What is "masculinity"? What are "masculinities"? What defines these concepts? Use examples from Orwell's *1984* as well as those drawn from popular culture, literature, advertising, and so forth to furnish your response.
The most common and accepted definition of masculinity is largely just a social construct and in fact, it can be argued as being an archetype. Society and especially mass media describe masculinity being such that an individual possesses big muscles, has "cut up" abs and is also quite powerful, rugged and confident at the same time. Having conversed with several different women from different cultural backgrounds, they all seemed to describe very common traits that they attribute to masculinity that also coincides almost perfectly with the traits described by society and mass media.
Some examples from popular culture that perpetuate the "ideal" traits of masculinity are the Old Spice commercials with Isaiah Mustafa and the Dos Equis commercials. In the former example, Mustafa (or the script writers) say(s) that men are truly men when they look like him, talk like him and apparently, smell like him too! When Old Spice is using Mustafa to portray the ideal man, they make sure that he has his shirt off and they emphasize his abs as well. This not only effectively tells us men what the socially acceptable appearance of us is, but it also tells us how to behave and what to use to smell "like a man". In the latter example of the Dos Equis beer commercials, the ideal man happens to be one who is rugged, mysterious, interesting and apparently who loves living at home with a friggin' cheetah as a pet!! This apparently, is the "trick" to being the ideal man and the proof for that is being surrounded by beautiful women at the bar while getting a beer.
In George Orwell's 1984, the author implicitly defines masculinity as having some sort of significance. He exemplifies this by making all of the major characters in the book that either are significant in terms of contributing to the plot or towards the party, all male. The characters that truly have significance are O'Brien, Parsons, Goldstein, Charrington, Winston and of course, Big Brother. By making all the significant characters in the book male, Orwell is implicitly saying that he believes that any individual who is important is masculine. He implicitly says that when males are being the primary caregivers and the primary providers, they are being masculine. For example, when Parson's wife asks Winston to help her fix the faucet in her kitchen, Orwell shows that only males have the ability fix things and take care of others, while the women depend on the men for comfort and help in many situations except for taking care of the children, which they have traditionally been portrayed as always doing.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Happiness Blog
For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy? Why?
I definitely feel that it is possible to be happy! After all, Adam Curtis had portrayed Edward Bernays as a man who could make the masses happy and feel good about themselves after they had purchased products and performed actions that were symbols of freedom, such as women smoking cigarettes in public. But the real question is what is happiness? What makes us experience that feeling of happiness?
In Sigmund Freud's "Civilization and It's Discontents", Freud argues that happiness was the result of the avoidance of pain and the pleasure experienced by that individual after they have that feeling of accomplishment. Freud believed that these actions and their corresponding feelings were part of the human psyche and were literally natural instincts, insinuating that humans were "hardwired" to seek and experience happiness not just once, but multiple times in their lifetime, even going so far as to make it their goal in life. I agree wholeheartedly with Freud regarding this explanation of happiness and the reasons for what makes us want to pursue happiness. So according to Freud's definition of happiness, it is possible to achieve happiness.
In fact, after watching Adam Curtis, portrayal of Edward Bernays' work and his efforts to make humans constantly experience happiness through materialism, leads me to believe that it has become even more easier to pursue happiness and experience it more often.
Humans now live in societies where happiness has manifested in the form of material goods such as clothing, cars, electronic gadgets and jewellery. When people buy clothes that are part of the latest trends, they feel really happy and good about themselves because they can now feel "stylish" and "cool". These people are again following their basic instincts of trying to attain happiness by buying these material goods and as a result, modern societies have made it easier to be happy by widening the sources of where happiness can be attained from.
I definitely feel that it is possible to be happy! After all, Adam Curtis had portrayed Edward Bernays as a man who could make the masses happy and feel good about themselves after they had purchased products and performed actions that were symbols of freedom, such as women smoking cigarettes in public. But the real question is what is happiness? What makes us experience that feeling of happiness?
In Sigmund Freud's "Civilization and It's Discontents", Freud argues that happiness was the result of the avoidance of pain and the pleasure experienced by that individual after they have that feeling of accomplishment. Freud believed that these actions and their corresponding feelings were part of the human psyche and were literally natural instincts, insinuating that humans were "hardwired" to seek and experience happiness not just once, but multiple times in their lifetime, even going so far as to make it their goal in life. I agree wholeheartedly with Freud regarding this explanation of happiness and the reasons for what makes us want to pursue happiness. So according to Freud's definition of happiness, it is possible to achieve happiness.
In fact, after watching Adam Curtis, portrayal of Edward Bernays' work and his efforts to make humans constantly experience happiness through materialism, leads me to believe that it has become even more easier to pursue happiness and experience it more often.
Humans now live in societies where happiness has manifested in the form of material goods such as clothing, cars, electronic gadgets and jewellery. When people buy clothes that are part of the latest trends, they feel really happy and good about themselves because they can now feel "stylish" and "cool". These people are again following their basic instincts of trying to attain happiness by buying these material goods and as a result, modern societies have made it easier to be happy by widening the sources of where happiness can be attained from.
