SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ray bradbury
Radical Curiosity Versus the State
In this moment of disruption, to teach, to write, and to read critically are no longer normative acts expected of rigor and scholarship; they have become, in face of federal bullying, acts of defiance.
Jun 01, 2025
Wherever we turn today, the drumbeats of a foreboding crisis in the country grow louder. It’s telling us that an authoritarian drift is pushing hard against the gates of once-inviolable institutions of democracy, like press freedom, due process, and independent higher education. They are institutions that have long fronted the American brand in the global imagination and have served as invitations to replicate a coveted liberal order whose hinges are now ready to blow.
If the din of apocalyptic warnings is overwhelming, then disengage from all media, store canned foods, and wait for the collapse to pass. But for those unwilling to abdicate critical judgment, there are more generative responses. As worn out as it may sound, it’s useful to seek out story and metaphor again, not as escapism, but as epistemological tools to help us divine the bearing of a crisis whose logic is as erratic as its logic-masters. Dystopian fiction quietly endures as one of the few genres honest enough to envisage the coming shape of our contemporary decline and also show us subversive ways out.
George Orwell is overdone. Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 is not. The sci-fi novel imagines a future in which books are banned, and the “firemen” of society are tasked not with putting out fires but with starting them. They hunt for and incinerate books because they threaten the nation’s purity project, which requires an erasure of key archetypal effects of education: unfiltered understanding of the past; the influence of pastness on the present; how to gaze at possible futures; and how to learn, question authority, and change.
A university that survives only by avoiding discomfort and confrontation is no longer a university; it is a finishing school churning out bureaucrats for the group-think industry.
But at the thematic crux of the novel, there’s a “fireman” who turns against the power structure he loyally served; he becomes an exemplar of radical thinking that rouses an inner rebellion and then outward resistance. At first, the fireman (the knowledge arsonist), Guy Montag, develops a strange curiosity about the contents of books he torches and, soon thereafter, is unable to ignore the uprising festering within.
Montag’s rebellion in Fahrenheit 451 begins not with ideology, but with something more audacious, the reclamation of curiosity as a seditious start of transformation. In the story, there are like-minded underground groups of “book people” who commit to memory outlawed texts and carry them in their minds like sacred relics. The book people become insurgent archivists, radical bearers of culture and literature, who refuse to let fire and epistemic erasure win. Montag’s epiphany was not about resistance in the grand sense. It was smaller, personal, and ultimately more combustible.
Back to real life, we are witnessing a concerted effort to distill national heterogeneity to a single-story perspective that requires, among other things, torching the core purposes of the university. It has come in the form of curricular restrictions, federal scrutiny of university departments in the social sciences and humanities, the surveillance of dissent on campuses, punishing legal public opprobrium, and the unannounced disappearing of student visas. All of these are pursued with threats of financial sanctions.
It extends into language itself. Words, such as diversity, gender, Palestine, genocide, trans, race, intersectionality, settler colonialism, slavery, and regrettably many more are treated as incendiary or soon about to be. So too are symbols—like the black-and-white checkered keffiya, the Muslim hijab, and watermelon pins. These are not random interventions but are part of a supremacy logic designed to narrow what may be safely taught, learned, spoken, or even worn in public.
Like the book people in fiction, the stewards of higher education in the United States are at the frontlines of struggle and resistance. The academic response has been slow but is now accelerating. The campaign to pull government funding from departments, to demand compliance in curriculum, intimidate foreign students, or to criminalize critical language is not a sideshow—it is the main point of authoritarianism.
At a granular level, options exist for faculty who have administrators genuflecting before the bullies. In the sanctity of the classroom, faculty need to double down on teaching students how to be radicals—not in the caricatured sense of rage or rejection, but in the deeper, older meaning: those who fearlessly go to the root. To be radical is to trace the origins of a threat. Not to prune, not to decorate, but to ask: Where is this coming from? What malignant ideology or state covetousness is feeding this descent?
In line with what bell hooks insisted, the classroom remains the most radical space of possibility when it links education to freedom and refuses the myth of neutral knowledge. The warnings are clear: Knowledge stripped of emancipatory intent risks becoming the passive wing of oppression—a handmaiden to the very structures it claims to critique. A university that survives only by avoiding discomfort and confrontation is no longer a university; it is a finishing school churning out bureaucrats for the group-think industry.
The university is under state pressure because, in part, it is an archive of an imperfect past, a seeker of repair, and crucible of dissent. It remains one of the few systems capable of producing decolonized knowers of society.
In this moment of disruption, to teach, to write, and to read critically are no longer normative acts expected of rigor and scholarship; they have become, in face of federal bullying, acts of defiance that refuse to accept that language and curiosity are the property of political power structures.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What We Can Learn From Bradbury’s 70-Year Defense of Democracy
As we head into a new year of momentous choice, we ought to remember that it is the unwillingness to be bothered that Bradbury warns is ultimately responsible for undermining democracy.
Dec 23, 2023
I’ve been out walking on the snowy back roads of Vermont a great deal this December, often accompanied by Ray Bradbury. The author has been on my mind of late and not for the reason that you might expect. As we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the publication of his masterpiece Fahrenheit 451, a number of commentators have remarked that the book’s attention to the perils of censorship, in the form of state-organized book burnings, is powerfully relevant to our own national experience in light of the spate of book bans in schools across America.
