Reading "Harrison Bergeron" in the DEI Era

Vonnegut's Dystopian Vision of an "Equal" society

Revisiting Harry Bergeron in the Era of DEI

Kurt Vonnegut’s short story, “Harrison Bergeron”, is a critical exploration of how the degenerative spirit of equality can lead to a dystopia. It takes place in a time where perfect equality has (apparently) been established; the beautiful are masked, weights are fixed to the strong, and sharp bursts of noise are periodically delivered through handicap radios worn in the ears of the intelligent to disrupt coherent thought. The greatest threats to this hyper- egalitarian order are incarcerated, and the draconian measures set in place are enforced by the agents of the Handicap General. Through Vonnegut’s story, readers get a glimpse of a tragic world where equality is the highest virtue.

“Harrison Bergeron” is widely read in American English classes, but for those still unfamiliar, be ready for spoilers ahead. The story introduces us to Gregory and Hazel Bergeron, whose exceptionally gifted child, Harrison, is taken away from them by agents of the Handicap General at the age of fourteen. While in their custody, he is incarcerated and burdened with an array of means meant to reduce his attributes to the level of an average individual. His brilliant intellect is disrupted with a giant radio clamped to his head. His handsome appearance is distorted by a red clown nose, and his perfect teeth are randomly blackened to give them a snaggle-toothed appearance. So many weights are applied to hamper his supreme athleticism that he looks, as Vonnegut describes him, “like a walking junkyard.”

A few years later, Gregory and Hazel Bergeron are watching a ballet on TV. The performance is disrupted by the announcement that Harrison Bergeron, now eighteen, had escaped from prison, where he had been kept for the crime of (allegedly) conspiring to overthrow the government. No sooner had the announcement of his escape is concluded, Harrison himself three open the doors of the auditorium where the ballet is being held. He lumbers to the stage and takes his place at the podium, where he declares himself their emperor. Before his bewildered audience, Harrison effortlessly strips off his handicaps, removing his radio and nose, and snaps off heavy-duty clamps with ease. He then addresses the audience again — he declares that the first woman to stand up would be his mate and empress. When one of the ballerinas rise, Harrison approaches her and gently frees her from her own handicaps, letting her weights and mask fall aside. Without her handicap, the ballerina is “blindingly beautiful.”

Harrison takes her hand, and states, “Now, shall we show the people the meaning of the word, ‘dance’?” He frees the musicians themselves from their handicaps and, –after some “encouragement” – they start to play with sublime elegance. Harrison and the ballerina first just listen to the music and then embrace each other and started to dance. Now unimpeded, their movements epitomize elegance and grace. The awestruck audience looks on, as the two performers exceed the bounds of their imaginations. In their perfect grace, the very laws of physics are shattered, as they drift weightlessly to the ceiling, where they passionately embrace and kiss.

It was not long until this metaphoric display of the transcendent radiance of greatness was cut short. Within moments, the Handicap General, Diana Moon Glampers, burst into the captivated auditorium wielding a ten-gauge, double-barrel shotgun, and gunned down the transcendent couple. She immediately restored order to the scene shortly before the TV transmission cut out. Hazel was crying but forgot why. Gregory simply went into the kitchen and grabbed a beer.

Relevance to Today

Vonnegut’s succinct allegory is a pithy criticism of the so-called value of equality. If we were to update this into present-day terms, it would be more accurate to call this a dystopian vision of what we understand as “equity”. In truth, our contemporary notion of equity is simply re-packaged equality. This is made clear in Vonnegut’s allegory, where extreme measures were made to even the playing field until it was as flat as Florida.

Vonnegut shows us with marvelous simplicity the dysfunctional nature of societies that prioritize equality over excellence. Obviously, hampering the strong with bags of birdshot and disrupting intelligent thought with earpieces demonstrates the sole way whereby competition can be halted, hierarchies can be abolished, and equality can be achieved. No one can raise anyone past their abilities (at least without ramifications that I will discuss shortly), but potential can always be stifled. Hence, the realization of total equality demands the outright neutralization of anything above average. Equality promotes mediocrity, while actively oppressing excellence.

Another ridiculous theme Vonnegut shines a light on is that “equality cultures” actually nurture and promote below-average individuals. It is blatantly anti-meritocratic. This is exemplified by the ineffectual news announcer, who couldn’t read the report that Bergeron had escaped due to a debilitating stutter. Why this person was placed in a position where clear speech was essential is an extreme example of DEI or affirmative action, whereby those with clear impediments that would normally preclude them from an occupation are actually the first selected for the position. Hazel’s remark that the anchorman should receive a reward for trying to read the announcement despite failing, demonstrates the low premium she and society as a whole place on effectiveness and results.

Hazel herself is a glaring example of the absolute worst consequence of a society that aims for equality, worships mediocrity, coddles inadequacy, and persecutes excellence. Vonnegut himself describes Hazel as a person of “perfectly average intelligence”. But is she? Throughout the story, Hazel is either confused, forgetful, or oblivious. She forgets why she’s crying, makes silly, wistful remarks without thinking them through, and when faced with anything that demands the least amount of intellectual capital, she states, “Everything is mixed up in my head.” Hazel isn’t “average”, at least by 2025 standards – she’s a blithering idiot. Hazel subtly exemplifies the ultimate fate of equality cultures – the inevitable degeneration of its populace.

This is why equality, if fetishized as a core principle, is a pernicious vice. Although it cloaks itself in the sacred robes of compassion for the weak and powerless, in practice, it is hostile toward the strong, destructive to intelligence, and inherently caustic. The pursuit of “equality” is decedent, depraved, and hatred incarnate. Only feeble half-wits such as Hazel, and presumably social liabilities like the stuttering anchorman, could ever find peace with it without resignation or foreclosure. This is, of course, because such cultures abolish competition, award achievements without effort, and free them from the shame of inferiority because its opposite has been deemed evil. What can we expect from such societies, other than the eventual devolution and collapse?

Vonnegut’s allegory is a call to reject the pursuit of equality and return excellence to its rightful place in the pantheon of practical values. This is no idle suggestion. History shows that true greatness is rare. Most people live and die with little or no positive impact on their world. Yet some change history. Great individuals unite nations. They spearhead stunning breakthroughs in science and technology. They take our breath away with sublime works of art. Only a truly sinister force would ever seek to encumber this rare and crucial resource, this glimmer of transcendent human potential. We should, therefore, actively oppose the onslaught of today’s smooth-brain egalitarianism and defend excellence as if it were our own children. The future and vitality of our society depends on it.