Kurt Vonnegut arguably wrote his story titled “Harrison Bergeron” for a number of reasons, including the following:

• Vonnegut may have wanted to appeal to readers’ interests in prophecies about the future.  Thus, the very first words of the story are “The year was 2081.”
• Vonnegut almost certainly wanted to mock the growing emphasis in his day not simply on equality of opportunities (which most people endorse) but equality of outcomes (which many people think is impossible to dictate). This theme is indicated immediately in the opening paragraph, which indicates that by 2081,

everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

• The paragraph just quoted suggests that Vonnegut is also mocking the intrusion of the federal government into practically every aspect of citizens’ lives.
• The paragraph just quoted may also mock the tendency of many Americans to think that social problems can be solved by political means.
• The story especially mocks efforts to create intellectual equality, a kind of mockery suggested (for instance) by the fact that George Bergeron is actually prevented, by government controls, from using his intelligence.
• The story seems also to mock the “dumbing-down” of American society as a result of addiction to television viewing.
• The story also seems to mock the shallowness of many Americans’ artistic tastes, as in Hazel’s comment about the dance being “nice.” Hazel’s comment suggests impoverished thoughts and an impoverished vocabulary.
• The story also seems to mock sentimentality, as when Hazel calls George “honeybunch.”
• Vonnegut additionally seems to be satirizing the ways in which people become accustomed to oppression, failing to resist it or rebel against it. Indeed, he satirizes the ways in which people become complicit in their own oppression, as when George, contemplating the consequences of resistance, says

“pretty soon we'd be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You [that is, Hazel] wouldn't like that, would you?"

"I'd hate it," said Hazel.

• The story clearly mocks the idea that mere effort, rather than real achievement, is all that matters when human performance is assessed.  Thus, at one point Hazel says of an announcer who has failed to read an announcement correctly,

“he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”

By using irony to mock all the attitudes and behaviors mentioned above, Vonnegut clearly makes a case for a society in which real merit matters more than mere effort.

In "Harrison Bergeron," what was author Kurt Vonnegut's purpose and the effect on the reader?

We can never claim to understand an author's purpose completely unless he or she specifically states what it is, but we can certainly make some inferences about Vonnegut's intentions for "Harrison Bergeron." The story shows us a world in which everyone has been made "equal" by providing handicaps that eliminate any advantages people might have, be they in talent, intelligence, strength, or beauty. Vonnegut takes the concept of equality to a ridiculous extreme to show the reader what could happen if we decide to take a push for equality too far and blindly follow authority. He argues we would then become a nation of mindless robots, giving up all aspects of ourselves that are of value. Vonnegut twisted the idea of equality to mean, not equality of opportunity or of treatment, but equality of qualities, so that no one can be too intelligent, too beautiful, or too talented. This, Vonnegut warns us, is the dumbing down of America, a race to the bottom, rather than a meritocracy that celebrates, cultivates, and rewards people's gifts and hard work. Some people might think there is an anti-socialist or anti-communist bent to the story, but Vonnegut did state in an interview that he once voted for a socialist candidate. In most of his writing and interviews, he seems to be generally resisting idiocy in government. One hopes the effect of this story on the reader is a dawning awareness that equality could be twisted and go too far in America and that one should not blindly obey a government that is destroying its people. The details are humorous and meant to be entertaining, but "Harrison Bergeron" is also meant as a warning.

Why did Kurt Vonnegut write "Harrison Bergeron"?

Both of the previous answers are excellent, but I would like to add a bit. Yes, "Harrison Bergeron" is a work of satire. Not only is it pointing out the importance of recognizing the strengths and weaknesses among individuals, but it is decrying what Vonnegut perceived as a potential misuse of the phrase created equal. When I teach this story to my students, I have them brainstorm lists of ways our government (or even our school) intervenes to create equality. We discuss the meaning of equality. We discuss what measures are fair and justified and which might be considered well-intentioned over-reach.

All of this is not to say that Vonnegut believed people are not created equal or shouldn't be treated with equality, but rather that an attempt by government to create an artificial equality based on the lowest common denominator would have extremely detrimental effects on our society. He used the ridiculous example of Harrison's mother not being able to remember seeing him killed on television to illustrate the point that trying to mandate equality through limiting the rights of people can only lead to our destruction. We need competition. We need leaders.

