1. What point is Huxley trying to establish by having John commit suicide?
2. What is Huxley trying to say about the meaning of "true" happiness in Brave New World?
3. Which method of "rule" in the two societies was more effective in maintaining government power? Why are a certain utopia's methods of administration more effective than the other?
Monday, December 5, 2011
Friday, December 2, 2011
"Communist Utopia" ~ Thomas Hornung
The painting indicates communism through the eyes on the wall, which signify that the man is being closely watched by the government.
The artist's view on communism is that it inhibits individual freedom. This can be seen in the way the man is positioned; his face, the sole indicator of his identity, is not visible, meaning his identity has been taken away by communistic oppression. The painting is also gray and dreary, indicating that the artist believes communism is a negative thing.
The title is meant to be ironic; the picture displays what a communist would see as a utopia, but the world pictured is clearly too depressing and dark to be considered as a utopia by the common person.
The artist's view on communism is that it inhibits individual freedom. This can be seen in the way the man is positioned; his face, the sole indicator of his identity, is not visible, meaning his identity has been taken away by communistic oppression. The painting is also gray and dreary, indicating that the artist believes communism is a negative thing.
The title is meant to be ironic; the picture displays what a communist would see as a utopia, but the world pictured is clearly too depressing and dark to be considered as a utopia by the common person.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
BNW Questions ~ #2
1. How does the concept of success and contentment with life in Brave New World differ from what we view to be contentment in our society today?
In our culture, happiness is defined as something that is meant to accompany success, which is something that in turn is designed to be individually achievable. In the One State society, happiness is a state-facilitated process that comes through the use of the feel-good drug soma. Rather than personally select the path that an individual believes will bring them contentment, as we do in American culture, people are induced from birth to automatically be satisfied with whatever position they have in life. This is why Mustapha Mond ponders, "It was the sort of idea that might easily decondition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes–make them lose their faith in happiness as the Sovereign Good and take to believing, instead, that the goal was somewhere beyond, somewhere outside the present human sphere, that the purpose of life was not the maintenance of well-being, but some intensification and refining of consciousness, some enlargement of knowledge. Which was, the Controller reflected, quite possibly true. But not, in the present circumstance, admissible" (chp. 12). He recognizes the absurdity of the idea that happiness is based on a goal that can be achieved or by the gaining of knowledge, rather than something that is essentially "inborn".
2. How does the One State's view of what is considered sexually "moral" be treated in our society?
In American culture, it is typically the norm for women to be sexually passive while men are the "aggressors" in the relationship. Women are more commonly expected to be chaste and not behave in the way men traditionally do. In Brave New World's society, "everyone belongs to everybody", and sexual promiscuity amongst women is not only common but considered moral. This is why Helmholtz finds Shakespeare's writing of a woman selectively choosing to be with one man is absurd, and comments that Shakespeare is a "marvelous propaganda technician" and that "he had so many insane, excruciating things to get excited about" (chp. 12). Conversely, this setup within our society is considered the norm, and if Helmholtz were to share his view with the average American today, they might react not only with shock, but with disgust as well. Unlike in Brave New World society, many people in American culture cite the Bible as the basis for what they believe in morally, and the Bible staunchly opposes any setup other than a one man-one woman arrangement.
3. How does Brave New World's society differ from 1984's?
1984's society utilizes fear tactics to enforce conformity; Brave New World's utilizes mental conditioning from an early age to make conformity the only choice available. Yet, those who do not conform entirely are not hunted down by the government to be locked away; rather, they are simply admonished to behave more morally. I believe the reason Brave New World's society does not immediately rush to kill off anyone who does not conform is because the sleep-hypnosis and genetic conditioning is typically so effective that "revolts" are not viewed as serious threats. People in 1984's society might be able to envision the possibility of another type of world, and if they do, they are taken to the Ministry of Love to be tortured and reformed mentally; in Brave New World, change from the government's established norm is not seen as possible, therefore, it is not as much of a concern.
In our culture, happiness is defined as something that is meant to accompany success, which is something that in turn is designed to be individually achievable. In the One State society, happiness is a state-facilitated process that comes through the use of the feel-good drug soma. Rather than personally select the path that an individual believes will bring them contentment, as we do in American culture, people are induced from birth to automatically be satisfied with whatever position they have in life. This is why Mustapha Mond ponders, "It was the sort of idea that might easily decondition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes–make them lose their faith in happiness as the Sovereign Good and take to believing, instead, that the goal was somewhere beyond, somewhere outside the present human sphere, that the purpose of life was not the maintenance of well-being, but some intensification and refining of consciousness, some enlargement of knowledge. Which was, the Controller reflected, quite possibly true. But not, in the present circumstance, admissible" (chp. 12). He recognizes the absurdity of the idea that happiness is based on a goal that can be achieved or by the gaining of knowledge, rather than something that is essentially "inborn".