There is obvious truth to these observations. But narrow comparisons between Bradbury’s dystopia and our own times that center on censorship fail to capture the chilling prescience of Fahrenheit 451 and its dire warnings about other more insidious threats to our democracy.
As I reflect on a book which I have used so many times over the years in my classroom, it seems to me that it is Bradbury’s ridicule of the politics of superficiality that speaks most directly to us as we prepare to cast our ballots in 2024. In a much neglected passage, Bradbury describes several neighbors discussing a recent presidential election in the protagonist Guy Montag’s home. The guests fixate on the comparative heights of the two candidates, their sartorial choices, and how each combs their hair. There is nary a word of their policy differences.
Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 is not simply a perceptive jeremiad against the social and political dangers posed by technological distraction, it also gives us a path out of our self-induced idiocy.
The similarity of their gruel-like discourse to our own is revealed in our national dialogue about the presumed rematch between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump in 2024. In both television coverage and the conversations I overhear among friends and colleagues, two platitudes dominate. The first is that Biden is just too old, and the second is a wistful hope that both parties would select a different standard bearer. Neither of these remarks demand any meaningful thought from us or the ability to draw distinctions. That Biden is old is obvious to anyone who can count. And the vague longing for alternative candidates seems to me at best a stance of cowardly neutrality in polarized times or at worst a preemptive attempt to deny one’s responsibility for the policies that are enacted after the election.
In a plaintive conversation between Guy Montag and his suicidally unhappy wife Mildred, he asks her, “How long is it since you were really bothered?” We have a grim litany of concerns with which to be truly bothered beyond Biden’s age or our shallow displeasure that a perfect candidate has not appeared. Global temperatures are on the rise, threatening us with flooded cities and unreliable food supplies. Women in the United States are living with the consequences of the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Russia is waging a brutal war of expansion in Ukraine. Inflation still remains stubbornly high. On each of these issues, and countless more, there are serious and stark differences between Biden and Trump. As we head into a new year of momentous choice, we ought to remember that it is the unwillingness to be bothered that Bradbury warns is ultimately responsible for undermining democracy.
What is it that inhibits us from engaging in a more elevated and informed debate about the weighty question of who should sit in the Oval Office? Fahrenheit 451 offers us an answer, though we may be loath to concede that our own habits are making us collectively as vacuous and passive as the inhabitants of this fictional world. Mildred spends her waking hours watching drivel on the large screens or “parlor walls” of her home. By night she slides into a different form of oblivion by way of earbud-like “seashells” that soothingly drown out the necessary noise of her own mental life. How much do our own lives resemble poor Mildred’s existence? Has the incessant pinging of our cell phones and the blaring of music from above as we pump our gas denied us the necessary moments in which to contemplate our values and priorities? Have weekly marathons of binge watching Netflix decisively shifted our focus to amusing or tawdry things and away from the kind of rigorous examination of pressing matters that is demanded of citizens in a republic?
Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 is not simply a perceptive jeremiad against the social and political dangers posed by technological distraction, it also gives us a path out of our self-induced idiocy. Walking. Walking is for Bradbury a revolutionary act. Montag’s epiphany about the meaninglessness of his life occurs while walking in the rain, and the book concludes on a hopeful note with the guardians of our collective literary heritage on foot, following the railroad lines into a better future. Walking, preferably alone and without a phone, offers us a refuge in which to engage in honest dialogue with ourselves. The almost magical merging of motion and quietude creates the conditions for us to wrestle with our values and envision how we wish our society to be. When we return from our rambles, we can then engage in the much disparaged political act of bothering our neighbors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Error 451: A New Dystopian Internet Code With a Very Important Meaning
'If your government does that, it sends a strong message to you as a citizen about what their intent is.'
Dec 22, 2015
A new internet code, Error Code 451, inspired by Ray Bradbury's dystopian writings, aims to alert users when websites are unavailable because the state has censored them.
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), a global body that reviews internet standards, approved the XML specification on Monday, which can be used to alert users when requested content has been blocked by "legal obstacles" that all government censorship. T former Google engineer and co on Monday. The specification suggested the term in 2012 as a reference to Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, a 1953 novel in which books are outlawed and burned--an allegory for state suppression of free speech.
"[A]s censorship became more visible and prevalent on the Web, we started to hear from sites that they'd like to be able to make this distinction," wrote IETF HTTP Working Group chair Mark Nottingham in a blog post last week. "More importantly, we started to hear from community members that they wanted to be able to discover instances of censorship in an automated fashion."
Sites like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and GitHub are often required to block access to their websites in repressive countries like North Korea and Russia or during civil unrest, such as the 2011 protests in Egypt and the 2009 Iranian presidential elections.
"It is imaginable that certain legal authorities may wish to avoid transparency and not only forbid access to certain resources but also disclosure that the restriction exists," Bray told The Verge on Monday.
However, web developers believe it could prove particularly useful in countries like the UK, which in 2012 forced internet service providers (ISPs) to block user access to the torrent site The Pirate Bay. Now, instead of greeting visitors with a vague error code such as 404 for "not found" or 403 for "access is forbidden," ISPs could use 451 to signal government influence.
"In some jurisdictions, I suspect that censorious governments will disallow the use of 451 to hide what they're doing," Nottingham wrote. "We can't stop that (of course), but if your government does that, it sends a strong message to you as a citizen about their intent. That's worth knowing about, I think."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular