Ted Kaczynski, or better known as the Unabomber, was a very interesting individual. From applying to Harvard at 16 and getting his undergraduate there, to completing his PHD at the University of Michigan, and finally working as an assistant professor at the University of California at Berkley, he was a very bright individual. He did have some decidedly unique views on the world, as shown in his disdain for modern society after he left his job at Berkley. Kaczynski moved to a cabin in Montana that had no heat, electricity, or running water—a clear indicator of his hatred of technology. He later began his 17-year-long bombing campaign, which killed 3 and injured 23, and only stopped with the publishing of his manifesto in The Washington Post.
I actually found this work interesting regarding the basis of its message. Essentially, Kaczynski feels like the world has gone downhill since the Industrial Revolution. I do disagree with his critique of certain activist groups, as I feel the ones he named (i.e., Feminist, Animal Rights, Gay, Disability Activists, etc.) have done more good than bad as a whole in society. I feel like if he truly wanted people to agree and resonate with his text, criticizing some of the most popular activist groups at the time was not the way to go about it, but maybe that’s just me. It feels like he’s dismissing certain social issues as unimportant while simultaneously trying to herald his issue as more important, when in reality, most of these issues are interconnected. But that’s a discussion for another time.
I also found his discussion of the issue of “oversocialization” very intriguing. He makes the claim that those who are oversocialized are more likely to be overly influenced by societal pressures and the need to act in accordance with society’s expectations. I feel like this can actually be seen today, with the overwhelming desire to fit in, especially as social media has become the forefront of many social interactions. Often, people feel like they have to fit into certain molds in order to fit in with others, meaning that conformity on the basis of social pressure has become increasingly common in today’s world. Furthermore, I agree with his take that such oversocialization can lead to feelings of shame and inadequacy if one does not meet every single expectation enforced upon them.
Finally, Kaczynski’s definition of freedom stood out to me. He defines it as the ability to be in control of one’s own life, not having the power to control others, but their own circumstances instead. He also mentions the fact that the degree of personal freedom a person has is determined more by economics than it is the laws written by the government. I find myself conflicted with this point, because while I do agree that economics is a very large driving factor in the fact that certain people are afforded more freedoms than others, I also think it comes down to government as a whole as well. Unlike Kaczynski, I think economics and governments go hand-in-hand when determining freedoms, as those with less funds do have less freedom, but the system keeping people poor is the current government we have in place.
Overall, I think that this was a very thought-provoking piece, but I definitely don’t agree with his method of getting his voice heard. I feel like his ideas could have been taken more seriously had he not criticized other social issues, and more importantly, used violence as a means to gain attention and protest against the “industrial society.” Personally, I did find myself sitting with my thoughts as I read this piece, comparing it to current ideologies I see in the world, which I always find fun when a text is able to get me to do that. I think he definitely could’ve been onto something, yet his means of delivery were not forgivable or respectable in any manner.