2. How does the One State's view of what is considered sexually "moral" be treated in our society?
In American culture, it is typically the norm for women to be sexually passive while men are the "aggressors" in the relationship. Women are more commonly expected to be chaste and not behave in the way men traditionally do. In Brave New World's society, "everyone belongs to everybody", and sexual promiscuity amongst women is not only common but considered moral. This is why Helmholtz finds Shakespeare's writing of a woman selectively choosing to be with one man is absurd, and comments that Shakespeare is a "marvelous propaganda technician" and that "he had so many insane, excruciating things to get excited about" (chp. 12). Conversely, this setup within our society is considered the norm, and if Helmholtz were to share his view with the average American today, they might react not only with shock, but with disgust as well. Unlike in Brave New World society, many people in American culture cite the Bible as the basis for what they believe in morally, and the Bible staunchly opposes any setup other than a one man-one woman arrangement.
3. How does Brave New World's society differ from 1984's?
1984's society utilizes fear tactics to enforce conformity; Brave New World's utilizes mental conditioning from an early age to make conformity the only choice available. Yet, those who do not conform entirely are not hunted down by the government to be locked away; rather, they are simply admonished to behave more morally. I believe the reason Brave New World's society does not immediately rush to kill off anyone who does not conform is because the sleep-hypnosis and genetic conditioning is typically so effective that "revolts" are not viewed as serious threats. People in 1984's society might be able to envision the possibility of another type of world, and if they do, they are taken to the Ministry of Love to be tortured and reformed mentally; in Brave New World, change from the government's established norm is not seen as possible, therefore, it is not as much of a concern.
Monday, November 28, 2011
"Don't You Want Me" ~ The Human League
The subject is the man's internal conflict over the woman leaving him. This is exemplified through the lyrics, "don't, don't you want me?/You know I don't believe you/When you say that you don't need me."
The man's perspective is that he created the woman's success and that she still needs him. He sings, "You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar when I met you/I picked you out, I shook you up/And turned you around, turned you into someone new" and "Success has been so easy for you/But don't forget it's me who put you where you are now,/And I can put you back there too.".
The woman's perspective is that he had nothing to do with her success and that she doesn't need him to create a life for herself. She agrees that she wasn't always successful, but now she has the ability to be strong by herself. This is shown through the lyrics, "I was working as a waitress in a cocktail bar,/That much is true./But even then I knew I'd find a much better place/Either with or without you" and "I think it's time I live my life on my own".
I sympathize with the woman. She's genuinely trying to move on from the past and create a life for herself, whereas the man is just reminding her of what he's done and trying to make the past a reason for not to leave. The man seems pompous and arrogant as well by saying that he has the ability to "put her back" into the life she used to live.
The man's perspective is that he created the woman's success and that she still needs him. He sings, "You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar when I met you/I picked you out, I shook you up/And turned you around, turned you into someone new" and "Success has been so easy for you/But don't forget it's me who put you where you are now,/And I can put you back there too.".
The woman's perspective is that he had nothing to do with her success and that she doesn't need him to create a life for herself. She agrees that she wasn't always successful, but now she has the ability to be strong by herself. This is shown through the lyrics, "I was working as a waitress in a cocktail bar,/That much is true./But even then I knew I'd find a much better place/Either with or without you" and "I think it's time I live my life on my own".
I sympathize with the woman. She's genuinely trying to move on from the past and create a life for herself, whereas the man is just reminding her of what he's done and trying to make the past a reason for not to leave. The man seems pompous and arrogant as well by saying that he has the ability to "put her back" into the life she used to live.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Brave New World #1
The society in Brave New World has created conformity through genetic and embryonic conditioning. The government manipulates how each individual will live their life by exposing them to higher or lower levels of oxygen to either enhance or depress their mental ability, putting them in conditions that are ideal for the person they are supposed to become (for example, predisposing someone who is supposed to be a chemical worker to various types of chemicals as an embryo), and adding c,ertain diseases in order to place further limitations on the individual's potential as they grow up. We see the nurse, Lenina Crowne, adding batches of typhoid fever to certain embryos as part of her job, for example. As the embryos develop and eventually become infants, they introduce new types of conditioning based on what caste the child is supposed to be raised in: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Epsilson. For example, the government uses Pavlovian-style classical conditioning to make Delta infants fear books, so when they grow older, they will never be able to seek out knowledge for themselves and raise their caste position. Sleep conditioning is used to re-enforce certain messages into the minds of the children even while they are unconscious. Through these methods of conditioning, people are taught to be loyal to their pre-assigned role in life and fully accept their prescribed position within their own caste.e
Brave New World's society is viewed as a utopia by those who live in it, but its lack of personal freedom and individuality makes it a dystopia. People in the society are said to "belong to one another", and are prohibited from being dedicated to any one person, whether it be a family member or a spouse. Devotion towards loved ones has instead transformed into devotion to one's caste and position in life. The lack of freedom to love and the restriction of individuality is what makes this society a dystopia rather than a utopia.
