimate the encroachment of religious belief into improper places. “In God We Trust” on our money has certainly established a monotheistic belief in a secular nation, but efforts to change this, or the pledge, are characterized as religious intolerance.
In the second case the motivation is acceptance; some people truly try to respect everyone who is different. How positive this sounds! But how troubling it really is. Could you find it in your heart to respect my beliefs if I told you I was God? Could you respect my religious practice if I told you I thought bodily mutilation of infants was a key part of my religious practice? Could you respect me if I decided to fly a plane into a skyscraper?
These examples are not taken at random. Sai Baba of Shirdi was understood by some of his followers to be the incarnation of Krishna, that is, God incarnate. Many Americans practice male circumcision, but are outraged (rightly, I think) when it happens to girls in Africa. The last example is tricky. We don’t respect the terrorists of 9-11, we clinicize their behavior. They were crazy. They were evil incarnate. They weren’t religious. But they were! They understood their behavior to be deeply religious. We respect all religious beliefs, unless we don’t like them, then they aren’t in fact religious.
However, if we ignore this fact we refuse to face up to the fact that some people religiously justify bad behavior, some religions call on us to do evil. The Hebrew Bible sanctions genocide. Jesus called a woman a dog. The Laws of Manu tells us that women should not ever be independent during their life. Buddhists in Sri Lanka go to war. Shintos ruthlessly oppressed Buddhists in the past.
If we ignore the blemishes of religions we take a juvenile attitude toward religion. Consider an analogy. If I ignore all the bad stuff my significant other does, telling myself “that’s not her” or “she isn’t being herself”, then I fail to love her for who she is. When we dismiss anything bad done in the name of religion, we similarly hold a naïve idea of what religion is. This works if we want religion to be only the good stuff, but it isn’t really religion then, is it?
When we practice a blanket, unconditional tolerance we commit a similar juvenile engagement with the world. Some people hold to bad ideas. We should demand that people’s ideas make sense. We should not tolerate evil, even if it is done in the name of God. We should not accept the denigration of anyone just because a book—written about God by men—says they are sinners (or worse those we trust tell us it says that and we fail to look for ourselves). We need to have those tough conversations. Interfaith Dialogue is a key instrument in creating a positive pluralism, but if we fail to address the tough questions and it always ends with us singing Kumbaya, then we fail to respect each other. We need to respect each other enough to disagree and argue. Not fight, but argue. Disagree without being disagreeable. If your belief is worth your faith (and even atheists have faith in their beliefs, though most like to believe they just see the world as it is) then you should be able to engage a real conversation without feeling threatened.
Metzger is right when he says tolerance is not enough. Sewell is right in that we should not ally with those who do harm. While I think Metzger is more hopeful (which I am cherishing more as I grow older), I find Sewell’s reaction more mature and healthier. I think her piece is a courageous attempt at a constructive rejection of the dangerous idea that we need to respect everyone’s beliefs. We need a more mature way to interact in a world wrought with difference.
We need, first, to get rid of this word “tolerate”. But what to use? Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. Look what the simple word “tolerance” got us. Coexist? Respect? Cooperate? Engage? In which situation do you want to use it? What ideas does the word promote? Which would help us get along with others better? Which would produce the pluralistic society you would want to live in?
I put a lot of thought into the various reactions to the recent “bias incidents” here at LVC and that led me to thinking about the institutional aspects of intolerance and all those -isms, racism, sexism, etc. (My son, who is struggling being the only Jew and the only atheist at his elementary school, wanted an easy label for attitudes of religious intolerance, so we decided to call them all -ism and came up with religionism, sexualityism, ageism, sizeism). In my Introduction to Religion class we spent a few days talking about scholars of religion who discuss Power–Gramsci, Althusser, Weber, and Foucault–so my mind was swimming with analyzing the situation in terms of power. What was the discourse on race and sexuality on campus? How did the administration, our curriculum, and the college’s response to these events advance hegemonic notions of culture at LVC and speak to or ignore subaltern identities? In what ways did Foucault’s notion of the internalization of power and subjugation help us understand the communities response? How does his notion of surveillance impact how we perform our gender, and other, identities on campus?
