Singularity of Capitalism: An Enquiry into the Cold War as a US
Project and a Reading of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 (1953)
Jiro MORISHITA*

Abstract
This paper elaborates on the intricate relationship between the Cold War and capitalism to show the Cold War
is not a geopolitical confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union after World War II, but US-backed
antitotalitarian warfare that represents capitalism as democratic and castigates its enemies as totalitarian byutilizing the apolitical nature of capitalism. The integration of capitalism into discussions on the Cold War
clarifies antitotalitarianism, which had remained opaque due to the fact that previous studies like Leerom
Medovoi’s and Reiichi Miura’s have conducted the investigation into antitotalitarianism only in light ofliberalism. A close reading of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 (1953) helps to substantiate the argument that
the Cold War politics of antitotalitarianism is the capitalist class struggle. While many critics have valorized
Fahrenheit for its depiction of anti-conformism, this paper argues that Fahrenheit inadvertently criticizes
antitotalitarianism by alluding to its totalitarian nature and bifurcating impact, which are byproducts ofcapitalism.

Keywords : Cold War, Totalitarianism, Liberalism, Capitalism, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451

INTRODUCTION: THE COLD WAR AS A US PROJECTThe Cold War is generally remembered as “the global struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union fromthe late 1940s to the late 1980s.” 1 ) According to this understanding, the Cold War refers to military confrontations
manifested in such warfare as the Korean War and the Vietnam War; the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolutionof the Soviet Union in 1991 signaled the end of the Cold War. However, the problem of this understanding is that it cannot
explain the relevance of and the unceasing interest in the Cold War well into the early twenty first century. George W. Bush’s
castigation of religious fundamentalism for “follow[ing] in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism,” therepresentation of Donald Trump’s administration as totalitarian, and Joe Biden’s public denunciation of Russia’s invasionof Ukraine in 2022 resonate with the Cold War discourse of democracy vs. totalitarianism2); prominent university presses
keep publishing books on the Cold War, e.g., Uncertain Empire (2012), American Literature and Culture in an Age of Cold
War (2012), and Neocolonial Fictions of the Global Cold War (2019).3) It seems that the Cold War “has metamorphosedfrom a punctual event into an existential state.”4)This paper contends that the Cold War is more than armed conflicts between the two superpowers after World War II.
As Louis Menand argues, the Cold War is “about ideas, and ideas in the broadest sense—about economic and political
doctrines, civic and personal values, modes of expression, philosophies of history, theories of human nature, the meaningof truth.”5) Put it differently, the Cold War is a struggle over what Harry S. Truman called “alternative ways of life” in aspeech said to declare the Cold War.6) Ultimately, it takes the form of what Leerom Medovoi terms as “antitotalitarianism.”7)
It suffices to say that antitotalitarianism produces the dichotomy between freedom of democracy and oppression of＊

香川高等専門学校高松キャンパス一般教育科

151

独立行政法人国立高等専門学校機構香川高等専門学校研究紀要14(2023)

totalitarianism, and it goes without saying that the American way of life signifies the former, whereas the non-American
ways of life, such as fascism and socialism, portend the latter. Since antitotalitarianism refers to “struggles between systems,
ideologies, or ways of life,” armed conflicts figure not as principal means for the Cold War but as the last resort, the use ofwhich is always justified as defending freedom and democracy.8)
The Cold War is not only anti-communist conservatism and militarism exemplified by McCarthyism and containment
either. As prominent scholars of contemporary American literary and cultural studies, such as Medovoi, Andrew Hoberek,
and Steven Belletto, have agreed on,9) the Cold War also participates in liberationist politics on a global scale involving theThird World in which the US “presented itself as the only reliable model for achieving national self-determination” andcondemned newly independent nations that followed the Soviet Union as taking “the road to a second serfdom.”10) The
outreach to newly independent nations through anti-colonial rhetoric caused a domestic ramification that materialized in“the figure of the young rebel.”11) Young rebels who ascertain self-determination by defying the social norm are praised
during the Cold War with a view to resolving the postwar discrepancy between “a Cold War political imaginary thatenvisioned the United States as democratic, self-determining, and agential, and a Fordist economic order whose system ofmass consumer standardization posed a threatening contrary national appearance.”12) Anti-conformism is, therefore, Cold
War liberationist discourse applied to the domestic sphere. In summary, the Cold War refers to US struggles to establish
itself as “leader of the free world” by utilizing the liberationist discourse both at home and abroad, and therefore, I adopt
Anders Stephanson’s definition of the Cold War as “a US project” for the title.13)
What follows in this article elaborates on what constitutes the American way of life and what enables the US to present
itself as a guardian of freedom and democracy. Section I deals with the meaning of Americanness, defines it as a nation ofliberalism and capitalism, and explicates the association between these features and antitotalitarianism. Here, this paper
focuses more on capitalism than on liberalism in clarifying this association, and this investigation is necessary because
previous studies have analyzed antitotalitarianism only from the perspective of liberalism. Medovoi’s “Global Society Must
be Defended” (2007), “Dogma-Line Racism” (2012), and “The Race War within” (2012) as well as Reiichi Miura’s“Empire of Liberalism” (2013) scrutinized antitotalitarianism 14 ); however, as this paper shows by reviewing Miura’s
argument, founding their investigations on Michel Foucault’s biopolitics unwittingly downplays the significant role playedby capitalism in the Cold War and reduces the Cold War to a cultural phenomenon due to Foucault’s reliance on liberalism
for theorizing biopolitics. If biopolitics refers to politics of liberalism that is “not so much the imperative of freedom as the
management and organization of the conditions in which one can be free,”15) capitalism must be taken into account, sinceliberalism’s call for freedom manifests itself on capitalist social relations. The main contention in this paper is that the
singularity of capitalism as a mode of production, i.e., the dominant role of economy over politics in social management,
activates antitotalitarianism, which naturalizes the American way of life and totalitarianizes its enemies. In a word, the Cold
War is the capitalist class struggle that represents capitalism as democratic and denounces any other politics as totalitarianby exploiting its seemingly apolitical character. Only with this interpretation can people understand the persistence andubiquity of the Cold War rhetoric even after the disappearance of its material underpinnings.
Section II closely reads Ray Bradbury’s novel, Fahrenheit 451 (1953), and examines the ambiguities ofantitotalitarianism. 16 ) Since the Cold War engages with ideas, cultural products including literature are “an important
battleground.”17) As Belletto argues, the Cold War involves “a war of words, a rhetorical game during which ideologicalsystems claimed not only moral supremacy but indeed the better purchase on ‘objective reality.’”18) This in turn means“language itself became politicized in unusual ways, since ideologies—articulated through language and image—shaped
what could count as reality.”19) One has only to recall the fact that CIA funded the Congress for Cultural Freedom topropagate a specific kind of literature and literary practice—modernism and the new criticism respectively—that prioritize
individual achievement over collective welfare.20) Being attentive to the unusually politicized language helps to clarify theways in which antitotalitarianism unfolds. Furthermore, the close reading of Fahrenheit reveals the negative implicationsof antitotalitarianism: while presenting capitalism as free and democratic, the Cold Warriors adopt a different kind of
population control, and while capitalism eradicates political unfreedom, it establishes economic oppression instead.
The investigation into the Cold War in relation to capitalism is relevant to the early twenty first century, since we are152

Jiro MORISHITA : An Enquiry into the Cold War as a US Project and a Reading of Ray Bradburyʼs Fahrenheit 451 (1953)

still living under the shadow of antitotalitarianism. Neoliberalism, a project to achieve “the restoration or reconstruction of
the power of economic elites,” shares with antitotalitarianism the faith in market fundamentalism. 21 ) Postmodernism
questions “the universal and totalizing in the name of the local and particular,” just as antitotalitarianism views anything
political as totalitarian. 22 ) Consequently, postmodernism has transformed the class-based left politics into “an antiauthoritarian Left whose micropolitics embraced Difference as a slogan.” 23 ) Combined together, neoliberalism andpostmodernism culminate in a situation where the oppressed, while suffering from massive inequality, do not resort topolitics but retreat from politics and ascertain their cultural identities as revolutionary acts. If this situation resembles ourpresent predicament, it is critical to understand the antitotalitarianism of the Cold War that induces the disappearance ofpolitics by labelling any political act as totalitarian and making capitalism the only mode of production in society.
1. ANTITOTALITARIANISM AND SINGURALITY OF CAPITALISM
The Cold War is a US project of antitotalitarianism through which the US presents the American way of life as the only
path to freedom and others as a road to slavery. Our next task is to delve into what part of the US makes antitotalitarianism
possible. In order to do so, we begin with an analysis of what constitutes the American identity.
Given the predominance of Americanness in Cold War discourse, it is understandable that the postwar era saw studiesof the American character become “a leading growth sector of the knowledge industry, and almost the reason for being of
the new discipline (or disciplinary holding company) of American Studies.”24) Various answers were presented, although
they all, more or less, pointed to a nation charged with capitalism and liberalism, the combination of which the Cold War
designates as “liberal democracy.”25) Cindy Aron writes:
During the 1950s consensus historians . . . maintained that what distinguished the history of the United States
was the absence of feudalism, the strength of a liberal tradition, the weakness of aristocracy, the limits ofworking-class discontent, and the failure of socialism. Implicit in such an explanation was the belief that conflictin America did not stem from disagreements between economic classes and that, in some unexamined but
fundamental way, Americans were all middle class.26)
America imagines itself as a specific kind of capitalist society, one interpreted through the lens of liberalism, and no one
would deny that America has been influenced by capitalism since its foundation. However, as the century-long persistenceof progressivism—a liberalism-infused political philosophy that views big business as an obstacle to liberal democracy anddemands anti-trust enforcement persistently—indicates, America has never condoned the capitalist tendency toward
concentration and plutocracy.27) Liberalism supposes that capitalism is a decentralized mode of production in which people
are all middle class. Middle-class status is defined by “the ownership of small property” and each being entitled to small
property realizes free competition in level playing fields.28) Ideal Americans are “the isolated individual” fighting alone in
the wilderness.29) Their asocial trait explains why the concept of innocence and the imagery of frontier foregrounded by R.
W. B. Lewis’s The American Adam and Henry Nash Smith’s Virgin Land, respectively, were prominent in formulating theAmerican identity during the 1950s.30)
People’s vicissitudes depend solely on their creative ingenuity and business acumen, and this culminates in the ideal ofself-made man and the rags-to-riches mythology. This meritocratic free competition is thought to bring about two kinds ofbenefit: it enacts the best distribution of resources and contributes to character development. It is worth emphasizing thatliberalism’s call for free-market economic policy stems not only from economic considerations but also from moral
reasoning that dictates “for men in the era of classic liberalism, competition was never merely an impersonal mechanism
regulating the economy of capitalism, or only a guarantee of political freedom. Competition was a means of producing free
individuals, a testing field for heroes; in its terms men lived the legend of the self-reliant individual.”31) In this sense,
liberalism comes closer to religion than to economic policies, whose conviction is that “economic life, quite as much as
religious life, ought to provide a machinery for the disciplining of character.”32) One might attribute this strong work ethic
to Protestantism; however, it must be acknowledged that liberalism contains religious quality within itself. In essence,
American tradition is liberal democracy, and it refers to capitalism imagined by liberalism, where the decentralized
environment makes all the population the middle class of small-property owners, and the equality of opportunity enables