Brave New World's society is viewed as a utopia by those who live in it, but its lack of personal freedom and individuality makes it a dystopia. People in the society are said to "belong to one another", and are prohibited from being dedicated to any one person, whether it be a family member or a spouse. Devotion towards loved ones has instead transformed into devotion to one's caste and position in life. The lack of freedom to love and the restriction of individuality is what makes this society a dystopia rather than a utopia.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Battling Clean Up and Striking Out
Subject
The subject of Dave Barry’s Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out is the division between what men and women consider priorities and what they value. The division is demonstrated through various anecdotes, including one about the writer not being able to see the dirt that his wife can see clearly and another about his wife's inability to appreciate the World Series. The use of these anecdotes allows the reader to compare the differing views between the two sexes concerning various issues. The first expresses what the author believes is a priority for women (cleaning), and the second illustrates that men tend to value sports in a much higher regard than women do.
Occasion
Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out was written in 1988. The setting is shown most explicitly through the introductory paragraph, but regardless, one can assemble a general idea of when and where it takes place through clues from the text. For example, details about the World Series and how enthusiastic the men were over the event indicates that this probably did not occur very recently. The reason is that the World Series is a major baseball event, but within the past decade, baseball has waned in its degree of national popularity and become less important through the years. Thus, judging by the level of excitement amongst the men for the World Series, the reader can guess that this takes place at least two to three decades ago.
The probable place of the essay’s creation is in Barry’s home in Florida. Barry's central focus in writing this essay concerns the antics of his own family, and judging by the fact that Barry writes for The Miami Herald, we can guess that he lives there and is writing from this location.
The probable place of the essay’s creation is in Barry’s home in Florida. Barry's central focus in writing this essay concerns the antics of his own family, and judging by the fact that Barry writes for The Miami Herald, we can guess that he lives there and is writing from this location.
Audience
Dave Barry’s specific audience for Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out is middle-aged married adults. The type of humor he uses is most easily identified with this age group, as he focuses on the peculiarities of the family and the marriage relationship. This topic would be unfamiliar to the younger generation, but to those who have already lived through it, they could identify with it more easily and find more humor in it.
Purpose
Barry's purpose in writing Battling Clean Up and Striking-Out is primarily to entertain. Phrases like “babies of both sexes have a very low awareness of dirt, others than to think it tastes better than food" instill a light-hearted atmosphere that lets the reader know the article is not intended to be serious, but comical.
Speaker
Dave Barry, a writer who specialized in writing comedy columns for The Miami Herald, believes that some inherent differences between men and women are irreconcilable. This belief is exemplified through the ending, where the women end up sitting at the table discussing "human relationships or something" while the men end up in the other room watching the World Series. Symbolically, the two sexes were unable to come together and ignore the fundamental differences that make them, essentially, man and woman. Presumably, Barry is trying to illustrate here that sometimes men just want to be men and women just want to be women.
Dave Berry, a married man, also recognizes that although his wife and him might have some very sharp differences in the ways they perceive situations, it does not create any sort of disharmony or frustration between the two. The men and women doing separate things is not something Barry complains about, nor does he give any indication that it has caused his wife problems. Instead, Barry seems to believe that this is the natural harmony of things and most relationships are characterized by a certain level of gender dissonance.
Tone
David Barry shows a comical and sarcastic attitude about men and women’s difference in viewpoint toward certain subjects in Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out. These attitudes are expressed through the use of exaggerated hyperboles, such as the joke about the fall of Pompeii and the cause of it being unseen levels of dust. His tone is effective in the essay because it allows him to get across a point that might be considered offensive by some, but when put in a comical context is more socially culturally acceptable.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
1984 Reading Blog #3
1. Has Big Brother won? Why/Why not?
2. Propose a way that the One State can be brought down.
3. What do you think happens to Winston Smith at the end of the novel?
Support your answer with analysis of specific quotes from the text.
