Masculinity/Masculinities

In today’s society, masculinity is defined as having certain qualities and characteristics of the perfect male, which may include having attractive features, leader-like traits, and power.  Evidence can be seen from clothing advertisements on TV, magazines, and billboards, where the ideal male is always portrayed as having a tough, strong, confident image.  Indeed, we are constantly reminded of what we should strive to be like by the media through entertainment and ads displayed everywhere we look.   We usually do not associate weak as being masculine, so those who are overly sentimental and in tune with their emotions are generally not deemed “masculine” in pop culture.  Hero-like characters who save “the damsel in distress” is the first example that comes to my mind, which basically stereotypes men as being the “knight in shining armour” and women who have to rely on their male counterparts in order to be saved.  The strong, handsome “ideal” man is presented to us as children through Disney movies, and the media in today’s society builds on these concepts and forces us to try and achieve these aims even if it is not a healthy or accurate portrayal of people.

In Orwell’s 1984, Winston is presented to us as being the strong, independent, and courageous, main character.  His female counterpart, Julia can be seen as being rebellious, but she is portrayed as being the weaker of the two, easily giving up when they have been caught in the end.  Women do not play much of an important role in this novel, except as objects that satisfy sexual desires because love is forbidden.  Therefore, men dominate the Party and all aspects of life.  They control through violent measures, brainwashing, propaganda, and intimidation.  All the positions of power in the novel are occupied by men  (Ex. Goldstein, O’Brien, Big Brother). If, perhaps, women were in control, would the same strict regulations and methods of empowerment be in place? O’Brien states that Julia surrendered to them willingly and quickly after they had been caught, whereas Winston endures several torture sessions and puts up a strong resistance before he is finally converted.  Here, Orwell could have been emphasizing the physical and mental pain men can endure which may be defined as being masculine.    

Curtis' /Happiness Machines/ and Freud's /Civilization and its Discontents/

For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy? Why?

For Sigmund Freud, I do not think it is possible to be happy given the definitions and circumstances Freud puts forth as obtaining happiness.  First of all, the pursuit of happiness, “aims, on the one hand, at an absence of pain and unpleasure, and, on the other, at the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure.” (pg 42) Therefore, happiness is linked to pleasure and “what we call happiness in the strictest sense comes from the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree, and it is from its nature only possible as an episodic phenomenon” (pg 42). Here, Freud is saying that to be truly happy, one must have their inner desires met, and this would only be possible on and off again, not continuously.  Freud notes that is much easier to experience unhappiness than happiness because of so many factors and limitations that hinder our desires.  When I look at my life today and question if I am truly happy, it is hard to answer because there are the obvious consumer goods, devices, and electronics that satisfy my materialistic wants, but I do not think much about my psychological wants and if they are truly met.  Therefore, I guess it would be appropriate to say that my long-term happiness is in question.  Freud says that men “moderate their claims to happiness-just as the pleasure principle itself, indeed, under the influence of the external world,-if a man thinks himself happy merely to have escaped unhappiness.”(pg 44)  Given these circumstances, I do not think the individual would be truly happy because he/she would have to give up his/her current ideals of happiness in order to deal with internal or external sufferings.  As Freud noted earlier in the chapter, happiness relates to “strong feelings of pleasure” (pg 42) not just merely avoiding situations that cause displeasure, because then, the individual would be settling for something less than what they had once hoped to achieve.    In support of my earlier point about society having limitations, Freud makes an interesting point: “This contention holds that what we call our civilization is largely responsible for our misery, and that we should be much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions”(pg 58).  It is ironic how we associate civilization and advanced knowledge as being the key to success, thus perhaps leading to an increased sense of happiness, but according to this passage, the opposite may be true.  Even technological and scientific advancements and research have not contributed to making people happier. They are important milestones in human achievement, but have not increased the amount of pleasure experienced.  In Civilizations and its Discontents, Freud suggests that external factors prevent people from achieving their inner desires; therefore, it is not possible to be happy.

Works Cited: Freud, Sigmund, James Strachey, and Peter Gay. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton, 1989. Print.

Socrates and Plato's /Apology/

2. Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him to be 'playing' the martyr figure in the extreme sense? The former has connotations of personal conviction whereas the martyr-figure, in this instance, to quote a nearby dictionary (Apple's), is "a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration." Can we separate the two?