153

独立行政法人国立高等専門学校機構香川高等専門学校研究紀要14(2023)

people to enjoy the American Dream of upward mobility. This is the best society imaginable because competition in levelplaying fields contributes not only to efficient redistribution of resources but also to character development. Only in freemarket society can prosperity and morality be secured.
The US is a nation of capitalism imagined by liberalism; however, the question remains why the US can fashion itself
as the guarantor of freedom and democracy in the Cold War politics of antitotalitarianism. In order to understand themechanism of antitotalitarianism, it is important to define totalitarianism. Although Mussolini was the first one to use theconcept of totalitarianism to describe his regime’s practices, it was not until 1951 that the publication of Hannah Arendt’s
The Origins of Totalitarianism made the concept an integral part of Cold War politics.33) According to Arendt, totalitarianregimes epitomized by Nazism and Stalinism seek “total domination of the total population of the earth” by “eliminating . . .
spontaneity itself as an expression of human behavior” and “transforming the human personality into a mere thing.”34) The
eradication of the right to self-determination stems from the fact that totalitarian regimes concentrate political power in thehands of “the Leader,” who strictly regiments people’s lives.35)
As Menand points out, this interpretation of totalitarianism may well make people wonder “whether totalitarianism isjust another form of dictatorship, which is an ancient and recurrent type of political regime, or a phenomenon unique to thetwentieth century.”36) This paper considers totalitarianism a unique phenomenon since the mid twentieth century, not in that
totalitarianism represents a special kind of despotism, but in that its conception revolves around the notion of ideology.
Arendt defines “[i]deologies” as “isms which to the satisfaction of their adherents can explain everything and every
occurence [sic] by deducing it from a single premise.”37) Ideologies are the real culprit for totalitarianism because thisuniversally explaining device “destroys man’s capacity for experience and thought just as certainly as his capacity foraction.”38) In other words, “the Leader” of a totalitarian regime demands of its population complete obedience to theirideology, since it is flawless. Arendt views totalitarianism as atrocious not for violence against corporeal bodies but forpsychological damage.
Miura’s “Empire of Liberalism” investigates the relation between ideologies and the Cold War, and clarifies why the
US was able to wage the antitotalitarian war. His dissertation is focalized through the concept of what he states as “ColdWar liberalism,” upon which antitotalitarianism—“biopolitical containment” in Miura’s term—is based.39) Miura argues
that the most characteristic feature of Cold-War liberalism is its paradoxical quality: “liberalism, being a principle of thegovernment of a nation, should never be seen as a form of ideology.”40) Liberalism is a special kind of ideology that signifies
freedom from any political thought:
It is in this Cold-War dichotomy between liberalism and communist totalitarianism that the essence of liberalism
is defined as the primacy of freedom and, furthermore, that liberalism is regarded not as a form of ideology oreven an idea that informs how to govern a society but as simply lacking in such matters. In the Cold-War
criticism of the communist regime, liberalism does not look like a type of political idea, but rather freedom frompolitical ideas: whatever political idea a nation may choose, a nation-state that is governed thoroughly by one
political ideal is going to be totalitarian.41)
What is at stake in the Cold War is not the kind of ideology that a certain society internalizes, but whether it is political ornot. If politics refers to “the concrete mode of distribution involving a power struggle between organized groups todetermine the allocation of privilege,” any political idea interferes with individual freedom to some degree, and this meansthat Cold War politics considers any politics to be totalitarian.42) Communism is totalitarian not because it actively intervenes
in economy to the detriment of the capitalist class, but because it is governed by a political idea that explains everything
through logical deduction. The US is exempted from this accusation because Cold-War liberalism that governs theAmerican society is interpreted “not as a form of ideology, but as freedom from ideology.”43) Paradoxical as it may sound,Cold-War liberalism is an ideology that signifies the absence of politics.
Miura’s argument on Cold-War liberalism and its relation to the conception of totalitarianism provides a critical insight
into the Cold War with which we proceed: antitotalitarianism refers to depoliticization of the American way of life andhyper-politicization of others. However, Miura does not answer why Cold-War liberalism can perform depoliticization, but
describes the historical situation in which Cold-War liberalism presents itself as a lack of ideology. Therefore, it is our task154

Jiro MORISHITA : An Enquiry into the Cold War as a US Project and a Reading of Ray Bradburyʼs Fahrenheit 451 (1953)

to probe what is behind the depoliticization. Since Miura analyzes the Cold War in terms of liberalism, we are going toapproach it from the other side of Americanness—capitalism. Since the liberal utopia of meritocracy is predicated on freemarket capitalism, one must discuss capitalism when they talk about liberalism.
While there are various analyses on capitalism, the most relevant part of capitalism in relation to Cold War politics is
its ostensibly apolitical character. Rosa Luxemburg writes:
Here [In capitalist society], it is no despotic interference with the economic plan that is responsible for thedifficulties in the process of production. Quite apart from all technical conditions, reproduction here depends on
purely social considerations: only those goods are produced which can with certainty be expected to sell, andnot merely to sell, but to sell at the customary proﬁt. Thus, proﬁt becomes an end in itself, the decisive factor
which determines not only production but also reproduction. Not only does it decide in each case what work is
to be undertaken, how it is to be carried out, and how the products are to be distributed; what is more, proﬁt
decides, also, at the end of every working period, whether the labour process is to be resumed, and, if so, to what
extent and in what direction it should be made to operate.44)
Luxemburg argues that, theoretically speaking, capitalist reproduction is governed solely by the profit motive as opposedto the political ideal, which makes capitalism differ “from all other known forms of production.” 45 ) In other words,
capitalism is distinguished by “the fact that class domination does not rest on ‘acquired rights’ but on real economic
relations—the fact that wage labor is not a juridical relation, but purely an economic relation.” 46) This singularity ofcapitalism provides political freedom and guarantees the right to self-determination and formal equality among its citizens.
Here, we can observe the crux of antitotalitarianism: the dominant role of economy that capitalism adopts for social
management helps capitalism to depoliticize itself and present itself as the provider of freedom and democracy while
totalitarianizing any other mode of production, irrespective of their political goals.
The Cold War politics of antitotalitarianism makes the concept of politics all but disappear, and now that any political
act is totalitarian, it is difficult to wage political struggles against capitalism. No sooner does one challenge capitalism thanthe Cold Warriors respond to the accuser with a slander totalitarianism. As a result, the sense of ending looms large over acapitalist society. This sense is not apocalyptic, but it refers to “the end of ideology” in which “the total transformation ofsociety” has lost its appeal.47) At this point, capitalism is part of nature, and this naturalized status of capitalism makes evenuttering the word capitalism an anti-capitalist act for betraying the political dimension of capitalism.
Still, no matter how hard capitalism tries to represent itself as apolitical, it is nothing but politics. Karl Polanyi highlights“the institutional nature of a market economy” as follows:
The crucial point is this: labor, land, and money are elements of industry; they also must be organized in markets;in fact, these markets form an absolutely vital part of the economic system. But labor, land, and money are
obviously not commodities; the postulate that anything that is bought and sold must have been produced for saleis emphatically untrue in regard to them. In other words, according to the empirical definition of a commodity
they are not commodities. Labor is only another name for a human activity which goes with life itself, which inits turn is not produced for sale but for entirely different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from the restof life, be stored or mobilized; land is only another name for nature, which is not produced by man; actual money,
finally, is merely a token of purchasing power which, as a rule, is not produced at all, but comes into being
through the mechanism of banking or state finance. None of them is produced for sale. The commodity
description of labor, land, and money is entirely fictitious.48)
Although capitalism seems apolitical due to the dominant role played by economic relations over political ones, enacting
capitalism requires a political buttress to make labor, land, and money function in capitalist ways. Additionally, episodes ofthe state quashing labor disputes in favor of capitalists in the late 19th century and bailing out big corporations in the early
21st century have testified to the fact that capitalism is politics.
Nor is capitalism democratic or free because the upshot of capitalism is plutocracy: “It [capitalism] has agglomerated
population, centralised means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of
this was political centralisation.”49) In such a polarized society between haves and have-nots, the latter are forced to toil as

