What are the implications of the opening sentence, "The year was 2081, and everyone was finally equal" (7)? What happened? Are capitalism and American democracy dead? Did Soviet-style totalitarianism finally prevail? What does the elimination of advantages, difference, and competition suggest concerning the nature of the changes that have taken place?

This story goes over 70 years into the future and gives a version of what the world will be like. The government enables a way of living that creates complete equality to a very extreme extends. There is no such thing as competition. Capitalism and American democracy do not exist. Soviet style totalitarianism completely dominates. Everyone becomes equal and does whatever the government tells them to do. The way people are forced to live is completely cruel and inhumane. By eliminating any advantages and differences between people it causes people to live as robots. No thought, no real emotion, nothing. As one who lives in society where differences are embraced, these changes seem dreadful, and no one in the right mind would want to live under them. These people, unfortunately, don’t know any better, and are told that competition is bad. Fortunately, we know better.


Are such changes impossible under American capitalism or are they likely results of just such a system? What human tendencies underlie the sort of world described by Vonnegut? Are these the end results of the progressive spread of middle class greed, envy, and pettiness (the character of, for example, the shoppers in Updike's "A&P")?. What does the experience of America in the late twentieth century suggest? What does the popularity of shows like Oprah's and Rosie O'Donnell's hint at? Why are such figures role models? What is given center stage in such shows? What about Barbie dolls redesigned to look more like "real" people? How about certain trends in elementary/secondary and even higher education (e.g. grade inflation)? What of practices in organized sports for youth such as giving equal playing time regardless of ability, of not keeping score (and acting as if one didn't know what the score was); of giving medals to players on teams regardless of how they finished in their league?

I believe that changes like this are impossible under American capitalism. We thrive on competition here in America, and I don’t think anyone would agree on letting everything be equal. Humans all have a competitive side, or a side that thrives to be different from others. Although in this story all people are suppose to be equal, human tendencies would create people to want to be individuals, even though they wouldn’t be aloud to be. In a way though, people wish we were all equal, Vonnegurt just takes this to an extreme. In a way, this way of life, to an extent, could be the result of the spread of the middle class. This extreme, clearly, would not happen, but as middle class people grow more jealous and greedy they yearn to be equal to everyone else, and as it is progressively spreading, this means they will have more power. In the late twentieth century, it is suggested that we embrace differences, not repel them like shown in this story. By noticing the popularity of talk shows like Oprah and Rosie O’Donnell, we become even more aware of our societies accepting of differences. Rosie, being a homosexual woman, and Oprah, being an African American woman, do not fit into the stereotypical mold of the American society. These woman are role models because they do not fit the norm, and they prove its okay to be different, and embraces that and talking about it is given center stage in these shows. It shows that we, as Americans, appreciate diversity, and are not interested in everything being alike. Another example is the fact that Barbie dolls are now being formed to look like real people. We are not all 7 feet tall, Caucasian, blonde, blue-eyed, DDD cup, and gorgeous women. Barbie’s are more realistic when they all look different, and it creates a better image for children playing with them. If we were all the same intelligence, there would never be a cure for any diseases, or new inventions that could be life changing because no one would have the chance to create them. Going through school all at the same intelligence would be pointless, and it wouldn’t push anyone to be successful in life. In a way, it’s important to keep children somewhat equal. Equal playing time in sports can be seen as a good thing, because kids should not be forced to be competitive at such a young age. In a way, equality in sports is only hindering those who are talented. They should be rewarded for being skilled. As proven, equality should exist in some situations, but a happy medium needs to be found. Differences also need to embraced, not shunned
What are the functions of the agents of "the United States Handicapper General" (7)? What threats to society do such agents combat? What political processes could lead to such absurdities? How is radical mediocrity achieved and enforced?

The “Handicapped General” is in charge of making every equal. Some sort of handicap brings down any advantage someone has. Society will become completely boring and strip everyone of who they really are. God gives people gifts for a reason, and for these gifts to be taken away is ridiculous. In communist counties, some governments try to control their people. A process like making everyone wear the same physical attire is an example of this. Radical mediocrity is enforced by government and laws, and furthermore achieved from the threat of consequences.