~
1. Yes, in the end, the Party has managed to successfully "convert" Winston to their ideals through careful psychological manipulation. This is most obviously seen in the concluding sentences of the novel: "...the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother" (pg. 297). Winston had three primary barriers the Party had to tear down before they could finally get him to submit: 1) his tenacious belief in the existence of objective reality and universal truths, 2) his love for Julia, and 3) his willful refusal to "love" Big Brother. O'Brien manages to destroy the first obstacle during torture sessions in the Ministry of Love, where he utilizes both pain-inducing physical methods (electric shock, beatings, starvation) and psychological manipulation (having Winston view his own dilapidated body in the mirror, solitary confinement, fostering a bond of trust between Winston and himself) to tear down Winston's clinging belief in objective reality. He manages to convince Winston that 2+2 can equal 5 (or even 3, if the circumstances call for it), freedom can be slavery, and that "nothing exists except through human consciousness" (pg. 265). Therefore, if the Party did declare that the sky was green or 2+2=5 or whatever other ludicrous assertion they needed to be true at that moment, and Winston could manage to see the green sky or perceive that 2+2 did indeed equal 5 within his mind, then in reality, it could be true. Having broken down this intellectual barrier within Winston, O'Brien still recognized that he had some emotional ties keeping him from truly committing to the Party with not just his mind, but also his heart. Winston's outburst ("he had heard himself cry aloud, "Julia! Julia! Julia, my love! Julia!" pg. 280) demonstrated that his feelings for Julia still took precedence over his loyalty to the Party. Therefore, it served as another obstacle for O'Brien to get rid of before Winston's conversion could ever be complete. His feelings are destroyed during an encounter in Room 101, a room found in the lowest quarters of the Ministry of Love that's rumored to house 'the worst thing in the world'. In Winston's case, the worst thing in the world happens to be rats. O'Brien, therefore, prepares a cage full of hungry rats that he prepares to let loose on Winston's face. Just before the cage door slides open, Winston, driven insane by panic, shouts: "Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!" (pg. 286). This signified that Winston had finally relinquished his feelings for Julia in place of the fear instilled by the Party. Later, Winston and Julia discuss what happened to both of them in Room 101, and how the event managed to put a nail in the coffin of their feelings for each other:
"Sometimes, [Julia] said, they threaten you with something you can't stand up to, something you can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.' And perhaps you might pretend, afterwards, that it was only a trick and that you just said it to make them stop and didn’t really mean it. But that isn’t true. At the time when it happens you do mean it. You think there’s no other way of saving yourself and you’re quite ready to save yourself that way. You want it to happen to the other person. You don’t give a damn what they suffer. All you care about is yourself."
"All you care about is yourself," he echoed.
"And after that, you don't feel the same toward the other person any longer."
"No," he said, "you don't feel the same." (pg. 292)
The final barrier to Winston's conversion is finally struck down while he sits in the Chestnut Tree, alone, much like the political convicts Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford had done long before him. Looking up at a poster of Big Brother, he realizes he truly does "love" him, thus completing his conversion and making him completely subject to the Party. It is through this three-step process that Winston is broken down and Big Brother becomes the victor.
2. Using the physical and psychological methods mentioned above that were used on Winston, it seems impossible that the One State could ever be combated long enough to be brought down. The system is designed to ensure that no unorthodox thoughts exist anywhere, even in the minds of prisoners about to be put to death by the State. Even the proles, who might have a chance at breaking loose, are kept in a permanent state of poverty and lack of education so that they will never have the means to actually do so. Rebellion, therefore, is literally made impossible by the structure of the system.
3. We can guess at Winston's fate by noticing that Orwell seems to put him in the same position of Jones, Rutherford, and Aaronson at the conclusion of the novel. Much like the three rebels before him, Winston will likely live what remains of his life in complete and utter helplessness before the State. They might ask him to come forth and confess his crimes openly, they might decide to finally end his life, or they might allow him to carry out the rest of his existence freely, as he no longer poses any sort of threat to the Party. Whatever they decide, the Party has ensured that Winston will never be able to rebel against it, whether through action or simply through thought. After all, the capacity for rebellion has been "cauterized" out of him, and therefore his future actions became a subject of little importance to the Party.
2. Propose a way that the One State can be brought down.
3. What do you think happens to Winston Smith at the end of the novel?
Support your answer with analysis of specific quotes from the text.