155

独立行政法人国立高等専門学校機構香川高等専門学校研究紀要14(2023)

wage slaves while the dominant class promotes military buildup and establishes a police state to suppress the revolution by
the desperate working class. 50 ) One cannot help but notice a discrepancy in capitalist society between the reality ofcentralized plutocracy and liberal utopia of decentralized meritocracy. The power balance is too obvious: capitalist society
subjugates liberalism to capitalism. Capitalism is able to adopt liberalism’s call for individualism because the singularity ofcapitalism eradicates political oppression; however, capitalism does so not to diffuse power among the population but toconcentrate it in the hands of the capitalist class.
The Cold War politics of antitotalitarianism belies the actual conditions of capitalism: plutocratic, unfree, and, mostimportantly, political. If any politics is totalitarian within Cold War discourse, capitalism should not be exempted. So longas the word totalitarianism is used to valorize seemingly apolitical nature of capitalism, this word is not an objective
description of government but a political rhetoric that the capitalist class deploys against its enemies to secure “a proprietary
relation to the discourse of freedom.” 51 ) This political nature of the word explains why totalitarianism “became aphenomenon that floated free of specific ideologies or political leaders or historical and geopolitical circumstances.”52) For
example, “Nazi racial doctrine and the Soviet goal of the classless society” were treated as interchangeable, andmanagerialism in postwar America was viewed as a segue into totalitarianism. 53 ) Of course, the Soviet Gulag, Nazi
concentration camps, and a series of horrific events after the fall of Saigon have demonstrated what harm totalitarian regimes
in Arendt’s sense can do to humankind. However, one must remember that antitotalitarianism has long been functioning as
capitalist blackmail that convinces people that, with all its defects, capitalism is the best system possible.
2. ANTITOTALITARIANISM IN BRADBURY’S FAHRENHEIT 451 (1953)
Utilizing liberal discourse to ensure that capitalism means freedom and democracy, the Cold War politics ofantitotalitarianism concerns the representation of capitalism as superior to other modes of production. It is in this sense that
Belletto argues that the Cold War requires “rhetorical brinksmanship.”54) Literary studies are important in investigations
into the Cold War because they explore how this war of words unfolds. While many have argued that Bradbury’s Fahrenheit
is of positive educational value for its juxtaposing “the dangers of a mass culture” against the virtue of critical thinking, thispaper contends that Fahrenheit rather provides an object lesson of liberatory language proffered by antitotalitarianism.55) In
line with the interpretation of antitotalitarianism as the capitalist class struggle, the close reading of Bradbury’s Fahrenheit
helps us to see that the liberatory language, although empowering, results in free-market capitalism where the working classsacrifices economic security for individual freedom.
Bradbury’s Fahrenheit is set in a futuristic, dystopian society where almost all books are banned, and when people arefound hiding books in their premises, the firemen are called to destroy the books together with other properties lest the actof reading books should “incite people to think or to question the status quo.”56) “[T]he State” imposes conformism andpeople are deindividualized through state-controlled mass entertainment, and it is against this totalitarian mass society thatthe protagonist Guy Montag rebels with the help of books.57) Fahrenheit dramatizes the opposition between individuatingbooks and deindividuating mass media and produces the central schema of the novel: individuals vs. the masses. The bookpeople—an inquisitive seventeen-year-old girl Clarisse McClellan, a former English professor Faber, and the leader of bookmemorizers living outside the city Granger—epitomize individuated critical thinkers, while Montag’s wife, Mildred, andMontag’s boss, Beatty, exemplify the masses that value sameness. Fahrenheit revolves around this opposition, and its crux
is “Montag’s transformation from a dedicated fireman to a participant in an underground library movement.”58) Montag,
who began as a fireman working for the State, transforms himself into a critical thinker through encounters with Clarisse
and Faber before escaping from the city to the countryside and meeting the intellectuals in exile. Breaking away from thetotalitarian mass society, Montag “no longer needs any outside authority to give his life meaning” and reclaims his own
destiny.59) The denouement of Fahrenheit depicts Montag and the intellectuals heading back to the city for reclamation now
that an atomic bomb has detonated above the city and completely decimated the totalitarian mass society.
The novel focuses on the transformation of Montag from the mass to an individual. This trajectory entails the ideologicalstruggle between the politics of the book people and that of the masses, reflecting the domestic Cold War wherein what
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. terms “Cold War liberals” challenges the post-New Deal welfare state.60) It suffices to say that156

Jiro MORISHITA : An Enquiry into the Cold War as a US Project and a Reading of Ray Bradburyʼs Fahrenheit 451 (1953)