But these discussions weren’t going to stick beyond the end of the semester, if they lasted past the end of class. I wanted to come up with something that spoke to the subtle ways in which race, gender, religion, and sexuality are defined by the dominant culture and oppress the subaltern, the minority. In the Sustained Inter-faith Dialogues we talked about the responsibility the Religious majority in a democracy has towards the religious minorities, but these dialogues, while very helpful, often merely focus on what we agree about, what we all deplore. So too do discussions of race and gender. So I wanted to come up with some way to help students, and faculty, see how subtle expressions of power could be more dangerous, not only because they are more subtle, but also because they are more pervasive. Often these unspoken assumptions about identity shape the way we think in ways so subtle we are unaware. When we discuss religion in class and try to define it, students efforts to define often reveal unexamined default assumptions, that turn out to be a product of their own religious experience. That is, the definition begins to look like Protestant Christianity, because it is the default, the assumed norm, the model with which most students, even if not Protestant Christians themselves, are familiar. But to use this as a model for all religions is a problem. Like the margins or spacing in our word processors, we only examine them when someone, usually our professors telling us what they want, point them out to us. But how many know what kerning is? The spacing between each individual character has a huge impact on how we see the written word, but we don’t think about it, we trust Microsoft or Apple to set those for us. We don’t even need to think about it. They are the default settings. They are normal.
What a seemingly comfortable and wonderful word, normal. The other bias incident that prompted the Unity March involved someone writing “Be normal” on a homosexual student’s dorm write-and-wipe board. Normal means fit in, don’t rock the boat. Like Buddhists in America in the 1900s, who changed many aspects of their religious practice to look for Protestant, America expects people to be normal. I understand the discomfort with difference, its only natural, but when it comes to forcing others to fit our mold things get bad. How boring would it be if we all looked the same? acted the same? Timmy Turner found this out in a very gray episode of Fairly Odd-Parents, and the creators realized even we were all the same there would be folks who thought they were more the same than everyone else.
So I wanted to point out some aspect of our culture, LVC culture, that imposed normal on its students. Couple this with my recent feeling that only shock gets through to the average General-Education-class-taking student and you get a provocative pedagogical attempt to reveal one of these defaults, one of these hidden perceptual proclivities, one of the ways that race and gender maintain their hegemonic hold on us.
Here is what I came up with.
If I were a better artist I would have created a female Dutchman (Dutchwoman?), but I decided other Dutchman would quickly devolve into caricatures, and that would be no use pedagogically. So, let’s get past the awkward reaction… No, wait! Why is there an awkward reaction to this image. If it makes you uncomfortable, maybe you should ask why. We ask African-American students, Asian students, Hispanic students, and others to identify with a white Dutchman. We ask women to identify with a male Dutchman. Why would we be uncomfortable with our mascot being different than us when we ask a significant minority of our students to identify as a white male to belong?
That the image is of an outdated notion of the American norm should disturb us, but it doesn’t. The white man has been the default American for so long, we no longer even notice it, much less question it. Americans must identify with the male perspective, and the white perspective, in order to fit in. Why do we say Muslim terrorist, but not Christian terrorist? Why do we say Denzel Washington is a successful black man, but Tom Hanks is a successful man? Why is it the NBA and the WNBA, as if women is some qualifier, but men’s basketball doesn’t need the same qualifier? When we discuss gender in class, some authors ask what Christians think about women, but never ask what Christians think about men. Why is that? Does it imply a distinction between Christians and women, as if they are two different categories?
