| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Weslina Hung, The Value of Fear

Page history last edited by Weslina Hung 10 years, 4 months ago

Weslina Hung

11/20/2013

Research Report

The Value of Fear: Toward a Rhetorical Model of Dystopia.

Abstract:

The analysis of Dystopian literature by Rob McAlear proposes a new rhetorical model to categorize Utopias and Dystopias. McAlear differentiates the different types of fear and hope that are utilized by writers to motivate readers for change, or in some cases, stasis. He uses the differences in motivation and purpose to redefine Utopias and Dystopias, and even goes as far as to introduce new categories of Anti-Dystopias and Anti-Utopias. He also notes that the fears or prophecies that dystopian novels warn about must fulfill certain requirements: they must play on reader’s fears of real problems, and that there is a possibility for change. McAlear closes by discussing the close relationship that Utopias and Dystopias share.

Commentary:

Dystopias are “a non-existent society described in considerable detail and normally located in time and space that the author intended a contemporaneous reader to view as considerably worse than the society in which the reader lived,” as described by Lyman Tower Sargent in a lengthy manner. McAlear uses this description to open his article, then highlighting the relationship between the readers and authors.

I think it is interesting that McAlear writes that dystopian writings are an interactive experience; they are written for contemporary readers and play on their fears, involving them in the novel’s situation. They encourage readers to act to create a change in the world. McAlear defines the specific type of fear (anticipatory) that authors appeal to in dystopian writings. Anticipatory fears differ from reactive fears in that anticipatory fears feed off of future possibilities rather than current events. He draws on anti-smoking campaigns as an example; while smokers may not currently experience the symptoms and diseases warned about in the ads, they are motivated to quit smoking because of the future possibility of developing those problems. This is pertinent to our research and theory, because by pinpointing the specific type of appeal to fear that dystopias utilize, we can analyze the societal problems or threats that contemporary readers may have faced.

McAlear highlights the relationship between Dystopias and Utopias, discussing their similarities, differences, as well as interdependence. “Dystopia is what prevents Utopia from becoming spatially totalitarian. It is the possibility of re-describing any system as fearful. This observation also accounts for why Utopian narratives privilege the spatial while Dystopian privilege the temporal.” He claims that Dystopias imply a future Utopia, and that if we are not in a Utopia, then we are in an Anti-Utopia.

McAlear also stresses the importance of the spatial and temporal relativity of Dystopias, Utopias, and Anti-Dys/Utopias. Whereas More’s “Utopia” takes place in a separate spatial realm, yet the same temporal realm, Dystopias focus more on temporal differences, as they are a description of a possible future in the reader’s own world. The article argues that the persuasive aspect of dystopian literatures is its emphasis on creating a future version of the reader’s current world in order to encourage change in the present. This is a temporal, rather than spatial difference between reality and fiction.

Relevance:

This article is quite relevant to our project as part of our project involves a timeline that shows the relationship between historical events and the dystopian novels released around the same time. McAlear confirms our group’s theory that authors of such works are motivated by real-life events and values. We propose that such works are a warning, or perhaps a call to change. The novels we have chosen discuss a wide variety of social problems, each showing a different dystopia with different solutions and fears that contemporary readers can relate to.

At the same time, this article may complicate our research because it redefines Utopias and Dystopias, furthermore creating two additional categories. We may have to redefine some of the works we choose as Anti-Utopias, works that argue against Utopias, rather than Dystopias. The simplest solution would be to redefine our project as a study of Dystopias and Anti-Utopias, as defined by McAlear.

Possible Additional Research:

Michael William Pfau: “Who’s Afraid of Fear Appeals? Contingency, Courage, and Deliberation in Rhetorical Theory”

Frederic Jameson: “The Seeds of Time”

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1phBzpfM74LVPXeCqAH3G4TI-NhS5Qurp8tj3VrW5cB0/edit?usp=sharing (notes on McAlear’s article)

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.