Of course in the story, there is a leader: The Handicapper General. Vonnegut uses Diana Moon Glampers character to demonstrate the idea that even though there is a facade of equality in 2081, the people aren't really equal. A government that goes to such lengths to create an artificial equality must invariably become despotic to enforce its rules. People like Hazel who are not given handicaps are left as they are because they are easy to manipulate and control. People who might prove problematic to this government are punished for their talents. George has to wear weights and a disruptive ear radio, as do many of the ballerinas, and others wear hideous masks to cover their beauty.

One of the points that Vonnegut is also making through these masks and other handicaps is that there is an absolute difference between equality and same-ness. While we are all created equal, we are not created the same. I think that the use of masks to cover beauty is extremely intentional. Vonnegut is pointing out what a travesty it would be to lose our individuality in the name of equality. It is, after all, our differences that make us beautiful. How dull our society would be if everyone were actually the same.

Why did Kurt Vonnegut write "Harrison Bergeron"?

In "Harrison Bergeron," Vonnegut exposes what he observed to be an uncomfortable truth: the idea that "all men are created equal" is a fallacy. The story is not a denunciation of the idea that America needs to offer equal opportunities to all people. It is also not a denunciation of the idea that no one's humanity will be denied. The story is a satire that employs absurd scenarios to deliver the point that we are all born with unique strengths and weaknesses. Some people have genetically-produced advantages over others that are impossible to deny. Vonnegut implies that any effort to level any given playing field through the interference of well-meaning amendments to the Constitution could end up becoming a ridiculous and counterproductive undertaking. The story's theme is revealed in the opening paragraph:

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Why did Kurt Vonnegut write "Harrison Bergeron"?

There were many background experiences in Vonnegut's life that probably influenced the attitudes reflected in Harrison Bergeron.

Vonnegut was a soldier in the US Army during WWII, was captured in Germany, and survived Allied bombing raids of Dresden that killed over 100,000 civilians and were kept secret for many years after the war. Vonnegut's distrust of centralized government began as a result of his awareness of the whole of this situation.

Five months before Harrison Bergeron was published (Oct., 1961), the relatively new but rapidly growing medium of television was being widely criticized for its effect on audiences. The newly appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Newton Minow, described television

"a vast wasteland'' of destructive or meaningless programs. Minow claimed that instead of challenging people to think, television programming was making it easier for people to avoid serious thought.

Vonnegut's opinion of television is reflected in Harrison Bergeron - he considered it a waste of time and force intent on destroying independent thought by people.

Finally, Vonnegut used the story to deliver his commentary regarding the civil rights movement of the early 1960's, specifically his mocking of those who were afraid to accept differences between people.

Why is the government looking for Harrison Bergeron in Kurt Vonnegut's story "Harrison Bergeron"?

At the beginning of the story, readers learn fourteen-year-old Harrison Bergeron was taken by the Handicapper General men and placed in jail.

And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away. 

Later on, breaking news reveals Harrison unexpectedly escaped from jail and is on the loose. Harrison was originally put in jail because he was suspected of plotting to overthrow the government. Now that Harrison has escaped, the government is searching for him because they believe him to be a threat to the government as a whole and to society's current state of "equality." 

"Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen," she said in a grackle squawk, "has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under-handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous."

Considering the handicaps Harrison is required to endure, it is clear he is incredibly strong and extremely intelligent, making him a capable candidate to overthrow the government and the Handicapper General. The government fears his escape will allow him to successfully overthrow the government once and for all. Harrison's rebellion and his attempts to bring an end to society's idea of "equality" show he has an ethical view of what it means to be truly equal.

In "Harrison Bergeron," why did Kurt Vonnegut decide to kill the title character?

In “Harrison Bergeron,” the title character is killed by Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General who Harrison attempts to overthrow. There is no fight or even conversation between the characters, only two blasts from Glampers’ shotgun. Vonnegut chose to give Harrison an ignoble death for two reasons.

The first reason is that Harrison’s death is a realistic portrayal of what happens to men and women who defy authoritarian governments. Harrison’s intelligence, strength, and good looks do not save him from a government official with a gun. Considering that Glampers’ shotgun is the only real weapon depicted in the story, one can assume that the right to bear arms no longer exists in Vonnegut’s depiction of future America.

Secondly, Vonnegut chose to kill Harrison because Harrison would have been no better of a ruler than the government Glampers represents. Harrison proclaims himself an emperor. From the ballerinas he chooses his empress. Finally, Harrison promises that the musicians will be his “barons and dukes and earls” if they play their best. The terms Harrison uses allude to the medieval period in European history, when emperors and kings had absolute power. Harrison clearly sees himself at this sort of ruler. If Harrison had lived to rule, he may have done away with handicaps, but his subjects would have lost all of their remaining political freedom.