I suggest the lesson to be learned from the discomfort this image may bring is that we need to be aware of the subtle ways the the dominant, hegemonic, culture imposes conformity, to recognize the subtle ways that loyalty to a mascot may cover up power structures that continue to oppress despite the majority’s (be it based on race, gender, sexuality, or religion) inability to see the oppression. Part of a liberal arts education is understanding difference, learning to appreciate difference. Understanding the ways in which culture shapes us and is shaped by us helps us see how the world works, how we become the people we are. Just as the the words in this post are organized by hidden protocols that make organize them in a way that facilitates comprehension, protocols about which I am largely unaware, so cultural protocols organize the way we see the world and the way we are seen. And if you don’t want the world to tell you what and how to see, or how you should be seen, you should work at understanding these protocols.
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
I have often dreamed of a society in which everyone is happy, imagined a world without suffering, conjured up the perfect solution to the ills of men and women living together. You may say I’m a dreamer, but John Lennon tells me I’m not the only one.
Utopian literature too tells me I am not alone. A history of revolution tells me others have gone further than dreaming or writing. It may not be that we all want to change the world, but many men and women have put considerable thought into it and some have brought those dreams to the real world to change oppressive regimes and work toward the perfect society.
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
John and Paul are right that some see the turning of the wheels of history as a phase in our evolution. Things do seem better now than in the past. We have cured so many diseases, are better able to respond to the inevitable disasters that occur on our dynamic home, the Earth, we live so much longer than our ancestors, we have forms of government that give everyone a voice, value human lives more than those in the past. At least we tell ourselves we do. Yes, things do seem better now than in the past…unless we think about it too hard.
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
The world we live on was built on destruction, destruction of past and destruction of those that stood in our way, but we’re not done yet. We are so much better as destruction than we have ever been. John and Paul may want to avoid pain and suffering, but history tells us it may be harder than simply asking to be counted out. Like the inevitable growing pains of our teens, the pains of the maturation of the human race may be unavoidable.
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
All right, all right
No matter how hard I try to believe John and Paul, the cynic in me won’t shut up. And the various men and women who have responded to the sentiment that it will be alright, who have responded to the various authors of utopian visions of tomorrow, the creators of dystopian fiction—be it a novel, a short story or a film—tell me I am far from alone.
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan
We would love to see the plan, but even John and Paul sound skeptical. But every solution reveals a different ill in need of a cure, a different flaw in need of correction, a different glitch in need of tweaking, a different problem in need of a solution . This is the heart of the dystopia: finding the fatal flaws in our dystopian dreams.
Capitalism, the champion of individual achievement and the free market, is the solution to class oppression and feudalism!
Jonathan Z. (James Caan), the champion rollerball player in “Rollerball” (1975), shows us that capitalism and individualism are not as busom buddies as we thought. “Wall-E” (2008), “Dead Space for the Unexpected” by Geoff Ryman, and “Just Do It” by Heather Lindsley remind us that corporations are increasing insinuating themselves into every aspect of our lives, be it slowly working to provide us with every single need as Buy-N-Large did for the denizens of the Axiom in their escape from a trash-ridden earth, or scheduling every aspect, even “dead space”, of our work day, or taking advertising to new levels of efficiency as CraveTech does.
Technology is the solution to time, labor, and nearly every other worry!
I share the worry expressed by Max Frisch when he said “Technology… the knack of so arranging the world that we don’t have to experience it.” “Logan’s Run” (1975) shows us the dangers of becoming technological natives as well as handing over control to our mechanical handmaids. The ironically named Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) in “Gattaca” (1997) and Maria Gonzales (Samantha Morton) in “Code 46” (2003) experience the downside of the genetic revolution.
Keeping us safe is the solution to the dangers of world seemingly designed to kill us and other people who seem similarly bent!
