An analysis of “Harrison Bergeron”: Are you deserving of your luck?
Original artical is posted on: https://www.thenewslens.com/article/183498?source=post_page-----39f17b920a04--------------------------------
Imagine a society where everyone is equal in every way possible, not just before God or the law, but in every aspect of life. This is the society depicted in Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.’s 1961 science fiction short story “Harrison Bergeron”, set in the United States in the year 2081, after the passing of the 211th, 212th, and 213th Constitutional Amendments and the tireless work of the United States Handicapper General. In this society, there are no comparative adjectives: no one is smarter, better-looking, faster, or stronger than anyone else.
One of the focuses of this fiction is the question of whether luck belongs to us and how we should handle the advantages it brings. George Bergeron, the father of the protagonist Harrison, must wear a canvas bag containing 47 pounds of birdshot around his neck to offset his above-average physical strength, as required by the Handicapper General. He also wears headphones that emit various noises at timed intervals to disrupt his thinking, since his higher intelligence is seen as an unfair advantage. In contrast, Harrison’s mother Hazel is an ordinary person with average intelligence and does not need to wear headphones or a lead bag.
Harrison Bergeron, their son, is a born superhuman. He is seven feet tall, handsome, and possesses incredible strength and intelligence. Imagine Thor, but much more powerful and beautiful. In April’s damp cold, when he was only 14 years old, the Handicapper General arrested him on charges of subverting the state and forced him to wear a clownish red nose, shave off his eyebrows, blacken his teeth, wear a lot of metal weights, and wear thick glasses that blur his vision and cause dizziness. His headphones are several times larger than George’s, all because of his extraordinary strength, appearance, and intelligence. Harrison carries 300 pounds, and he looks like a walking junkyard. Even ballet dancers with good dance skills must wear bags containing sashweights, and beautiful ones must wear ugly masks.
George and Hazel were originally watching a ballet performance, but a stuttering announcer suddenly entered the studio and began a news flash. However, he could not complete a sentence. A dancer took over the announcement, her voice gentle and pleasant, but deliberately using a birdlike voice to read the news. The news was that Harrison had escaped from prison! At that moment, Harrison broke in, tore off the chains on his body like tearing up a piece of toilet paper, and with one powerful stomp, shook the studio like an earthquake. He roared, “I am the emperor! Whatever I say, you have to do it!”
He then chose the dancer from earlier to be his queen, and when he removed her mask, he was amazed by her beauty. Harrison asked the orchestra to play music and then took his queen in his arms, leaping into the air! They danced, spun, and twirled, flying up to the thirty-foot-high ceiling, and remained suspended in the air, defying the laws of physics, before sharing a long kiss. Finally, the Disability Bureau arrived and shot them down from the air with a double-barreled shotgun, killing them both.
Reasonable Inequality?
Let me briefly discuss Robert Nozick and John Rawls to see if their arguments can help us answer the question posed by the author.
In the story, possessing good looks, a good physique, and a smart mind become a kind of original sin. However, Harrison did not acquire these advantages through illegal or unethical means, so he should be allowed to reasonably maintain these advantages. If you also think this way, then you have already accepted Nozick’s “justice in initial acquisition.” Whether it is beauty or wealth, or abstract concepts such as power, status, or innate talent, as long as they are not obtained through illegitimate means, individuals have the absolute right to possess them. The rich can enjoy better education and medical resources, invest in real estate and stocks, and their children can explore their interests without worries. Talented athletes can dominate the playing field, suppressing opponents who are less talented and hardworking but cannot compete with them.
Therefore, no one can demand that Harrison sacrifice himself, even for the greater good of achieving an equal society, because his talent can only belong to him. Nozick is one of the representative philosophers of libertarianism, which advocates for individual freedom that is inviolable. Unless Harrison agrees, no one, even the authority of the state, has the right to demand that he use his natural advantages to help others or restrict his talent. Doing so would be an infringement of individual freedom. Harrison’s action of breaking free and flying into the air not only defies the laws of physics but also breaks social norms. This is an embodiment of individual freedom first, symbolizing that individual rights cannot be restricted by any external factors.
However, where did Harrison’s advantage come from? Obviously not from his own effort. People who are superior in talent, family background, or race are already ahead of others in the starting line of life. If the starting line is determined by luck at birth, is this fair? Those who think this way may accept John Rawls’ view of justice.
Although people who are born wealthy, earn high salaries, or have extraordinary talents did not acquire them in an improper way, this does not mean that they deserve to have these advantages, because moral arbitrariness plays an important role. Simply put, it is the accidental luck of birth that determines one’s advantages or disadvantages. Rawls proposes that in a fair society, individuals should have equal opportunities, regardless of their natural abilities, so that they can compete on an equal footing. Therefore, in a just society, individuals should not be rewarded for their natural endowments, but rather for their own efforts and contributions to society.
Sometimes, the apparent results of hard work also have a significant element of luck. For example, a rapper may achieve success in a society that happens to appreciate rap music at the moment. Apart from the effort put into practicing singing, the rapper also needs the society to have a taste for rap music. If they were born in a society that prefers classical music, they might not be successful.
Rawls believes that social goods should be distributed equally, and no one should receive more than others. This may sound similar to Harrison’s situation, but Rawls does not mean to restrict those who have an advantage due to luck. He actually allows for inequality, but with a condition: inequality must benefit the most disadvantaged people in society. For example, if Harrison uses his innate superpowers and intelligence to help the underprivileged, then such inequality can continue to exist without limiting his abilities. If CEOs and high-level executives enjoy high salaries and use the money to buy luxury homes and cars instead of buying books and stationery for underprivileged children, Rawls would reject this type of inequality. This is the second principle of justice in “A Theory of Justice,” the Difference Principle.
The Dark Ages?
In the novel, there is an interesting dialogue between Hazel and George. Hazel hoped that George could take a few birdshots out of the canvas bag around his neck.
“Why don’t you stretch out on the sofa, so’s you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch,” said Hazel. “I don’t care if you’re not equal to me for a while.”
However, George refused, saying, “I don’t mind it. I don’t notice it anymore. It’s just a part of me.” His first reason was the punishment that came with removing the handicaps would be two years in prison and a $2,000 fine. Second, George said, “If I tried to get away with it,” said George, “then other people would get away with it-and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?”
Why is it that George, as a strong individual, is willing to suffer for a more equal society, while Harrison hopes to become the ruler of all? Is the moment when Harrison escapes from prison the beginning of another dark age? Although in reality, there are no superhumans like Harrison who desire to be a king, it is a fact that social backgrounds, innate abilities, and any stroke of good luck are not evenly distributed among all individuals. If achievement is not solely determined by personal choices and efforts, is it fair? Does luck belong to the individual? In a democratic society, the totalitarian rule in 2081 in the novel is the dark age, where state authority restricts individual rights and development. However, when looking at the unequal distribution of luck and how society views luck, we must ask: are individuals in a democratic society also limited by luck? How should we respond? Which is the dark age, 2081 or 2022? Or maybe both?
References
陶宏麟、吳澤玫 (2019)。從效率與公平評估臺灣的大學入學制度改革。人文及社會科學集刊，31(3)，385–426。
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Sandel, Michael J. (2009). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do？ New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