Fordism and Keynesianism that underpin the New Deal contradict the American political tradition of capitalism imaginedby liberalism due to governmental regulation of the US economy. As Medovoi succinctly summarizes, “[t]he proto-Fordist
wartime model demonstrated that, by providing big business with a secure market that would allow it to safely increase its
output, a Keynesian state could provide much of the institutional structure necessary for capital accumulation.”61) For one
thing, the preferential treatment of monopoly enterprises offered by the government in the mid twentieth century facilitatedthe concentration of property, which undermined “the ideal of small-business ownership [that] constituted a popular symbolof freedom in the United States.”62) Big corporations and the government became so intertwined as to regiment people’s
lives, and this contributed to the mass production of suburban and organizational life, and conformity became a politicallycharged word in the postwar decades. The traditional middle class of small property owners, an ideal liberal subject, wasreplaced with the new middle class of white-collar organization men whose status is defined not by property ownership but“by the sale of (mental) labor to large corporations” or the government.63)
While the post-New Deal welfare state retained economic relations as the main tool for social management, its
interventionist character made the post-New Deal conditions suspected of “promot[ing] the mass—and incipiently
totalitarian—values of adjustment and conformity, presumably at the direct expense of the American individual’ssovereignty.”64) In other words, as Sean McCorry argues, the “social forces of standardization and conformism” that are
ascribed to Soviet socialism “are also present, if only incipiently, in Eisenhower-era American domesticity.”65) Althoughsome praise the postwar welfare capitalism for shaping “Middle class America,” where people enjoyed “a society of broadly
shared prosperity,”66) Cold War liberals interpret this postwar egalitarian arrangement as a society that induces “a slow deathby conformity.”67) The domestic Cold War unfolds as a liberal attempt to replace welfare capitalism that engenders themasses with free-market capitalism that fosters individuality.
Fahrenheit shows that individuals such as Clarisse, Faber, and Granger embody liberalism, and the masses like Mildred
and Beatty the New Deal, with the former accusing the latter of spreading “the terrible tyranny of the majority.”68) The
domestic Cold War sets up colonial relations of domination and submission between the two camps by “Othering” themasses, owing to which the masses are “reduced to a sub-human or childlike species, incapable of organising themselves.”69)
Montag views Mildred as “a silly empty woman” who cares only about easy gratification provided by Seashell radios andTV parlor walls.70) Her fixation with mass media deprives her of critical thinking, and she just repeats what the media
says.71) The inability to think and the penchant for conformity fostered by mass media resonate with totalitarianism in
Arendt’s sense of total control, and this issue is most apparent when the State asks people on the Elm Terrace area to open
doors, or to look from the windows to catch the sight of now fugitive Montag. Here depicted is a situation where the masses
follow the command of the authority without contemplating if they are “sleepwalking.”72) Overall, the masses are portrayed
as stupid in Cold War discourse, which functions as a subtle critique of equality of outcome provided by the post-New Deal
welfare state and an implicit appreciation of the disciplinary effect that equality of opportunity in the free-market society
produces.73)
The book people retain the capacity of thinking by distancing themselves from mass media. Fearing of mass media
denying viewers “time to think,” Faber dispenses with parlor walls and Seashells.74) Instead, his parlor contains “nothing
but four plaster walls,” and his Seashells are “small rubber plugs” to shield him from noisy advertisements on a subway
jet.75) Clarisse also confesses that her not indulging in mass entertainment allows for deep reflection.76) It is meeting such
solemn outsiders that “arous[es] Montag’s own capacity of questioning.”77) By depicting the masses as stupid conformists
and the book people as rebellious critical thinkers, Fahrenheit underscores the Cold War politics of antitotalitarianism,
which argues that the traditional American way of life represented by the book people is the only genuine path to freedom
and democracy.
While Mildred fits the description of the colonized, Beatty’s conformity results from deep reasoning. Thus, Fahrenheit
challenges the colonial discourse set up by the book people, highlighting Beatty’s ability to think by having him say, “Shutthe ‘relatives’ up,” upon entering Montag’s house.78) His command to turn off a TV parlor foregrounds the difference fromMildred and the similarity to the book people. Although some critics interpret Beatty as an “active antagonist,”79) Beatty
understands the quagmire Montag is in and tries to console Montag. Beatty tells Montag the true history of the firemen and157

独立行政法人国立高等専門学校機構香川高等専門学校研究紀要14(2023)

admits that truth is different from what the “rule-book” claims.80) Furthermore, Beatty allows Montag to read a few books
to quench Montag’s thirst for knowledge and encourage Montag to come to conclusion that people are better off withoutbooks.81)
Beatty’s advocacy of mass society is as follows: to secure the happiness for all, things need to be sanitized. Books whose“conflicting theory and thought” produce unnecessary complexities must be burnt.82) Beatty does not care if the destructionof original thought leads to deindividuation. Since Beatty acknowledges that “[n]ot everyone [is] born free and equal,” hisstrategy to establish an egalitarian society demands that “everyone [be] made equal.”83) Beatty’s assertion imposes atremendous ramification on the Cold War by censuring equality of opportunity provided by free-market capitalism andupholding equality of outcome realized by the state intervention. Individuating society is a risk society, and according to
Beatty, it is no wise decision to “quit a certainty for an uncertainty.”84) In other words, anticipating the upshot of the bookpeople’s politics to be “dreary chaos,”85) Beatty exposes a falsity of equality of opportunity as a basis for democratic society.
In addition to Beatty’s substantiation of the mass’s politics through reasoning, Fahrenheit challenges the Cold War
premise by implying that the book people are also governed by ideology. While Rafeeq O. McGiveron argues that “Faber
has no plans but at least wants Montag to think,”86) Faber’s relation to Montag leaves behind many traces of totalitarianism
in Arendt’s sense. Although Faber encourages Montag to make his own decision, Faber’s statement contradicts thedemocratic premise when Faber explains what a Seashell-like green earbud can do for Montag:
It listens! If you put it in your ear, Montag, I can sit comfortably home, warming my frightened bones, and hear
and analyse the firemen’s world, find its weaknesses, without danger. I’m the Queen Bee, safe in the hive. You
will be the drone, the travelling ear. Eventually, I could put out ears into all parts of the city, with various men,listening and evaluating. If the drones die, I’m still safe at home, tending my fright with a maximum of comfort
and a minimum of chance.87)
The power dynamics between Faber as the Queen Bee and Montag as the drone indicates anything but self-determination.
Therefore, all Montag has done is just to “change sides”88): previously Montag obeyed the State, but now he abides by
Faber. Montag himself notices this inconvenient truth: “I’m not thinking. I’m just doing like I’m told, like always. You said
get the money and I got it. I didn’t really think of it myself. When do I start working things out on my own?”89) Ultimately,
textual evidence from Fahrenheit confirms Montag’s perception that he is a mere puppet for Faber. Montag sets up a bookclub by reading poetry in front of Mildred and her friends and plants books in a fireman’s house and turns in an alarm.90)
Both acts are things that Faber hinted at in the first meeting at Faber’s house.91) It is untenable to argue that Faber advocates
freedom and democracy now that his control over Montag has come to light.
Faber’s totalitarianism points us to another seedy aspect of the book people: the status of Clarisse. While critics argue
that she is an innocent figure who functions as “catalyst” for Montag’s awakening,92) she looks like a secret agent for thebook people, who is deployed to recruit Montag to the book people’s cause. Before the encounter with Clarisse, Montag
felt that someone was stalking him.93) Clarisse makes the first contact with Montag as late as 1 a.m., and the abnormality ofthis meeting makes Montag think, “she almost seemed to be waiting for me there, in the street.”94) Once the first contact ismade, Clarisse is everywhere Montag goes:
One two three four five six seven days. And as many times he came out of the house and Clarisse was there
somewhere in the world. Once he saw her shaking a walnut tree, once he saw her sitting on the lawn knitting a
blue sweater, three or four times he found a bouquet of late flowers on his porch, or a handful of chestnuts in alittle sack, or some autumn leaves neatly pinned to a sheet of white paper and thumb-tacked to his door. Every
day Clarisse walked him to the corner. One day it was raining, the next it was clear, the day after that the windblew strong, and the day after that it was mild and calm, and the day after that calm day was a day like a furnaceof summer and Clarisse with her face all sunburnt by late afternoon.95)
With her mysterious but attractive looks, numerous exposures to her succeed in sowing a seed of familiarity in Montag’s
heart.96)
This reading might sound like a conspiracy, but Montag senses that Clarisse is connected to the book people somehow.
When Montag is fleeing the city to the countryside, he realizes that “Once, long ago, Clarisse had walked here, where he