The world of George Lucas’ “THX 1138” (1971) is extremely safe, even from danger of free thought. John Anderton (Tom Cruise) keeps us safe from even the possibility of murder, by arresting criminals before they kill in “Minority Report” (2002) (which is based on a Philip K. Dick short story with the same title, but with a better ending). Shirley Jackson shows us the cost of safety for the majority in the classic “The Lottery.” Are you feeling emotionally threatened by the fact that some people are better looking than you, better athletes, smarter? Then the world of Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” is for you (and this is now available in a film version of the same name (1995) and under the name “2081” (2009)). Perhaps the world of Brave New World by Aldus Huxley is more your taste, plenty of pleasure and a cubic centimeter of Soma will cure any blues that slip through.
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We’re doing what we can
But when you want money
For people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
The best dystopias address the contribution each of us makes toward making our own society more dystopia than utopia. The dystopia is a warning tale, a parable meant not only to teach but to chill us to the bone. The best dystopia leaves us with a feeling of righteous indignation, an urge to make sure this doesn’t happen here. Winston Smith’s job at the Ministry of Truth—Minitrue, in Newspeak—is the systematic erasure of the past, retroactively making Big Brother’s proclamations true, the Ministry of Plenty’s commodity predictions true, and the Ministry of Peace’s military failures strategic retreats. When we fail to learn our own history, when we lapse into what Stephen Prothero calls “religious illiteracy”, when we refuse to learn the lessons of the past we are doomed to repeat them. Dystopias are not always as blunt as the choose-your-own-adventure style “Civilization” by Vylar Kaften, which puts the reader into a loop to illustrate the results of ignoring the past, but they each warn us what happens when we ignore the past, when we give in to tradition without asking why we do so. It may not be that the religious right will lead us to the theocracy in A Handmaid’s Tale, but when we fail to think about the moral laws that Hilter put into place just before World War II, banning all homosexual organizations for example, when we discuss same-sex marriage, we are contributing not to the revolution, but to tradition, a tradition of oppression and homogeneity that preserves the status quo at others’ expense. Neil Gaiman and Bryan Talbot address this in their ultra-short graphic novel “From Homogenous to Honey,” as do the classics 1984, Brave New World, and the less known We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, which some credit as the inspiration for 1984. They each speak to conformity and the protagonist often resists conformity, even when they are unable to determine why, as are Bernard Marx in Brave New World and THX 1138 (Robert Duvall) in “THX 1138” (1971), or unable to embrace the rebelliousness as Liz is in “Is This Your Day to Join the Revolution?” by Genevieve Valentine.
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
All right, all right
The feature that defines the dystopia for me is the inescapability of the society. So no, it’s not gonna be alright, at least for the protagonist. Students in my First Year Seminar, Brave New Worlds: Dystopian Fiction and Film, and I have debated what makes a dystopia successful, what makes it a “true” dystopia. The dystopic yarn shares with the post-apocalyptic tale a resistance to the notion that it’s gonna be alright. I would suggest, however, that the open ended disaster narrative of some post-apocalyptic visions is not enough to make them dystopias. There is no hope for victory, for escape, for whatever virtue the dystopia wants to warn us in in danger. The true dystopia should leave us with a knot in our belly, our hands rolled into fists, or at least some righteous indignation. They are a call to arms, not unlike that which begins “Revolution.” The true dystopia tries to scare us into action. When Jonathan Z wins, he relieves our fear of corporate domination. When Logan 5 (Michael York) not only escapes, but frees the denizens of the pleasure-oriented underground city of under-25s in “Logan’s Run” (1976) we breathe a sigh of relief. It’s gonna be all right. I want my dystopia to make me worried. The torture employed to secure freedom in Matt Williamson’s “Sacrament” sounds too much like that which was justified not too long ago and should make me concerned about the curtailment of not only my civil liberties, as was done with the Patriot Act, but the violation of basic human rights around the world. “None of us are free if one of us is chained.” “A Clockwork Orange” should make me worry about the increased freedom we give our children as well as the efforts we make to control them. The firemen of Fahrenheit 451 and Moon Pie’s wonderment at Jonathan Z’s desire to read a book should make me worry about local school districts banning books about dirty cowboys (How are you supposed to take a bath without being naked anyway?). The dehumanization of the protagonist is ubiquitous in dystopias, for example D-503 from We and THX 1138 from the film of the same name don’t even have names, should make me worry about the inhuman treatment of women and children and the commodification of human beings as data sets for sale on Facebook. “Idiocracy” (2006) should make me worry about an increasingly disengaged electorate and the cultural illiteracy that characterizes American political discourse.
