This essay will examine the centralization theory that is considered a norm in politics and compare it to the decentralized society of Anarres in “The Dispossessed”. I will especially look at the way that societies differ across the political spectrum and not just between the worlds of Urras and Anarres. I will also examine the role that technology plays in politics today, and the way that technology is deep-rooted in our society. With this point, I will not alone look at “The Dispossessed” but also Winners “The whale and the reactor” to compare the almost similar roles that technology plays in them. In the book “The dispossessed” Anarres is in theory a society without government or coercive authoritarian institutions, and the people of Anarres are explicitly anarchist. Even though this is the way it is perceived to be in pursuing research that deviates from his society's current consensus understanding of the theoretical ideology that defines a true and Shevek then too begins to come up against very real obstacles. Shevek gradually develops an understanding that the revolution which brought his world into being is stagnating, and power (governmental and centralized) structures are beginning to exist where there were none before. He therefore he then embarks on the risky and highly controversial journey to the home planet, Urras, looking to try and find a compromise/way to return the worlds and to finish his General Temporal Theory with the help of academics on Urras. The novel details his struggles on both Urras and his home world of Anarres. There is a question whether or not, the government, is using Shevek, just for his knowledge and this is in volition of the utopian society. No one uses knowledge to benefit themselves, but to benefit society as a whole. This is where Shevek begins to question the true purpose of the governments intentions and whether or not he is going against his believes for the state or not.
When looking at the way that we now view industrialization and technological institutions sociologically, I think the answer is, that we have turned the computer into a fetish that is, an inanimate object worshipped for its power that it has over us, and also the way that we see perceive it to be. In society, we now see the computer, and other technologies as things that control us, rather in fact, us controlling them. We have been persuaded computers are vastly more powerful than we are and are capable could be assumed that the possibility of breaking free of our control is now a pressing reality, rather than a dream. Neither of these is true. Take the first; When we get up in the morning we have breakfast, shower, dress and leave our homes for work or college. If we drive instead of taking the bus, our cars have computers which make them operate more effectively and give them more functions; but 30 years ago our cars got us to work just as well.We use other aspects of technology over the course of the day, which is out of convenience and we use them because they aid our lives. For example; We now use Automatic Telling Machines (ATM’s) , on-banking and other technologies rather than come in to contact with real people. But is it so different from having a teller pass notes over the counter? There is now, little possibility for exchange of ideas due to our over reliance on technology. Instead of creating ideas, we are being fed prepared ideas of the institution.
At work we send some emails. It’s a quick way to communicate, but the world worked quite well when we communicated by post, fax and telephone. We play games on our laptops, iPhone’s, iPads, iPods, watch movies and shop, but it’s not as though we lacked entertainment opportunities 30 years ago.So what is really different in our lives as a result of computers? When we stop and think about all of the basic things we do each day the answer is “not much”. Computers have had nothing like the impact on daily life of the industrial revolution and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document