Like I'm pretty sure the conclusion I had was "oh haha I see your point mr. Vonnegut, too much equality can indeed be a bad thing!"
And I definitely don't remember my teacher suggesting anything about it being viewable as satire of red scare paranoia either
I read this in high school, I didn’t really get the anti-communism element of it that others here have. the story presents a “dystopian” world in the sense that this society has devolved into a self-defeating police state due to the state’s demand that the citizenry conform to its destructive ideology. The “ideal” of the society is, at first appearance, a good and proper ethic to design a social order to. But, much like the idealist trappings of western liberalism, the state’s declared ideology of lifting up all to a level of complete equality is itself a farce, a casus belli to justify whatever actions the state wants to take maintain its control over people.
And the state uses every resource it can to reinforce this ideology; mandatory headsets that literally prevent any kind of coherent thought for those who wear it, physical weights to create an immense burden on a daily basis, obscene masks to hide a persons visage, maybe the most basic element of social identification. It uses technology & legalism to give itself a constant justified presence in people’s homes and existences, and it uses the media to propagandize, and ultimately it is prepared to use violence to control the rabble when all else fails. The result of this is a society where people can barely exist; no practical ability to exercise free thought, completely disoriented & atomized, and constantly burdened and weakened for no reason but for the sake of it.
Harrison himself is definitely a reactionary character, but I guess maybe a more honest presentation of a reactionary. He’s literally a victim of state violence as a child, taken away from his family & thrown in jail. Facing a life of total repression by the state, he is effectively forced into a position of extremism which, in this very disassociated & atomized society, leads him to a self-aggrandizing ideology due a complete lack of any kind of functional social scape. With no discernible way forward, he looks back to old constructs to try to enable the life he wants to make for himself & others who identify with him. My point being, there are very definite material reasons that lead Harrison to this extreme position, even if he is ultimately wrong; he’s analogous id say to an Islamic insurgent than to something pseudo-fascist.
Idk, maybe this is a generous reading of it, but I feel like more substance is there than some of the other comments on here. And to be fair, you all read this when you were high school; not exactly the age range of analytical mastery.
But the state ideology isn't presented as having any merit at all at any point. What "equality" might mean or how a society might have reached this point are never really explored, nor is it made clear how the existing order benefits anyone, including the state. All the reader gets is a story about the most special boy in history born into an absurd world of pointless, arbitrary tortures.
It’s a short story, and an exceptionally short one at that; you’re doing more with less, and it’s necessary to attempt to unpack it with some good faith, especially considering that’s it Vonnegut. As for the pointless, arbitrary torture that upholds an order that isn’t really “beneficial” to the state beyond holding its power; well, idk how you can’t see the very apparent parallels between that and, well, modern nation states. The characterization of Harrison as “the most special boy in the world” is extremely dismissive & doesn’t consider what the character actually is in the context of the story, and dismisses the piece without analyzing it on its own terms. I reread the story last night; I really don’t see the anti-communism or anti-socialism element of it, it seems much more about power & ideology, and Vonnegut’s own attitudes reflect this. Thinking it’s not a very good short story? Fair enough, I’d agree to a considerable extent, personally I still like it.
to be clear, I think Vonnegut wrote the whole thing as a joke. I think it is a good short story, in that it's funny, and told in so blunt a manner that a critical reader can't take it at face value.
It's cool to read an analysis like this now, thanks for sharing. This kind of stuff is not my strong suit so it's cool to see from other people.