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
Democracy is the solution to dictatorship!
But what happens when democracy becomes too onerous for the overworked human being? Tobias S. Buckell shows us what happens when we mix technology and democracy in “Resistance.” Philip K. Dick, one of the most prolific dystopian short fiction writers I have found, shows us the danger of a majority out to enact the public good in “The Chromium Fence.” “Idiocracy” (2006) illustrates the potential of a culturally illiterate state and dangers of consumerism and the rampant commercialization of our lives.
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
The Man. The Government. The Machine. The institution is what oppresses the individual. More freedom is what we need. Keep the government out of my bedroom, business, personal matters…
Freedom is the solution to…well nearly everything is you’re American!
The freedom we take for granted is curtailed to some degree or another in almost every dystopia. Reproductive freedom is the focus of ZPG [Zero Population Growth] (1972), Code 46 (2003), Brave New World, “Progeny” by Philip K. Dick, “Welcome to the Monkey House” by Kurt Vonnegut, “Ten with a Flag” by Joseph Paul Haines, “Pop Squad” by Paolo Bacigalupi, “Auspicious Eggs” by James Morrow, among others. Our sexual freedom is threatened in “Sleeper” (1973), 1984, by George Orwell, “Eutopia” by Poul Anderson, ‘Demolition Man” (1993) and “Pervert” by Charles Coleman Finlay. The right of the individual to determine their own goals in life is the theme of nearly every dystopia, but is expressed quite strongly in “Rollerball” (1975), A Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, “Harrison Bergeron”, “Amaryllis” by Carrie Vaughn, “The Pedestrian” and Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, “’Repent, Harlequin!’ Said the Ticktockman” by Harlan Ellison, and “Independence Day” by Sarah Langan. In “The Truman Show” (1998) the title character (Jim Carey) fights for his freedom nearly to the death. As in Rollerball Truman wins, making it a failed dystopia according to my earlier rant. But…
Maybe the victory—the physical escape won by Truman, the victory on the roller track won by Jonathan Z, the emergence into the real world won by Logan 5 and THX 1138 at the end of their respective films, the mental escape hard won by Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) in “Brazil” (1985) or Babydoll (Emily Browning) in “Sucker Punch” (2011)—shows us the reward, not always unequivocal, of fighting against the forces the move us closer and closer to real dystopias.
But do we want to be free from danger more than we want the freedom to do what we wish? Do we wish the freedom to do what we wish more than the freedom from danger? Many legislators after 9-11 decided that freedom from danger was more important that certain individual freedoms to, privacy for example. Benjamin Franklin disagreed. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759). Good societies balance “freedoms from” and “freedoms to.” Imbalances produce dystopian governments, because my freedom to curtails others’ freedom from.
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Ironically the communism that Mao Zedong adapted for his use in China aimed to liberate people from oppression, but in turn became oppressive. Many dystopias begin as a step to help people be happy, to free them from one oppression…and eventually enslave them with another. OMM’s advice to THX 1138 is a good example:
Let us be thankful we have an occupation to fill. Work hard, increase production, prevent accidents and be happy.
Let us be thankful we have commerce. Buy more. Buy more now. Buy. And be happy.
Trina, in Sarah Langan’s “Independence Day” visits an auto-doc very similar to the unhelpful voice from the Unichapels, issued from beneath a picture of Christ, that mimics the active listening of the worst sort of therapist, and the helpful sedative dispensing robot/analyst in Philip K. Dick’s “Chromium Fence.” But the dulling of the senses won’t curb the human independent streak, at least not for long.