What actual developments, policies, trends involving government-enforced equalizing, "handicapping," in America might Vonnegut be parodying in "Harrison Bergeron"? What conceptions of equality motivate such policies and trends?

An example of government-enforced handicapped is security in airports. We are all treated equally, as though we are all terrorists and are threats to society, even though a very small number of us are. Harrison is proving that we are all different people so we should all be seen as different. It’s important not to discriminate and that’s why this is present, but it’s also not to falsely accuse someone of something, and when going through security measures, everyone feels like a criminal.

How is the conception of equality related to basic forms of commercial life such as the commodity and money and the social roles of buyer, seller, and wage-laborer? (Consider what Marx observes about equality and simple commodity circulation on p. 291.) Do capitalist social forms inevitably produce tension around equality by spreading an anti-aristocratic ideology of equality, egalitarianism, that can provoke movements for social equality such as the civil rights movement or the feminist movement, while at the same time continually creating inequalities (at least of income and wealth)? Might the reliance in the story on the government to enforce equality point to such an irresolvable tension?

The flow of money throughout our economy is an equal cycle through the buyer, seller, and wage-laborer. No one person has an advantage over another. It differs from the story, though, because there is competition in the market, and the key to this story is in creating equality with no competition among people. Capitalist forms create a more realistic sense of equality. We should all start out equal, just like in the market system, but there should be competition and room to succeed. We should all be able to be individuals, and if some are not allowed to do this, they will revolt. It’s therefore important to start off and make sure it is known that everyone is equal, but to allow for individualism and advancement through successes. Yes, the reliance in the story on the government on enforcing authority points at this irresolvable tension.




Former U.S. Senator from Nebraska Roman Hruska was (in)famous for saying, during the hearing for a poorly regarded (and ultimately unsuccessful) nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court: "Well, mediocrity should be represented in the Court, too." How does that sort of thinking relate to what Vonnegut's getting at with this story?

The idea of mediocrity in the Court means that everyone should be equal. Within the Supreme Court, there are definite figures of authority and anyone in this role would not support the idea of mediocrity. Senator Hruska relates to what Vonnegut is portraying in his story but trying to make everyone equal, but as people did not respond well to him, they would no respond well to the methods used in this story either.

How are George and Hazel Bergeron described? What sort of life do they lead? What is Vonnegut parodying here? What does the story warn against? To what extent do television, radio, and the mass media generally function like George's mental handicap radio? (Consider Neil Postman's observation in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: "this ensemble of electronic techniques called into being a new world-a peek-a-boo world, where now this event, now that, pops into view for a moment, then vanishes again. It is a world without much coherence or sense; a world that does not permit us to do anything; a world that is, like the child's game of peek-a-boo, entirely self-contained. But like peek-a-boo, it is also endlessly entertaining" (77). "Infotainment" did you say?

George and Hazel are described as equal to everyone else. Each person could not have individuality. Although George is smart, he has been “handicapped” to bring him down to the level of everyone else. They are both average looking people. They lead a very boring life because everyone in society is alike. They can’t think for themselves, or have their own opinions. Vonnegut is parodying the government trying to control us and telling us what to think and how to act. The story warns against dictatorship and government control going to far. Media tells us what they want us to hear. In a way, this is the same as the handicaps that are placed on people in Vonnegut’s story. It regulates what people hear and what people know.


Why is Harrison Bergeron such a threat to society? How old is he? How has he been "handicapped"?

Harrison Bergeron is a threat to society because he does not agree to follow the ways of the government. He realizes that differences are important and in this realization, attempts to overthrow the government. He is only 14 years old, but proves to be smarter and braver than everyone else in the world. His handicaps were placing weight on him because he was athletic, putting a clown nose on him and shaving off his eyebrows to make him look ugly oppose to his normal good looking self and putting earphones on him that send sound waves so his train of thought gets interrupted.


What is the significance of the real Harrison suddenly appearing on the TV set where his escape from prison was being reported? Why does he repeatedly say, "I am the Emperor!" (11)? Is Vonnegut suggesting a return to feudalism and its aristocratic political institutions? Is this similar in some way to the case of Ellison's protagonist on the stage of the Bingo game?