Monday, October 10, 2011
A just prosecution. For that point in time.
1. Do you think these charges are legitimate? Is this a fair trial?
I do believe that these charges were legitimate and that this was a fair trial. Before the age of enlightenment, society was largely based on worshiping the gods. They also largely believed in the fact that the gods would either reward or punish you for your actions, depending on whether they were good or bad. So as a result, the members of society at that point of time felt that laying these charges on Socrates were totally legitimate and not putting him on trial for corrupting the youth and inventing new gods would be an insult to the current gods, punishing anyone who did not take action against Socrates.
The first charge that was laid upon him was of corrupting the youth. Meletus was the individual who had brought forth this charge to the court. The reason why Meletus had laid such a charge upon him was because Socrates had conversations with many of Athens' youth about why worshiping the gods was necessary and questions such fundamental and sacred foundations as what constituted a just or unjust action. Meletus and many of the elders who happened to overhear these conversations felt quite angry and most of all, threatened. They felt that Socrates had no right to challenge these fundamental and long practiced teachings, and especially felt that making Athens' youth question these teaching were a total blasphemy because it would undermine the future generation of leaders. During this time period, worshiping and pleasing the gods was the most vital objective in a human being's life and questioning this was a big taboo that Socrates was not at all scared to bring up and confront. So yes, to this particular society, this charge was definitely legitimate.
The last charge that was placed upon Socrates was that of creating new gods. The people of Athens felt that this was a much more serious charge than the previous one because, he is ultimately insulting the current gods, implying that they are not sufficient and that they are not worthy of being called gods. The people of Athens were definitely angry at this because they believed that Socrates was being an arrogant fool who had no right to tell the people what god to worship and what god to neglect.
Essentially, Socrates questioning and undermining a religious system and a legal system that was revolved around the gods. He was questioning long held practices and beliefs of a society. So as a result, I do believe that from that particular society's point of view that these charges were legitimate and that the people were justified in bringing him to court.
The second part of this questions asks whether or not that this was a fair trial. Again, if I looked at this issue through that society's point of view, I would say that this trial was a fair one. Socrates was given a chance to speak and defend himself in front of a jury and a panel of judges. This is just how our modern day courts operate in Canada. He was given a chance to argue his case and defend himself (albeit with a bit of shouting from the audience and the jury) and the prosecutors were also allowed to explain why they could bring Socrates to court on these charges. Unfortunately the verdict wasn't a desirable one for Socrates (sentenced to death). But they way they reached their verdict was totally fair, since everyone was given a chance to speak and the judges had actually listened to what Socrates had to say, But again, Socrates' arguments were just not solid enough to stir the people's beliefs in their religion and so he was sentenced to death.
I do believe that these charges were legitimate and that this was a fair trial. Before the age of enlightenment, society was largely based on worshiping the gods. They also largely believed in the fact that the gods would either reward or punish you for your actions, depending on whether they were good or bad. So as a result, the members of society at that point of time felt that laying these charges on Socrates were totally legitimate and not putting him on trial for corrupting the youth and inventing new gods would be an insult to the current gods, punishing anyone who did not take action against Socrates.
The first charge that was laid upon him was of corrupting the youth. Meletus was the individual who had brought forth this charge to the court. The reason why Meletus had laid such a charge upon him was because Socrates had conversations with many of Athens' youth about why worshiping the gods was necessary and questions such fundamental and sacred foundations as what constituted a just or unjust action. Meletus and many of the elders who happened to overhear these conversations felt quite angry and most of all, threatened. They felt that Socrates had no right to challenge these fundamental and long practiced teachings, and especially felt that making Athens' youth question these teaching were a total blasphemy because it would undermine the future generation of leaders. During this time period, worshiping and pleasing the gods was the most vital objective in a human being's life and questioning this was a big taboo that Socrates was not at all scared to bring up and confront. So yes, to this particular society, this charge was definitely legitimate.
The last charge that was placed upon Socrates was that of creating new gods. The people of Athens felt that this was a much more serious charge than the previous one because, he is ultimately insulting the current gods, implying that they are not sufficient and that they are not worthy of being called gods. The people of Athens were definitely angry at this because they believed that Socrates was being an arrogant fool who had no right to tell the people what god to worship and what god to neglect.
Essentially, Socrates questioning and undermining a religious system and a legal system that was revolved around the gods. He was questioning long held practices and beliefs of a society. So as a result, I do believe that from that particular society's point of view that these charges were legitimate and that the people were justified in bringing him to court.
