“Harrison Bergeron” and Wokeness

📓 February 28, 2023 • Updated: March 31, 2025

Today, we’re reading Kurt Vonnegut’s 1961 short story “Harrison Bergeron” in my ENGL 1102 class. It strikes me this time through as a science-fiction allegory where some humans have evolved and perhaps mutated into superior beings, but the current US government passes constitutional amendments to ensure equality. Three amendments codify the ideological aspiration of the Declaration of Independence that reads “all men are created equal”—and if they’re not, they are forced to be through sanctioned handicaps. In essence, then, law maintains a society built around the lowest common denominator so as to not make anyone better (or worse) than anyone else.

Yes, I can see this is as the dystopian hellscape that conservatives see in liberal “wokeness.” Vonnegut’s satire makes this notion of a forced equality absurd and potentially morally dubious. In this system people are punished for being better, forced to live at the level of those least capable: perhaps the logical outcome of a society that gives everyone a trophy for participation, making competition antithetical to social harmony. George Bergeron even associates competition with the “dark ages,” or being unenlightened. The logic, then, is that forced equality eliminates an integral aspect of individuality and the natural competitiveness that excelling at something leads to. I guess I can see that wokeness regarded in such a way could be nightmarish.

At the other extreme, all of this handicapping seems to have the opposite effect on many members of society, Harrison being the primary example. Indeed, he’s like superman forced to wear kryptonite. And this analogy seems very apt, as if the handicaps have accelerated evolution to ironically increase the natural abilities and attributes of many citizens. Harrison has been arrested for an unknown reason, though the text makes it clear that the powers-that-be were threatened by Harrison’s intelligence, strength, and good looks.

                    

Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron” offers more than a satirical glimpse into a dystopian future—it presents a pointed civic argument about the dangers of governmental overreach and the ethical failures of a disengaged citizenry. Interpreted through civic criticism, Vonnegut’s tale becomes a warning about what happens when citizens abdicate their responsibility to question authority and uphold justice.

At the heart of civic criticism is the idea that literature can and often does articulate moral themes that matter not only to individuals, but to the communities in which they live. This tradition goes back to ancient Greece, where Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey were used to teach civic virtues like courage, loyalty, and public responsibility. Similarly, “Harrison Bergeron” dramatizes a loss of these virtues in a society obsessed with a misguided interpretation of equality—one enforced by the authoritarian “Handicapper General.”

In Vonnegut’s imagined 2081, “everybody was finally equal.” But this equality is not moral or civic; it’s physical and intellectual uniformity achieved through state-sanctioned handicaps that suppress beauty, intelligence, and strength. George Bergeron, for instance, wears a radio that emits distracting noises to keep his above-average intelligence in check. His wife Hazel, of average intelligence, can’t hold a thought long enough to question the system. Their passivity is not just personal—it is civic. They do nothing to challenge the regime, even as it murders their son on live television.

Vonnegut uses satire and irony—hallmarks of civic argumentation—to expose this passivity. Hazel tearfully watches the television but forgets what upset her. George questions nothing. Even Harrison, who momentarily rises as a heroic figure, is easily and quickly killed by the government, and his death is met with forgetfulness and apathy. “Forget sad things,” George tells Hazel at the end, and she replies, “I always do.” This exchange encapsulates Vonnegut’s message: evil triumphs not through strength, but through silence.

The story critiques more than just the abuse of power; it condemns the public’s failure to act. Civic responsibility involves “a sense of community,” and characters who “do nothing in response to the presence of evil” are morally culpable. In “Harrison Bergeron,” this civic failure is systemic. Citizens like George and Hazel have been conditioned not just to comply, but to forget. Their lack of memory becomes a metaphor for the erasure of civic engagement.

Vonnegut’s narrative asks us to imagine ourselves as citizens in such a world. Would we recognize tyranny? Would we resist it? Or would we, like George and Hazel, watch with detachment as the state destroys beauty and excellence under the guise of fairness?

In the end, “Harrison Bergeron” exemplifies civic criticism by dramatizing how personal ethics, public institutions, and cultural norms intersect. It reveals the ethical implications of a society that prizes conformity over integrity and exposes the dangers of civic complacency. Vonnegut doesn’t just criticize government oppression; he indicts the public that allows it to happen.

                    

“Harrison Bergeron” serves as an allegory for contemporary debates surrounding “wokeness” and the efforts by some political factions to suppress it. In the story, the government’s imposition of handicaps to enforce equality mirrors current legislative actions aimed at restricting discussions on race, gender, and social justice in educational and public institutions.​

In recent years, several U.S. states have enacted laws limiting the teaching of concepts related to systemic racism and sexism, often labeled under the umbrella term “critical race theory” (CRT). For instance, Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, championed by Governor Ron DeSantis, seeks to prohibit educational content that could make individuals feel discomfort or guilt about past actions by members of their race or sex. Critics argue that such measures stifle open discourse and hinder the pursuit of a more equitable society. ​

The backlash against “wokeness” has extended into cultural and corporate arenas. High-profile figures and organizations have faced criticism for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. For example, activist Robby Starbuck has led campaigns against companies implementing DEI policies, resulting in some corporations scaling back these efforts.

Vonnegut’s narrative underscores the perils of enforced conformity and the suppression of individuality under the guise of equality. Similarly, the current movement to ban “wokeness” can be seen as an attempt to enforce ideological conformity by curtailing discussions on important social issues. This parallel highlights the contemporary relevance of “Harrison Bergeron” as a cautionary tale about the consequences of sacrificing intellectual freedom and critical discourse in the pursuit of a homogenized society.​

“Harrison Bergeron” exemplifies civic criticism by challenging readers to reflect on the balance between equality and freedom. It prompts us to consider the implications of suppressing diverse perspectives and the vital role that open dialogue plays in a healthy, functioning democracy.

---

notes