Socrates is portrayed as a wise, calm, and thought-provoking philosopher in Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology, Crito.  There is no doubt that he is strong-willed in his beliefs, and never strayed from them, nor resorted to begging or appealing to the judges’ emotions in order to make his case.  Because of this, I think that Socrates is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs and is not “playing the martyr figure”.  Throughout the trial, Socrates seems to take up the air as the teacher, as played in Euthyphro as well, and is very upfront about his situation, not exaggerating the circumstances to gain sympathy or admiration.  He states the following “What I have told you, Athenians, is the truth: I neither conceal nor do I suppress anything, trivial or important.  Yet I know that it is just this outspokenness which rouses indignation.  But that is only a proof that my words are true, and that the prejudice against me, and the causes of it, are what I have said.”(pg 29)  The assertive demeanour that Socrates demonstrates in his trial is not evidence of someone who is trying to gain the pity of others.  He is merely cross-examining the charges laid against him and tries to use the truth, not exaggerations in order to sway the Athenians to his side.   Therefore, I do not think Socrates fits this description of a martyr, as he seems to earn their anger and indignation instead of sympathy and admiration, as demonstrated by their shouts, interrupting Socrates whenever he speaks.  At times, Socrates even seems to appear boastful, claiming “If you put me to death, you will not easily find another who, if I may use a ludicrous comparison, clings to the state as a sort of gadfly to a horse that is large and well-bred but rather sluggish because of its size, so that it needs to be aroused. It seems to me that the god has attached me like that to the state.....” (pg 37).  These do not sound like words of someone who cares if he has offended/insulted his audience. In the end, when Socrates is condemned to death, he accepts the fact, and does not appear to be in distress, but remarks that it could even be a good thing. Socrates does die willingly because the Athenians did not agree with the justifications of his personal and philosophical beliefs put forth.  The two concepts are related but I do not think one can be undoubtedly considered a martyr if one is willing to die for his /her personal and philosophical beliefs under this definition, so the two can be separated slightly.

Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1948. Print.

Blog#1 Revision

If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk? Please explain and justify your decision.

If I were a citizen of Omelas, I would stay because it would be the only life I’ve known and I wouldn’t be courageous enough to take a stand and walk away. Though the honourable decision would be to fight against the inhumane and cruel treatment of one person for this one utopia, I believe that humans are selfish, and we must meet our own needs and fulfill our own happiness before we can help others.  I say that the honourable decision would be to walk away because it seems unlikely that the current lifestyle of the citizens of Omelas would change.  It is a utopia and the abandonment of that idea would most likely lead to an outrage if say, you try to release the child and convince everyone not to get a replacement.  Then, even if you managed to do this, you would be responsible for the unhappiness and disorder that would ensue.  By walking away, the individual is saying that they will follow their morals and give up all they have achieved and accomplished in Omelas in order to make a statement, which is that they do not condone the imprisonment of the child.  It is true that perhaps, the individual is trying to relieve some guilt by walking away instead of facing the circumstances, but I believe that a little bit of guilt will always follow.    

I also think that when helping someone compromises our own happiness, which would be releasing the child, in Le Guin’s short story, most of us would put ourselves before others instead of risk our happiness and our families.  We become so absorbed in our own lives and relationships, that it becomes easy to forget that there are those who are less fortunate.  Even if I were to see the impoverished child suffer and live in misery with my own eyes, I would probably learn to forget the image or accept it because that would be what everyone else was doing, and society shapes who we are. Because of the disastrous outcome that would result from releasing the child and walking away, I wouldn’t be able discard my utopia.  Who would sacrifice their own happiness and bliss for one child?  My family, friends, and everything I have cherished would be left behind if I chose to walk away. If I were truly happy and were not capable of feeling remorse in this utopia, then I would not be willing to give up my “perfect” life and walk off into the unknown. 

Comparing Omelas to our society today lets us see similarities between two worlds that don’t seem so unrelated when we delve deeper and analyze the way we live our lives. We are constantly shown images and hear about those who are less fortunate in the news.  Some people in Third World countries and even in our own city don’t have enough to eat, a place to sleep, an education, and good healthcare.  This, of course, is similar to the squalid conditions the child in Omelas lives with.  I feel guilty for taking the simple things in life for granted, and it is bothersome to me when I reflect on this, that we just accept this fact and continue living our lives.  Initially, we may feel sorrow and pain for those who live in poverty, and do our part by making donations, but it clearly isn’t enough, and all too soon, we forget.  However, there are some people who have dedicated their lives to helping others who live in poverty and that is truly admirable.  I cannot say that I am one of those people. Therefore, I would most likely choose to forget about the child if I were living in Omelas and stay even though I do not think it is the most moral or “right” choice to make.

"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"

1. If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk? Please explain and justify your decision.

If I were a citizen of Omelas, I would stay because it would be the only life I’ve known and I wouldn’t be courageous enough to take a stand and walk away.  Though the honourable decision would be to fight against the inhumane and cruel treatment of one person for this one utopia, I believe that humans are selfish, and we must meet our own needs and fulfill our own happiness before we can help those around us.  When helping someone compromises our own happiness, most of us would put ourselves before others.  We become so absorbed in our own lives and relationships, that it becomes easy to forget that there are those who are less fortunate.  Even if I were to see the impoverished child suffer and live in misery with my own eyes, I would probably learn to forget the image or accept it because that would be what everyone else was doing, and society shapes who we are.  If we are raised believing that this is the norm, then why would we rebel?  Who would sacrifice their own happiness and bliss for one child?  If I were truly happy and were not capable of feeling remorse in this utopia, then I would not be willing to give up my “perfect” life and walk off into the unknown. 

We are constantly shown images and hear about those who are less fortunate in the news.  Some people in Third World countries and even in our own city don’t have enough to eat, a place to sleep, an education, and good healthcare.  I feel guilty for taking the simple things in life for granted, and it is bothersome to me when I reflect on this, that we just accept this fact and continue living our lives.  Initially, we may feel sorrow and pain for those who live in poverty, and do our part by making donations, but it clearly isn’t enough, and all too soon, we forget.  Viewing Le Guin’s story in perspective to real life made me realize that I would stay.  This is a harsh reality, but I guess knowing what we are more inclined to do is far better than being ignorant or blind.