The second part of this questions asks whether or not that this was a fair trial. Again, if I looked at this issue through that society's point of view, I would say that this trial was a fair one. Socrates was given a chance to speak and defend himself in front of a jury and a panel of judges. This is just how our modern day courts operate in Canada. He was given a chance to argue his case and defend himself (albeit with a bit of shouting from the audience and the jury) and the prosecutors were also allowed to explain why they could bring Socrates to court on these charges. Unfortunately the verdict wasn't a desirable one for Socrates (sentenced to death). But they way they reached their verdict was totally fair, since everyone was given a chance to speak and the judges had actually listened to what Socrates had to say, But again, Socrates' arguments were just not solid enough to stir the people's beliefs in their religion and so he was sentenced to death.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Omelas Blog (Revised)
2) Although the people of Omelas are fully aware of the child's suffering, those who remain in Omelas don't seem to feel any guilt. In fact, Le Guin reinforces this in her story. Do you think its possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others? Please explain and provide examples.
Sure, I do believe that it is possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others. But I do not believe that the guilt that a person constantly feels could be the dominant emotion when it comes to making decisions to better themselves, because if it is, then he or she just wouldn't be as secure or as well off as they would like to be in the world. There is always a cost for every decision that you make. For example, in basic terms, the reason why unemployment was so rampant around the world during the 2008 recession was because people decided to cut back on their spending to be safe during those unsure times. This cut back in spending had forced many companies to lay off their workers, forcing them to face unemployment. But many people did not think about the consequences of what their lack of spending would to the workforce of their country's economies (workers being laid off) and so as a result, they tried to better themselves off by not spending and did not allow their guilt (if there was even a trace of it) to stop them from making their decision.
Wal Mart is another company that perfectly exemplifies this situation. Many people constantly feel guilty about the fact that they still support a company that exploits the population (more specifically, children) of third world countries in order to operate their business and keep their prices low. Many people shop at Wal Mart knowing fully well how exactly the store's products are priced so low (because they pay their offshore workers really wages), but they do this because they would all like to save money and just be better off. Again their constant feelings of guilt (if they are feeling any) are not stopping them from doing what they are doing.
Apart from the examples, even major ethical theories such as Utilitarianism suggest that the right action is the one that promotes the greatest benefits to the greatest amount of people. Note that it does not mention all of the people, it only mentions the greatest amount of people. So this is implying that there are going to be people around the world who are going to lead a miserable life and suffer, just like that boy in the locked in the closet in Le Guin's "utopia". The citizens do constantly feel guilty about that boy's suffering, but they know that in order for them to be happy and be secure, they have to force that boy to go through what he is.
So basically, what I am trying to say is that it is definitely possible for people to constantly feel guilty over the misery of others, but it is highly unlikely that the majority of the people would risk their comfortable lives to rid themselves of that guilt and try to better the lives of the impoverished/miserable, which is also clearly reflected in Le Guin's story as well. Yes we all feel like everyone should do whatever they can to help others and help the miserable lead happy lives but that is just impossible to do so and as a result, we just feel guilty about our helplessness in abolishing the misery of others.
Works Cited: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilitarianism
Sure, I do believe that it is possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others. But I do not believe that the guilt that a person constantly feels could be the dominant emotion when it comes to making decisions to better themselves, because if it is, then he or she just wouldn't be as secure or as well off as they would like to be in the world. There is always a cost for every decision that you make. For example, in basic terms, the reason why unemployment was so rampant around the world during the 2008 recession was because people decided to cut back on their spending to be safe during those unsure times. This cut back in spending had forced many companies to lay off their workers, forcing them to face unemployment. But many people did not think about the consequences of what their lack of spending would to the workforce of their country's economies (workers being laid off) and so as a result, they tried to better themselves off by not spending and did not allow their guilt (if there was even a trace of it) to stop them from making their decision.
Wal Mart is another company that perfectly exemplifies this situation. Many people constantly feel guilty about the fact that they still support a company that exploits the population (more specifically, children) of third world countries in order to operate their business and keep their prices low. Many people shop at Wal Mart knowing fully well how exactly the store's products are priced so low (because they pay their offshore workers really wages), but they do this because they would all like to save money and just be better off. Again their constant feelings of guilt (if they are feeling any) are not stopping them from doing what they are doing.
Apart from the examples, even major ethical theories such as Utilitarianism suggest that the right action is the one that promotes the greatest benefits to the greatest amount of people. Note that it does not mention all of the people, it only mentions the greatest amount of people. So this is implying that there are going to be people around the world who are going to lead a miserable life and suffer, just like that boy in the locked in the closet in Le Guin's "utopia". The citizens do constantly feel guilty about that boy's suffering, but they know that in order for them to be happy and be secure, they have to force that boy to go through what he is.
So basically, what I am trying to say is that it is definitely possible for people to constantly feel guilty over the misery of others, but it is highly unlikely that the majority of the people would risk their comfortable lives to rid themselves of that guilt and try to better the lives of the impoverished/miserable, which is also clearly reflected in Le Guin's story as well. Yes we all feel like everyone should do whatever they can to help others and help the miserable lead happy lives but that is just impossible to do so and as a result, we just feel guilty about our helplessness in abolishing the misery of others.
Works Cited: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilitarianism
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)