The significance is to show him as being an individual as different, and breaking the mold of everyone else. He says “I am the Emperor” because it falls under his plan of other throwing the government. He is saying that now he is in charge. No, I do not believe that Vonnegut is going to the extent of suggesting a return to feudalism. Yes I believe it is somewhat similar.


What is Harrison trying to accomplish? Can his actions be compared to those of Sammy in Updike's "A&P"? (Harrison says "I shall now select my Empress!" while Sammy chooses his "Queenie"). What different sets of values clash in these cases? How are the young pitted against the old? How does the motif of the rescue of the 'damsel in distress' translate in socioeconomic terms? What is suggested concerning the ownership of the means of (re)production?

Harrison is trying to accomplish an overthrow of the government. He can definitely be paralleled to Sammy in “A&P” because Sammy tries quits his job to prove a point the authority in the story. Both characters are also looking for an ally in their mission and that’s why they both pick a female to stand by their side. In both cases the main characters are trying to be different, but in the case of Sammy he doesn’t try and overpower the authority, he just stands up to it whereas Harrison is violent and tries and takes over. In both stories the young prove to be braver and more like “heroes” than the old people. Both stories have the main character rescuing the female from society, and this is very stereotypically true in society, that there is always a female waiting to be rescued. This suggests that the male, or dominant character, is always aware that he needs a female in his plan, because that’s the only way he can continue the trend of being different/ By reproducing more like himself he can succeed in this.


What is the significance of Harrison telling the musicians, "I'll make you barons and dukes and earls" (12)? What different values underlie such ennoblement? What role do beauty and aesthetics play in Harrison's rebellion?

It means that they will be rewarded for embracing their differences. The value of individualism would be a motive for this ennoblement. Harrison wants those who are beautiful to be able to show it. Harrison convinces people to take off their masks and whatever else is making them physical unattractive and let them be their self. He believes that people should be able to be comfortable with their appearance, and if they are beautiful, that should also be pleasing to others to look at.


What is the meaning of Harrison's and the ballerina's flight-like dance and kissing? What is meant by the statement, "not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well" (12)?

It means that the government was tying them down and for a couple seconds they were given the chance to be free. They were, for a moment, living in a world with no boundaries. They were not restricted by anything, and were able to be free in every aspect. It’s a great symbolism to how much the government was affecting their life and holding them down.


What is the meaning of Harrison and the ballerina being shot down by Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General? What are the suggestions of her name? What ethos is conjured by the mythological associations of the Greek goddess Diana and the moon (e.g. virginity, coldness, sterility). How is the figure of Ms. Glampers similar to that of the manager, Lengel, in A&P?

The meaning goes back to the power of authority. They had a chance to rebel and be free for only a moment, and then, soon enough, they got caught. It means you cannot get away with anything, or cannot try and be greater than the authority figure. Her name suggests that she is in charge, and has all the power. Telling the story of the Greek goddess really connects to the reader’s emotions because it makes us feel for the innocence of all the people living in this horrible society. The two characters in this story and “A&P” are similar because they are the ones in power, and prove to have almost no emotion to the rest of the world.


Why does Hazel Bergeron forget what she is crying about? How is this similar to, for example, the case of Mrs. Gradgrind in Dickens's Hard Times? What is the meaning of the last words of the Bergerons, "that one was a doozy" (13)?

She forgets what she is crying about because society has made her into a robot. She is not allowed to have any intelligence or emotion, so when an ounce of either is shown, it is shot down. The last words “that one was a doozy” are showing how equal everything has become in this society. They cannot even experience real life situations, and do not understand how difficult, and at the same time awesome, the world can really be. She meant that one was tough, but little does she know what real life is like.


What's striking about Vonnegut's story is its hyperbole: equality is enforced in every identifiable respect. What are the appropriate limits to ensuring equality and why?

The extent of enforcing equality in this story is to a ridiculous extreme, but in real life, a happy medium needs to be found in enforcing equality. We should make sure everyone is given an equal opportunity for everything, but once that playing field is level, it’s important to have competition and opportunity to succeed. Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest should be evident in society. We should not create inequality for things that people cannot control, but for advantages over other people that are gained, it is completely acceptable.