~
1. Yes, in the end, the Party has managed to successfully "convert" Winston to their ideals through careful psychological manipulation. This is most obviously seen in the concluding sentences of the novel: "...the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother" (pg. 297). Winston had three primary barriers the Party had to tear down before they could finally get him to submit: 1) his tenacious belief in the existence of objective reality and universal truths, 2) his love for Julia, and 3) his willful refusal to "love" Big Brother. O'Brien manages to destroy the first obstacle during torture sessions in the Ministry of Love, where he utilizes both pain-inducing physical methods (electric shock, beatings, starvation) and psychological manipulation (having Winston view his own dilapidated body in the mirror, solitary confinement, fostering a bond of trust between Winston and himself) to tear down Winston's clinging belief in objective reality. He manages to convince Winston that 2+2 can equal 5 (or even 3, if the circumstances call for it), freedom can be slavery, and that "nothing exists except through human consciousness" (pg. 265). Therefore, if the Party did declare that the sky was green or 2+2=5 or whatever other ludicrous assertion they needed to be true at that moment, and Winston could manage to see the green sky or perceive that 2+2 did indeed equal 5 within his mind, then in reality, it could be true. Having broken down this intellectual barrier within Winston, O'Brien still recognized that he had some emotional ties keeping him from truly committing to the Party with not just his mind, but also his heart. Winston's outburst ("he had heard himself cry aloud, "Julia! Julia! Julia, my love! Julia!" pg. 280) demonstrated that his feelings for Julia still took precedence over his loyalty to the Party. Therefore, it served as another obstacle for O'Brien to get rid of before Winston's conversion could ever be complete. His feelings are destroyed during an encounter in Room 101, a room found in the lowest quarters of the Ministry of Love that's rumored to house 'the worst thing in the world'. In Winston's case, the worst thing in the world happens to be rats. O'Brien, therefore, prepares a cage full of hungry rats that he prepares to let loose on Winston's face. Just before the cage door slides open, Winston, driven insane by panic, shouts: "Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!" (pg. 286). This signified that Winston had finally relinquished his feelings for Julia in place of the fear instilled by the Party. Later, Winston and Julia discuss what happened to both of them in Room 101, and how the event managed to put a nail in the coffin of their feelings for each other:
"Sometimes, [Julia] said, they threaten you with something you can't stand up to, something you can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.' And perhaps you might pretend, afterwards, that it was only a trick and that you just said it to make them stop and didn’t really mean it. But that isn’t true. At the time when it happens you do mean it. You think there’s no other way of saving yourself and you’re quite ready to save yourself that way. You want it to happen to the other person. You don’t give a damn what they suffer. All you care about is yourself."
"All you care about is yourself," he echoed.
"And after that, you don't feel the same toward the other person any longer."
"No," he said, "you don't feel the same." (pg. 292)
The final barrier to Winston's conversion is finally struck down while he sits in the Chestnut Tree, alone, much like the political convicts Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford had done long before him. Looking up at a poster of Big Brother, he realizes he truly does "love" him, thus completing his conversion and making him completely subject to the Party. It is through this three-step process that Winston is broken down and Big Brother becomes the victor.
2. Using the physical and psychological methods mentioned above that were used on Winston, it seems impossible that the One State could ever be combated long enough to be brought down. The system is designed to ensure that no unorthodox thoughts exist anywhere, even in the minds of prisoners about to be put to death by the State. Even the proles, who might have a chance at breaking loose, are kept in a permanent state of poverty and lack of education so that they will never have the means to actually do so. Rebellion, therefore, is literally made impossible by the structure of the system.
3. We can guess at Winston's fate by noticing that Orwell seems to put him in the same position of Jones, Rutherford, and Aaronson at the conclusion of the novel. Much like the three rebels before him, Winston will likely live what remains of his life in complete and utter helplessness before the State. They might ask him to come forth and confess his crimes openly, they might decide to finally end his life, or they might allow him to carry out the rest of his existence freely, as he no longer poses any sort of threat to the Party. Whatever they decide, the Party has ensured that Winston will never be able to rebel against it, whether through action or simply through thought. After all, the capacity for rebellion has been "cauterized" out of him, and therefore his future actions became a subject of little importance to the Party.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
"Love Language"
1. The conflict originates from the deaf woman and the man not being able to communicate, complicating their relationship and possibly leading to confusion between them. This is an external conflict, as it deals with the outward relationship between the man and the woman.
