Sunday, April 27, 2014

Was Lem writing about the American healthcare system?

Reading the first fifty pages of “The Futurological Congress,” I felt like I bit off more than I could chew because the storyline was difficult to follow. I felt more at ease reading after Tichy wakes up from his “slumber” many years later because the writing becomes more structured and easy to follow. The shift in writing reflects the loss of chaos in this utopian society that also presents us with a loss of the individual. People sedate themselves with drugs, repressing their real emotions and desires. The loss of the individual is reflected in Lem’s telling of Tichy because we do not get a good sense of him as a character. When I started reading, I kept wondering when I would learn about the protagonist and his inner thoughts, but the plot takes off in a million directions with riots and external chaos.


In this utopian society, there is a quick fix for everything, and nothing comes as a surprise, not even the weather. Lem writes, “Rainbows are possible without rain—there are other ways of producing them” (p. 71). Although it would be convenient to be able to control the seemingly uncontrollable, I don’t think it would be much fun because I like the variety and unpredictability of our natural world, but how natural is our natural world? Look at the American healthcare system, for example. We rely on unnatural drugs to cure our ailments both big and small, much like the people of this utopian society. Lem writes, “One should always use the drug appropriate to the occasion. It will assist, sustain, guide, improve, resolve” (p. 68). Drugs are a quick fix to larger mental health issues and do not always produce the best results for the patient. But doctors are paid more to prescribe drugs than talk to people to find a sustainable healthcare solution that fits their needs. In “The Futurological Congress,” society’s reliance on drugs diminishes human conflict, which we are not seeing today. In the text, society seems complacent with the way things are, but I’m not sure we should be. 

1 comment:

  1. I agree that Lem is criticizing our attitude towards drugs, but I think he does it in a strange way. In the future drug use is common and persistent. Though the strangest thing in the future are the new weaponized chemicals. Traditional chemical weapons are those that disrupt bioligical pathways and lead to a gruesome death. In Lem's future the new weaponized chemicals are those that elicit benevolence and kindness in the victims. The myriad of benignimizers are used against protesters and enemies of the state. That strangest part though is that Americans and attendees of the futurological congress appear to have no regard for human life. So why not use lethal weapons against the threat? I think that the weaponization of euphoic drugs is a metaphor warning against the consequences of drug use and dependence. More specifically, the LTN bombs and other benignimizers stop the protesters from being able to make real change in a world wrought with hunger, thirst, overpopulation, pollution, etc.

    ReplyDelete