English (Harrison Bergeson)
Kurt Vonnegut’s Equality over Equity: An Outrageous Notion.
Humans have debated and argued about the topic of equality for decades. Yet, people don’t
seem to realize that they are not arguing to reference the notion of equality, and instead, arguing about
equity. The world has since become so secularized that there are stories about how equality over equity
is perceived. In the short story “Harrison Bergeson,” Kurt Vonnegut creates the image of an “equal
society,” giving debaters and arguers what they’d always wanted whilst simultaneously transforming
the perfect vision of a utopia into a brutal, controlled dystopia, whereby Vonnegut ridicules the
societal showcasing of equity over equality.
Firstly, Vonnegut ridicules the prominence of government control in a civilian-dominated
society. Although there is no explicit mention of government control in the story, it is evident that the
figures of authority present in the narrative are in control. Similar to modern-day authoritarian society,
the government can issue commands to civilians to restrain certain impulses that may cause them to
rise above mediocrity. The government has more rights to act out than most citizens. Similar to the
fact that the government holds power over the citizens in “Harrison Bergeson,” the government in
today’s world can change the viewpoints of anyone, preventing believers from “taking unfair
advantage of their brains” (Vonnegut 21). Since there is such a large number of citizens in the story
and today’s society, anyone would think that civilian behaviour can impact how the government
makes its decisions. Clearly, Vonnegut’s argument is relevant as the current education system is under
the regulation of United States government policies, causing certain students with higher SAT scores
to be “handicapped” when applying for prestigious ivy league universities, such as Harvard or Yale.
However, it is ridiculous that the only people who have the might to change anything are either the
rich or the government. The decisions that people in power make can be foolish and unwise,
depending on the impacts these decisions may bring. Vonnegut expresses ridicule toward the
government through the main character, Harrison. By having Harrison rebel against the government,
he conveys the half-wittedness of the government's choice to make everyone “equal.” Therefore,
Vonnegut goes on to illustrate the incompetence of a government attempting to make everyone “equal
every which way” (21). By making all the decisions aimed at achieving equality of outcome, where
citizens must be uncompetitive and mediocre, the government undermines all talent, beauty,
intelligence and superiority. Yet the government is unable to quell the potential of Harrison, despite
its corrupt policy to discriminate against exceptionally talented and sharp people. Ironically,
government officials may think that they can achieve “utopia”, but the reality is the opposite. Thus,
the choices made by governmental figures lead inevitably to societal corruption.
Furthermore, Vonnegut manages to mock extreme egalitarianism by allowing the
Kurt Vonnegut’s Equality over Equity: An Outrageous Notion.
Humans have debated and argued about the topic of equality for decades. Yet, people don’t
seem to realize that they are not arguing to reference the notion of equality, and instead, arguing about
equity. The world has since become so secularized that there are stories about how equality over equity
is perceived. In the short story “Harrison Bergeson,” Kurt Vonnegut creates the image of an “equal
society,” giving debaters and arguers what they’d always wanted whilst simultaneously transforming
the perfect vision of a utopia into a brutal, controlled dystopia, whereby Vonnegut ridicules the
societal showcasing of equity over equality.
Firstly, Vonnegut ridicules the prominence of government control in a civilian-dominated
society. Although there is no explicit mention of government control in the story, it is evident that the
figures of authority present in the narrative are in control. Similar to modern-day authoritarian society,
the government can issue commands to civilians to restrain certain impulses that may cause them to
rise above mediocrity. The government has more rights to act out than most citizens. Similar to the
fact that the government holds power over the citizens in “Harrison Bergeson,” the government in
today’s world can change the viewpoints of anyone, preventing believers from “taking unfair
advantage of their brains” (Vonnegut 21). Since there is such a large number of citizens in the story
and today’s society, anyone would think that civilian behaviour can impact how the government
makes its decisions. Clearly, Vonnegut’s argument is relevant as the current education system is under
the regulation of United States government policies, causing certain students with higher SAT scores
to be “handicapped” when applying for prestigious ivy league universities, such as Harvard or Yale.
However, it is ridiculous that the only people who have the might to change anything are either the
rich or the government. The decisions that people in power make can be foolish and unwise,
depending on the impacts these decisions may bring. Vonnegut expresses ridicule toward the
government through the main character, Harrison. By having Harrison rebel against the government,
he conveys the half-wittedness of the government's choice to make everyone “equal.” Therefore,
Vonnegut goes on to illustrate the incompetence of a government attempting to make everyone “equal
every which way” (21). By making all the decisions aimed at achieving equality of outcome, where
citizens must be uncompetitive and mediocre, the government undermines all talent, beauty,
intelligence and superiority. Yet the government is unable to quell the potential of Harrison, despite
its corrupt policy to discriminate against exceptionally talented and sharp people. Ironically,
government officials may think that they can achieve “utopia”, but the reality is the opposite. Thus,
the choices made by governmental figures lead inevitably to societal corruption.
Furthermore, Vonnegut manages to mock extreme egalitarianism by allowing the