2. The man also has an internal conflict over how to approach talking to the woman, since at first she simply seems as if she's being difficult.
3. In the end, both conflicts are resolved as the man finds out she's deaf, and he decides to stay with her anyways despite difficulties communicating with her.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Ebonics vs. Standard English
Should people have to "code switch"? What is the "standard" for American English? Is it race related? Should it be a teacher's job to correct speech? Why/Why not? Should the race of a teacher matter in the correction of a student's speech? Why/Why not? Is correcting speech the same as correcting a math problem? Why/Why not?
I think that in professional settings, such as work or educational environments, people should have to code switch. The standard for American English utilizes proper grammar and is meant to be uniform so that people of all dialects can mutually understand each other when using it. Standard English is not race-related; it's simply grammatically correct English that can be used uniformly in business or professional fronts, and is the same whether the speaker is Caucasian, African-American, Asian, or Hispanic. There's nothing wrong with speaking one's own dialect in the context of their home or their community, but at school or work where people of all ethnicities and backgrounds are brought together, everyone should be able to easily understand one another. I don't think that the race of a teacher matters; when improper English is used in a professional environment, it should be corrected. Math teachers have no problem correcting the errors of their algebra students, and likewise English teachers shouldn't have to feel afraid about correcting the improper grammar of their own students.
I think that in professional settings, such as work or educational environments, people should have to code switch. The standard for American English utilizes proper grammar and is meant to be uniform so that people of all dialects can mutually understand each other when using it. Standard English is not race-related; it's simply grammatically correct English that can be used uniformly in business or professional fronts, and is the same whether the speaker is Caucasian, African-American, Asian, or Hispanic. There's nothing wrong with speaking one's own dialect in the context of their home or their community, but at school or work where people of all ethnicities and backgrounds are brought together, everyone should be able to easily understand one another. I don't think that the race of a teacher matters; when improper English is used in a professional environment, it should be corrected. Math teachers have no problem correcting the errors of their algebra students, and likewise English teachers shouldn't have to feel afraid about correcting the improper grammar of their own students.
American Friendships
"I have heard many international newcomers say (in the US) that American friendships are superficial. They say Americans do not know what true friendship is; they seem very friendly at first, but the friendships do not grow." What could be some reasons why Americans are perceived this way?
Americans are likely perceived this way because, as the author says, "to ask for help means to be dependent". Our strong individualistic emphasis on self pressures us not to appear dependent or overly needy of anyone else. We cannot rely too much on the help of others, because it makes us look like we can't be self-reliant; we can't be too friendly and too eager to offer help to others, because that might threaten their sense of self-reliance. Americans are often only friendly on the surface level because they want to maintain a mutual feeling of independence from others, and not establish too many close connections that might threaten this sense of independence.
Americans are likely perceived this way because, as the author says, "to ask for help means to be dependent". Our strong individualistic emphasis on self pressures us not to appear dependent or overly needy of anyone else. We cannot rely too much on the help of others, because it makes us look like we can't be self-reliant; we can't be too friendly and too eager to offer help to others, because that might threaten their sense of self-reliance. Americans are often only friendly on the surface level because they want to maintain a mutual feeling of independence from others, and not establish too many close connections that might threaten this sense of independence.
"Me vs. We" ~ Individualist vs. Collectivist Cultures
1) In a collectivist culture, what personality traits are likely to be considered ideal? What about an individualist culture?
In a collectivist culture, adherence to the ideals of the group is a favorable personality trait. Highlighting personally held opinions above those of the group is contrary to the ideals of a collectivist culture, while being in accordance with the majority's opinion would be considered positive.
In contrast, in individualist cultures, people who are assertive about their own beliefs and take charge to make their opinion the dominant one within the group are viewed as "leaders" and "role models". Confident, self-assured people that establish independence from the group are often idealized within individualistic cultures.
2) In what type of culture might elders or people who have professional distinction receive more respect and less challenge from people lower on their culture's/group's hierarchy? Explain your answer.
In individualist cultures, we are taught to act for ourselves and operate as independent units, standing up to elders or people in power when we believe that they have done us wrong. When our sense of self is impeded upon, it is not wrong to oppose those in power; instead, it's viewed as protecting free thought and personal liberty.
Challenging elders or those in power in collectivist cultures, however, would undoubtedly be viewed in a negative light. Those with professional distinction and the elderly are seen as establishing the basis for group ideals, and opposing them would be the same as going against the group as a whole. This mindset can be seen in countries like Japan, where the older generation is given great respect and is valued very highly.