158

Jiro MORISHITA : An Enquiry into the Cold War as a US Project and a Reading of Ray Bradburyʼs Fahrenheit 451 (1953)

was walking now.”97) The two film adaptations of Fahrenheit justify this interpretation as well. While the representationsof Clarisse in Francois Truffaut’s Fahrenheit (1966) and in the HBO version of Fahrenheit (2018) have some differences,both movies merge Clarisse and Faber into a figure of Clarisse and openly depict the connection between Clarisse and thebook people.98) Clarisse is not as innocent as one might think.
The ending of Fahrenheit also hints at the ambiguity of the book people’s politics. After a successful escape from thetotalitarian mass society, Montag encounters a group of book-memorizing intellectuals. When the book people explain toMontag who they are, an atomic bomb detonated in the air decimates the city. Some critics consider Fahrenheit’s ending“optimistic”99) by arguing that Montag is “in the presence of a new order of society in which there is no fear of using
unofficial language.”100) The atomic bomb is believed to have destroyed the totalitarian mass society, which signals thebook people’s “utopian hope” of rebuilding democracy from the ashes.101) However, other critics gainsay these positive
interpretations and view the ending as gloomy.
John Huntington points out the equivocality of the book people’s politics by highlighting their pessimistic take on theefficacy of books and the passivity of their politics.102) Huntington’s analysis is justifiable, given that Granger reminds
Montag that “You’re not important”103) while emphasizing the original thought. While the book is tied to the truth inFahrenheit, Granger proposes to “remember so much that we’ll build the biggest goddam steam-shovel in history and dig
the biggest grave of all time and shove war in and cover it up.”104) Once the liberating discourse of the book people captivates
Montag, they suddenly turn the tables on him.
Jack Zipes doubts the positive take on the ending as well by arguing that “it is debatable whether one can call his ending
utopian since it is regressive.”105) Zipes’s interpretation is important for this paper since it highlights the limitation ofliberalism in relation to capitalism. As delineated in the previous section, liberalism imagines capitalism as decentralizing
and meritocratic; however, as Karl Marx and other intellectuals have pointed out, capitalism gradually concentrates property
and breeds plutocracy. There emerges a discrepancy between capitalism and liberalism, and the frustration of liberalism
manifests itself as progressivism. While the nascent stage of capitalist development might embodies liberalism’s
imagination of decentered society, the developed stage of capitalism where concentrated wealth controls society is no longer
compatible with liberalism. As a result, liberalism becomes a regressive force that demands a start from scratch. It is nowonder the book people are infused with an apocalyptic image of the war,106) and Granger anticipates “another Dark Age,when we might have to do the whole damn thing over again.”107) Although Granger equates the regressive nature ofliberalism with “Phoenix,” it is just a euphemism for counterrevolution.108)
The remainder of the section focuses on the fact that the book people never overtly mention capitalism but their politics
is undoubtedly connected with capitalism. This connection is most clearly demonstrated in a scene where, once
antitotalitarianism is realized, Montag must face the consequence of free-market capitalism, i.e., the proletarianization of
the postwar middle class of organization men.
Previously, as a fireman working for the State, Montag enjoyed the new middle-class status of the post-New Deal era,
which is corroborated by his foremost concern about his financial situation resulting not from daily necessities but leisureactivities.109) Free-market capitalism, however, has no such thing as the middle class. Building on Marx and Engels’s The
Communist Manifesto, Hoberek argues that “class is a social relationship rather than an identity, and so in a very real senseclasses do not exist within capital outside the two major contending ones of the bourgeoisie (who own capital and live off
its proceeds) and the proletariat (who possess only their own labor power, and thus must serve capital)” and interprets “thenature of the middle class as not an eternal formation but a temporary standpoint, supported at times by more or less effective
institutional scaffolding, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.”110) Applied to Fahrenheit, Hoberek’s assertion meansthat the State secures Montag’s middle-class status by attenuating the power of economic relations even though this act
could entail deindividualization. 111 ) Thus, the rebellion against the State helps individualize Montag, but costs him
everything that his middle-class status afforded him so far:
‘My God, how did this happen?’ said Montag. ‘It was only the other night everything was fine and the next thing
I know I’m drowning. How many times can a man go down and still be alive? I can’t breathe. There’s Beatty
dead, and he was my friend once, and there’s Millie gone, I thought she was my wife, but now I don’t know.