That is a truism of dystopias. We want to be free. Then why are the masses in all these tales either perfectly fine with following, as is Parsons in 1984? I think dystopian thinkers are not telling us what we are, but what they think we should be. Who hasn’t been in a line at Disney World, or the local store, and felt like cattle being herded at someone else’s whim. We shouldn’t, these dystopian storytellers insist, be those meek folks who give into fear, accept the delusion, fail to recognize what is noble in us. We should be the protagonist fighting the forces the suppress us, fighting the fear, apathy, self-loathing that stops us from being who we “truly” are.
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
All right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right
Do the authors of dystopian visions of the future bring harbingers of doom? Do they merely exaggerate some small concern into a nightmare? I would say they run the gamut. In my opinion, they urge us to consider the missteps we have made in trying to make things better, to look in the mirror and face the nature of humanity, blemishes and all. They express fears in hopes that others will be cautious in their dreams of tomorrow. Perhaps if we heed the warning everything is gonna be all right.
Most of the stories I mention above can be found in a relatively recent anthology entitled Brave New Worlds (2011) edited by John Joseph Adams (http://www.johnjosephadams.com/brave-new-worlds/). There are several volumes of The Collected Stories of Philip K. Dick, each of which has a handful of dystopian shorts. Past, Present, and Future Perfect: A Text Anthology of Speculative and Science Fiction (1973) edited by Gregory Fitz Gerald, an older collection including many dystopian shorts, includes some of the others mentioned above. The more famous dystopian novels I have referred to above are 1984 by George Orwell, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, and A Handmaids’ Tale by Margaret Atwood. I would also recommend The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick (the inspiration for Blade Runner (1982). A quick search on google will produce many lists of the best dystopias. Recently the young-adult section of the bookstore seems to be overrun with dystopias, many aimed at teenage girls, for example, XVI by Julia Karr, Matched by Ally Condie, Empty by Suzanne Weyn, Delirium by Lauren Oliver, Divergent by Veronica Roth, Ashes to Ashes by Jo Treggiari, and Uglies (and the subsequent books in the same series, Pretties, Specials, and Extras) by Scott Westerfield.
Film too is burgeoning with dystopias. One website claims to list the “Top 500 Dystopian movies of the Sci-fi world” (http://www.imdb.com/list/YD0zDNIcitU/), though the author has a much broader vision of what makes a dystopia and, by the time you get into the 300s, what makes a good film. Here is a list I compiled for my students. I am sure I am failing to include some, but that is nature of such lists. For vanity’s sake I have marked those I find most interesting as dystopias with a D and those I most enjoy as a film with an F, but as they say, there is no accounting for taste (just as my students).
Metropolis (1927) F
The Time Machine (1960)
Dr. Strangelove (1964) F
The Omega Man (1971)
THX 1138 (1971) D
A Clockwork Orange (1971) DF
Sleeper (1973) D
Soylent Green (1973) D
A Boy and His Dog (1975) D
Rollerball (1975) D
Logan’s Run (1976) D
Escape from NY (1981)
Blade Runner (1982) DF
Brazil (1985) DF
Max Headroom [Pilot] (1985)
Running Man (1987)
Total Recall (1990)
Delicatessen (1991) F
Demolition Man (1993)
12 Monkeys (1995)
Tank Girl (1995)
Gattaca (1997) DF
Starship Troopers (1997)
The Truman Show (1998)
The Matrix (1999) F
Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001) F
Minority Report (2002) D
Resident Evil (2002)
Fahrenheit 451 (2003) D
Code 46 (2003) DF
V for Vendetta (2005) F
Æon Flux (2005)
Serenity (2005) F
The Island (2005)
Children of Men (2006) F
Idiocracy (2006) DF
Bablyon A.D. (2008)
City of Ember (2008)
WALL-E (2008) DF
The Invention of Lying (2009) DF
Moon (2009) F
The Road (2009) DF
In Time (2011) DF
The Hunger Games (2012)
Total Recall (2012)