3) Create a specific problem a teacher may encounter when he/she moves from teaching in a collectivist culture to an individualist culture or vice versa. Explain the specific values/influences/obligations/desires caused by the clash. Propose a way for the conflict to be resolved.
A teacher in a collectivist culture would probably be treated with a lot more respect than they would be in an individualist culture. In countries like Pakistan, Korea, or Japan, one would very rarely see a student talking back to a teacher or disobeying classroom rules. In the U.S., however, it's not all that uncommon to see a student directly questioning a teacher's rule or challenging their decisions. Therefore, a teacher moving from a collectivist culture in the East to an individualist culture in the West might be shocked by the level of disrespect he or she encounters in the classroom. Such a teacher might not know how to react when a student intentionally does something in defiance of his or her rules. This conflict might be resolved by emphasizing the importance of respect to the younger generation in Western cultures.
4) What is an acquaintance? Does the word have a positive or negative connotation? Explain.
An acquaintance is someone you know but don't consider yourself very familiar with or close to. The word has a slightly negative connotation, implying that the person is an "outsider" of the group you identify with.
In a collectivist culture, adherence to the ideals of the group is a favorable personality trait. Highlighting personally held opinions above those of the group is contrary to the ideals of a collectivist culture, while being in accordance with the majority's opinion would be considered positive.
In contrast, in individualist cultures, people who are assertive about their own beliefs and take charge to make their opinion the dominant one within the group are viewed as "leaders" and "role models". Confident, self-assured people that establish independence from the group are often idealized within individualistic cultures.
2) In what type of culture might elders or people who have professional distinction receive more respect and less challenge from people lower on their culture's/group's hierarchy? Explain your answer.
In individualist cultures, we are taught to act for ourselves and operate as independent units, standing up to elders or people in power when we believe that they have done us wrong. When our sense of self is impeded upon, it is not wrong to oppose those in power; instead, it's viewed as protecting free thought and personal liberty.
Challenging elders or those in power in collectivist cultures, however, would undoubtedly be viewed in a negative light. Those with professional distinction and the elderly are seen as establishing the basis for group ideals, and opposing them would be the same as going against the group as a whole. This mindset can be seen in countries like Japan, where the older generation is given great respect and is valued very highly.
3) Create a specific problem a teacher may encounter when he/she moves from teaching in a collectivist culture to an individualist culture or vice versa. Explain the specific values/influences/obligations/desires caused by the clash. Propose a way for the conflict to be resolved.
A teacher in a collectivist culture would probably be treated with a lot more respect than they would be in an individualist culture. In countries like Pakistan, Korea, or Japan, one would very rarely see a student talking back to a teacher or disobeying classroom rules. In the U.S., however, it's not all that uncommon to see a student directly questioning a teacher's rule or challenging their decisions. Therefore, a teacher moving from a collectivist culture in the East to an individualist culture in the West might be shocked by the level of disrespect he or she encounters in the classroom. Such a teacher might not know how to react when a student intentionally does something in defiance of his or her rules. This conflict might be resolved by emphasizing the importance of respect to the younger generation in Western cultures.
4) What is an acquaintance? Does the word have a positive or negative connotation? Explain.
An acquaintance is someone you know but don't consider yourself very familiar with or close to. The word has a slightly negative connotation, implying that the person is an "outsider" of the group you identify with.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
1984 ~ Reading Response Blog #2
Prompt: In "Book Two," Winston Smith is torn between his personal guilt over commitment to his job and his traditional trust/belief in the One State, and his overwhelming curiosity which is fueled by other relationships and a yearning for something more/better. In your opinion, why is Winston having a difficult time buying in to what Big Brother and the State are selling? Explain and support. Are his small acts of defiance (questioning) a form of protest? Why/Why not? Compare/contrast Winston's small rebellion to a more current act of rebellion within the United States (think Tea Party Movement, Occupy Wall Street, Anti-War Protests, etc.) in all facets - what they are fighting for, who they are rebelling against, the way their protests seen by the government, the way their protests are seen by the masses. Ultimately, the purpose of this blog is to examine how Orwellian we have become.
