El objetivo de este ensayo es analizar dos ejemplos de la literatura distópica contemporánea, por un lado "La Fe de Nuestros Padres" (1967) de Philip K. La novela de George Orwell 1984 (1949) es considerada un hito del género distópico: en ella, Orwell retrata un Londres futurista, gobernado por un partido fascista y totalitario, cuyo mero objetivo es el control total sobre sus ciudadanos. De entre sus diversas ramificaciones, la literatura distópica es una de las más usadas por los escritores para proyectar una visión del mundo oscura y futurista, dominado por la tecnología y caracterizada por un gobierno totalitario que hace uso de todos los medios que encuentra necesarios para ejercer un control total sobre sus ciudadanos. La ciencia ficción es uno de los géneros cuye auge se encuentra al alza hoy en día. KEYWORDS: Orwell, V for Vendetta, Faith of Our Fathers, social control, manipulation, submission. It will focus on how these two works took Orwellian vision of a totalitarian state, the different methods of control it employs to keep citizens under complete control and submission, and how they introduce them into their stories. Dick’s “Faith of Our Fathers” (1967) and Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta (1982-1985), in order to closely analyze the influence that Orwell’s dystopia played in their construction. This paper will take two examples of contemporary dystopian literature, Philip K. George Orwell’s 1984 (1949) is considered a landmark of the dystopian genre: it portrays a futuristic where a totalitarian, fascist party rules London aiming to keep its citizens under their complete control. Non-human entities, in other words, are themselves social beings.ĭystopian literature is considered a branch of science fiction which writers use to portray a futuristic dark vision of the world, generally dominated by technology and a totalitarian ruling government that makes use of whatever means it finds necessary to exert a complete control over its citizens. Objects, then, should not be theorized as having various mechanical impacts upon human communities that they interact with, but should instead be theorized as members of the community in of themselves. 3.) That objects are also subjects, and engage in intersubjective meaning-making both with humans and other objects. 2.) That it is theoretically and empirically possible to examine objects in of themselves, and that it is important to do so, as both material and non-material objects contain causal powers that impact history and society independent of the human recognition or conceptualization of these powers. Scholars of materiality, then, often miss the mark, and study the conceptualizations of objects at the expense of the objects in of themselves. I will forward, then, three major arguments: 1.) That it is often the case, particularly in the social sciences, that scholars look not at non-human objects, but instead at the ways those objects are perceived and labeled by humans/society.
The "ontological Turn" in philosophy, the "material turn" in anthropological and sociological sciences, the "posthuman" moment in the humanities, and the "Cognitive Archaeology" movement in cognitive science, among others, all share a common thread of critiquing the anthropocentrism of the humanities and social theory. This project is therefore indebted to various recent movements in the social sciences and the humanities that have begun to take more seriously the ways in which "things" impact human life. In particular, this dissertation focuses on the relationship among humans and nonhumans, and the material and the non-material in the creation of digital art and design. This dissertation examines the social relationships of material objects (including, but not limited to, humans and things) and idea objects (including, but not limited to, broad cultural and social forces) that constitute the world.
0 kommentar(er)