159

独立行政法人国立高等専門学校機構香川高等専門学校研究紀要14(2023)

And the house all burnt. And my job gone and myself on the run, and I planted a book in a fireman’s house on
the way. Good Christ, the things I’ve done in a single week!’112)
Ironically, Montag fails to notice that what he revolts against is what secures his privileges. It is difficult to deny that therebellion against the State makes Montag distinct from the masses, but we had better be wary of his fortune, for thisindividualization stems from losing the middle-class status. The book people disparage the masses and praise individuals,
but the mass could be a result of the state intervention on the behalf of the working class. In this sense, a call for
individualism could be the capitalist class’s strategy to bifurcate society.
CONCLUSION
By interpreting the Cold War as antitotalitarianism, which paints capitalism as democratic and other modes of
production as totalitarian, this paper ascribes depoliticization to capitalism’s singularity of the dominant role played byeconomic relations over political ones in its reproduction. While formal equality of capitalism could signal freedom anddemocracy, hierarchy persists between capitalists and proletariats thanks to its political nature. Fahrenheit demonstrates by
various means that political emancipation realized by antitotalitarianism is far from human emancipation. Of course, thispaper is not a plea for a society of total control. However, stressing freedom and democracy via antitotalitarianism could
lead to free-market capitalism, in which people still suffer from oppression without any political recourse.

NOTES
Andrew Preston, “The Spirit of Democracy: Religious Liberty and American Anti-Communism during the Cold War,” in
Uncertain Empire: American History and the Idea of the Cold War, eds. Joel Isaac and Duncan Bell, 158, Oxford
University Press, 2012.
2)
George W. Bush, “September 20, 2001 Address to Joint Meeting of Congress,” Washingtonpost, September 20, 2001.
Accessed
September
20,
2019.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html; John Stoehr, “Trump Will Become the Next Stalin
Without Critics Like Jeff Flake,” Newsweek, January 17, 2018. Accessed July 27, 2022.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-next-stalin-without-critics-jeff-flake-783988; U.S. Embassy in Uruguay, “Remarksby President Biden on the United Efforts of the Free World to Support the People of Ukraine,” March 26, 2022. Accessed
August 1, 2022. https://uy.usembassy.gov/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-united-efforts-of-the-free-world-tosupport-the-people-of-ukraine/.
3)
American Literature and Culture in an Age of Cold War, eds. Steven Belletto and Daniel Grausam, University of Iowa
Press, 2012; Neocolonial Fictions of the Global Cold War, eds. Steven Belletto and Joseph Keith, University of Iowa
Press, 2019.
4)
Andrew Hoberek, “The Forever War, or, Did the Cold War Really End?,” in Neocolonial Fictions, 205.
5)
Louis Menand, The Free World: Art and Thought in the Cold War, introduction, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2021.
6)
Harry S. Truman, “Special Message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey: The Truman Doctrine,” in Public Papers of
the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, January 1 to December 31, 1947, 178–79, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1963.
7)
Leerom Medovoi, “The Race War Within: The Biopolitics of the Long Cold War,” in American Literature, 167.
8)
Ibid.
9)
Andrew Hoberek, “The New Frontier: Dune, the Middle Class, and Post-1960 U.S. Foreign Policy,” in American
Literature, 85–108; Steven Belletto, “Inventing Other Realities: What the Cold War Means for Literary Studies,” in
Uncertain Empire, 75–88; Steven Belletto and Daniel Grausam, “Introduction: Culture and Cold Conflict,” in American
Literature, 1–14.
10)
Leerom Medovoi, Rebels: Youth and the Cold War Origins of Identity, 12, 13–14, Duke University Press, 2005.
11)
Ibid., 39.
12) Ibid., 34.
13) Leerom Medovoi, “Cold War American Culture as the Age of Three Worlds,” Minnesota Review, vol. 55/57, 174, 2002;
Anders Stephanson, “Cold War Degree Zero,” in Uncertain Empire, 26.
14)
Leerom Medovoi, “Global Society Must be Defended: Biopolitics without Boundaries,” Social Text, vol.25, no. 2, 53–
79, 2007; Leerom Medovoi, “Dogma-Line Racism: Islamophobia and the Second Axis of Race,” Social Text, vol. 30,
no. 2, 43–74, 2012; Reiichi Miura, “Empire of Liberalism: Cultural War on the Social under Cold-War Liberalism andNeoliberalism,” University of Illinois, 2013.
1)160

Jiro MORISHITA : An Enquiry into the Cold War as a US Project and a Reading of Ray Bradburyʼs Fahrenheit 451 (1953)

15)

Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79, ed. Michel Senellart, trans.
Graham Burchell, 63–64, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
16)
Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, HarperVoyager, 2008.
17)
Menand, introduction.
18)
Belletto, 76.
19)
Ibid.
20)
Harilaos Stecopoulos, “Cold War Postmodernism,” in Postmodern/Postwar—and After: Rethinking American Literature,eds. Jason Gladstone and others, 73–74, University of Iowa Press, 2016; Jeffrey T. Nealon, Post-Postmodernism: or,
The Cultural Logic of Just-in-Time Capitalism, 172–73, Stanford University Press, 2012.
21)
David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, 19, Oxford University Press, 2005.
22)
Linda Hutcheon, A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction, 12, Routledge, 1988.
23)
Fredric Jameson, Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fiction, xi, Verso, 2005.
24)
Philip Gleason, “Identifying Identity: A Semantic History,” Journal of American History, vol. 69, no. 4, 924, 1983.
25)
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom, introduction, Routledge, 2017.
26)
Cindy S. Aron, “The Evolution of the Middle Class,” in A Companion to 19th-Century America, ed. William L. Barney,
178, Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
27)
Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F. D. R., chap. 6, Vintage Books, 1955; Elizabeth Warren,“Elizabeth Warren’s Consolidation Speech Could Change the Election,” Washington Monthly, July 30, 2016. Accessed
November 2, 2019. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/06/30/elizabeth-warrens-consolidation-speech-couldchange-the-election/.
28)
Andrew Hoberek, The Twilight of the Middle Class: Post-World War II American Fiction and White-Collar Work, 12,
Princeton University Press, 2005.
29)
Richard Chase, The American Novel and Its Tradition, 62, G. Bell and Sons, 1958.
30)
R. W. B. Lewis, The American Adam: Innocence, Tragedy, and Tradition in the Nineteenth Century, University of
Chicago Press, 1955; Henry Nash Smith, Virgin Land: The American West as Symbol and Myth, Harvard University
Press, 1950.
31)
C. Wright Mills, White Collar: The American Middle Classes, 11, Oxford University Press, 2002.
32)
Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, xii, Harvard University Press, 1996.
33)
Medovoi, “The Race War,” 163–64.
34)
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 392, 438, Harvest Book, 1979.
35)
Ibid., 375.
36)Menand, chap. 2.
37)
Arendt, 468.
38)
Ibid., 474.
39)
Miura, 17, 4.
40)
Ibid., 16.
41)
Ibid., 35–36.
42)
Daniel Bell, “The Failure of American Socialism: The Tension of Ethics and Politics,” in The End of Ideology: On the
Exhaustion of Political ideas in the Fifties, 279, Harvard University Press, 1988.
43)
Miura, 103.
44)
Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital, trans. Agnes Schwarzschild, 6, Routledge, 2003.
45)
Ibid., 7.
46)
Rosa Luxemburg, “Reform or Revolution” in The Essential Rosa Luxemburg, ed. Helen Scott, 90–91, Haymarket Books,
2008.
47)
Daniel Bell, “Afterword, 1988: The End of Ideology Revisited,” in The End of Ideology, 419.
48)
Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, 75–76, Beacon Press, 2001.
49)
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in Selected Works, vol. 1, 112–13, Progress
Publishers, 1969.
50)
Harvey, 165; Radley Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces, Public Affairs,
2013.
Medovoi, Rebels, 12.
52)
Menand, chap. 2.
53)
Ibid.
54)
Belletto, 76.
55)
Peter Sisario, “A Study of the Allusions in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451,” English Journal, vol. 59, no. 2, 201, 1970.
56)
Ibid.
57)
Bradbury, 160.
51)

161

独立行政法人国立高等専門学校機構香川高等専門学校研究紀要14(2023)

58)

Robin Anne Reid, “Fahrenheit 451 (1953),” in Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations: Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit
451, ed. Harold Bloom, 74, Infobase Publishing, 2008.
59)
Jonathan R. Eller and William F. Touponce, “The Simularcrum of Carnival: Fahrenheit 451,” in Bloom’s, 109.
60)
Schlesinger Jr., introduction.
61)
Medovoi, Rebels, 15–16.
62)
George Lipsitz, Rainbow at Midnight: Labor and Culture in the 1940s, 62, University of Illinois Press, 1994.
63)
Andrew Hoberek, “Liberal Antiliberalism: Mailer, O’Connor, and The Gender Politics of Middle-Class Ressentiment,”
Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol. 33, no. ¾, 28, 2005.
64)
Medovoi, Rebels, 64.
65 )Sean McCorry, “Literacy, Bêtise, and the Production of Species Difference in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451,”
Extrapolation, vol. 59, no. 1, 28, 2018.
66 )Paul Krugman, “Introducing this Blog,” New York Times, September 18, 2007. Accessed February 5, 2019.
https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/.
67)
Norman Mailer, “The White Negro: Superficial Reflections on the Hipster,” Dissent Magazine, 1957. Accessed August
6, 2017. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-white-negro-fall-1957.
68)
Bradbury, 140.
69)
Sara Mills, Discourses of Difference: An Analysis of Women’s Travel Writing and Colonialism, 48, Routledge, 1991.
70)
Bradbury, 59.
71)
Ibid., 56.
72)
Ibid., 178.
73)
One may recall Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” (1961) for depicting egalitarian society as stupefying.
74)
Bradbury, 109.
75)
Ibid., 110.
76)
Ibid., 16.
77)
Fernanda Luísa Feneja, “Promethean Rebellion in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451: The Protagonist’s Quest,” Amaltea,
vol. 4, 9, 2012.
78)
Bradbury, 70.
79)
Reid, 76.
80)
Bradbury, 71.
81)
Ibid., 81
82)
Ibid.
83)
Ibid., 77.
84)
Ibid., 138.
85)
Ibid.
86)
Rafeeq O. McGiveron, “‘To Build a Mirror Factory’: The Mirror and Self-Examination in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit
451,” in Bloom’s, 66.
87)
Bradbury, 117–18.
88)
Ibid., 120.
89)
Ibid., 119–20.
90)
Ibid., 126; Ibid., 167–68.
91)
Ibid., 113; Ibid., 111.
92)
Feneja, 9.
93)
Bradbury, 11.
94)
Ibid., 19.
95)
Ibid., 39–40.
96)
Ibid., 40.
97)
Ibid., 186.
98)
Fahrenheit 451, DVD, directed by Francois Truffaut, Geneon Universal Entertainment, 2011; Fahrenheit 451, Blu-ray,directed by Ramin Bahrani, HBO, 2018.
99)
Feneja, 16.
100)
Eller and Touponce, 111.
101)
Sunjoo Lee. “To Be Shocked to Life Again: Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451,” Explicator, vol. 72, no. 2, 144, 2014.
102)
John Huntington, “Utopian and Anti-Utopian Logic: H.G. Wells and His Successors,” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 9,
no. 2, 138, 1982.
103)
Bradbury, 209.
104)
Ibid.
105)
Jack Zipes, “Mass Degradation of Humanity and Massive Contradictions in Bradbury’s Vision of America in Fahrenheit
451,” in Bloom’s, 13.

162

Jiro MORISHITA : An Enquiry into the Cold War as a US Project and a Reading of Ray Bradburyʼs Fahrenheit 451 (1953)

106)

Bradbury, 114, 195.
Ibid., 197.
108)
Ibid., 208.
109)
Ibid., 30–31.
110)
Andrew Hoberek, “Pop Art and the Fictional Middle Class,” Nonsite, December 8, 2021. Accessed September 2, 2022.
https://nonsite.org/pop-art-and-the-fictional-middle-class/.
111)
Bradbury, 78.
112)
Ibid., 169.
107)

163