Master-Slave Rhetoric In Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron

690 Words2 Pages

Kurt Vonnegut once observed, “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be” (“Kurt Vonnegut Quotes”). In his writings on the self, philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel expresses a very similar sentiment. Therefore, it is no great surprise that an interesting example of Hegel’s Master-Slave dialectic is found in Kurt Vonnegut’s classic short story “Harrison Bergeron.” Vonnegut’s story is set in a dystopian future where, after the passage of “the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution” “everybody [is] finally equal” (7). Equality is realized by suppressing natural gifts, such as athletic prowess or great intelligence. The eponymous character is singularly gifted and, as a result, is burdened with the most …show more content…

Hegel asserts that the self is not innate and is, instead, socially constructed. He proposes a process, or struggle, wherein selves are realized, and this is called the Master-Slave dialectic. In the instance of Vonnegut’s story, Diana Moon Glampers, the government official charged with enforcing equality, would be the character most approximate to the Master from Hegel’s dialectic, but, more importantly, Harrison plays the role of the Slave. As much is obvious considering the power or lack thereof of each character—Moon Glampers welds great institutional power whereas Harrison is a relatively powerless outcast. (The tragic conclusion of the story makes clear that Harrison’s extraordinary individual strengths are ultimately no match for the will of the state.) Harrison, like the Slave Hegel describes, would realize his identity and, therefore, find his rightful place in society through labor, that is, purposeful application of his singular talents. Unfortunately, Harrison is a frustrated Slave and is deprived of such an opportunity because of the government’s misguided pursuit of absolute

Open Document