He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
One against whom there was no official complaint,
And all the reports on his conduct agree
That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a
saint,
For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.
Except for the War till the day he retired
He worked in a factory and never got fired,
But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
Yet he wasn’t a scab or odd in his views,
For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
(Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
And our Social Psychology workers found
That he was popular with his mates and liked a drink.
The Press are convinced that he bought a paper every day
And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.
Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured,
And his Health-card shows he was once in hospital but left it cured.
Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Instalment Plan
And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.
He was married and added five children to the population,
Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his
generation.
And our teachers report that he never interfered with their
education.
Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.
Most of you probably know this poem, so I thought I would give this poem a go. I have always liked it in its Modernistic irony.
The poem recalls dystopic elements of 1984 and Brave New World, where a man has no privacy at all, and is judged by how well he “serves the Greater Community”. The poem is really a critique of the modern world, where concrete statistics reign supreme as measurements of absolute truth (due to our overdependence on science and technology) without taking any account of abstract humanistic qualities, or “the human element”. Technology as an unchallenged necessity is an important assessment of how “normal” the citizen is. He worked for “Fudge Motors, Inc”, “left the hospital cured”, and “had everything necessary to the modern mane, a phonograph, a radio, a car, and a frigidaire”. Many of these agencies use computers to generate their statistics, and even Eugenists and health care agencies use technology in more ways than one.Without technology, there is no way that the government could invade this man’s privacy in such a complete way.
Another assessment for how normal the citizen was is how well he adhered to the statistics put out by the various governmental agencies. He “was popular with his mates”, which is important because of the stress laid out to “serve the Greater Community”. His “reactions to advertisements were normal in every way”, which means he probably bought the proper amount of items (technological in some way probably) to help stimulate the economy, which could also be seen as “serving the Greater Community”. He “held the proper opinions for the time of year”, which means that he probably fell victim to the numerous propaganda techniques put out by the Government, since they fully expect a “normal” person to hold a set opinion at a certain time. The collective “we” used by the speakers reinforces the importance of community to this social model for success. When they assert rather overconfidently (a common side-effect of Modern society’s reliance on science and technology) that they “certainly would have heard if there had been anything wrong”, “wrong” means “incorrect” here, which applies mainly to the realms of mathematics or science. “Wrong” in this context is the opposite of “right” as stated a few lines earlier: that the man had “the right number for a parent of his generation”. This definition doesn’t take into account that “wrong” in the humanities can also mean “not okay” or “out of sorts”; but that would suggest that there are gray areas in life, which there aren’t really, to a computer. The “human element” must be present to understand that aspect of “wrong” in this sense.
This assertion that the speakers “certainly should have heard” is also disturbing because it implies a lack of privacy in this society, which makes sense because of all the governmental permeation into the lives of its citizens. Even the agencies that are reporting have “reports”: “Our report on his Union shows it was sound”. The “Greater Community” is capitalized like the name of God, because of the reverence a “modern” citizen should feel for it. All of these agencies that “report”, “declare”, “show” and “say” to the government what they have found about the “unknown” (also ironic, because while the citizen’s “true” identity is not important, nor are his feelings, his personal values or beliefs, the government knows everything about him as a “citizen” in this society, which realizes him and makes his life worth “researching”) citizen’s life give the impression that it is the collective Government that is speaking. The Government remains far after its citizens have died, and I think that is relevant too. Perhaps this is a fatalistic view of what our society will inevitably become due to the advances in science and technology, and in the creation of all of these departments and agencies within our government. Perhaps also, Auden is challenging our idea of “normal”. If this is all that “normalcy” means, submitting to the Government’s propagandistic agenda, and this is all that remains of a life that was considered “normal”, do we really want to strive for that ourselves?
thelowbrowintellectual 