~
Winston's having a difficult time buying into what the state is "selling" because it conflicts with his grasping at ancestral memories and innate feelings that he can't seem to suppress. Julia brings non-Victory coffee to one of their trysts and Winston cannot help but recall some innate urge to believe that this is how coffee was supposed to look, smell, taste, feel, despite that it conflicts with everything the Party would have him believe. He can't suppress the dreams of his mother, the shielding arm that guarded him, much like the one he'd seen at the "flicks" earlier, but as far as the Party was concerned no mother of Winston had ever existed in the first place. The Party declared her not a person; therefore, she was not a person. Still, in spite of all the external forces pressuring him to believe otherwise, within his internal space his mother did exist. There did exist a world were coffee had been of quality, a world where the paperweight had come from, a world where 2+2 had indeed always equaled five and there was not a single doubt about it. The question that Winston struggles with near the end of book two is whether concrete truth actually exists if it is only present within the mental space of one individual; he comes to the conclusion that it is, and that "sanity is not statistical". In other words, truth is not determined by what beliefs are popular at the time, and facts are still facts even if only one person knows them. Winston's latching onto these beliefs is what keeps him from ever truly assimilating into the Party mindset.
The other question Winston struggles with is the importance of effectual/ineffectual actions - whether doing something is actually worth it if it has no direct, identifiable result or leaves no mark on history. Julia answers that ineffectual actions are meaningless, but O'Brian claims that the only forms of protest that the Brotherhood can manage are indeed ineffectual; they primarily exist only in thought form and have no direct, material consequence. Therefore, in the mind of Winston and the Brotherhood, these questioning thoughts, although mostly ineffectual, do constitute as a form of protest. These questioning thoughts alone are grave offenses, as the Party's ultimate goal is complete, utter, wholehearted belief in the reality they purport.
The Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street protests, though identified with members of opposing parties, are fundamentally similar in what they aim for: to weaken the superfluous power and influence of the "higher-ups" in our society. They are both unabashedly vocal about their beliefs, and never seem to back down despite occasional pressures from the government. Like Winston's rebellion, they represent the "lowers" on the social scale protesting the actions of the higher-ups. Unlike the rebellion we see in 1984, however, they do not have to censor or conceal what they aim for, and their achievements are acquired through action. In 1984, protests are events of the mind and not outward action, and must always be concealed from the watchful eyes of the Party.
~
Winston's having a difficult time buying into what the state is "selling" because it conflicts with his grasping at ancestral memories and innate feelings that he can't seem to suppress. Julia brings non-Victory coffee to one of their trysts and Winston cannot help but recall some innate urge to believe that this is how coffee was supposed to look, smell, taste, feel, despite that it conflicts with everything the Party would have him believe. He can't suppress the dreams of his mother, the shielding arm that guarded him, much like the one he'd seen at the "flicks" earlier, but as far as the Party was concerned no mother of Winston had ever existed in the first place. The Party declared her not a person; therefore, she was not a person. Still, in spite of all the external forces pressuring him to believe otherwise, within his internal space his mother did exist. There did exist a world were coffee had been of quality, a world where the paperweight had come from, a world where 2+2 had indeed always equaled five and there was not a single doubt about it. The question that Winston struggles with near the end of book two is whether concrete truth actually exists if it is only present within the mental space of one individual; he comes to the conclusion that it is, and that "sanity is not statistical". In other words, truth is not determined by what beliefs are popular at the time, and facts are still facts even if only one person knows them. Winston's latching onto these beliefs is what keeps him from ever truly assimilating into the Party mindset.
The other question Winston struggles with is the importance of effectual/ineffectual actions - whether doing something is actually worth it if it has no direct, identifiable result or leaves no mark on history. Julia answers that ineffectual actions are meaningless, but O'Brian claims that the only forms of protest that the Brotherhood can manage are indeed ineffectual; they primarily exist only in thought form and have no direct, material consequence. Therefore, in the mind of Winston and the Brotherhood, these questioning thoughts, although mostly ineffectual, do constitute as a form of protest. These questioning thoughts alone are grave offenses, as the Party's ultimate goal is complete, utter, wholehearted belief in the reality they purport.
The Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street protests, though identified with members of opposing parties, are fundamentally similar in what they aim for: to weaken the superfluous power and influence of the "higher-ups" in our society. They are both unabashedly vocal about their beliefs, and never seem to back down despite occasional pressures from the government. Like Winston's rebellion, they represent the "lowers" on the social scale protesting the actions of the higher-ups. Unlike the rebellion we see in 1984, however, they do not have to censor or conceal what they aim for, and their achievements are acquired through action. In 1984, protests are events of the mind and not outward action, and must always be concealed from the watchful eyes of the Party.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Islam, Globalization and Gender ~ Muna Abu Sulayman
Identify the conflict. Is this an internal or external conflict? Why does globalization create conflict? In the speaker's opinion, globalization has flown in only one direction; what does she mean by this? Although the speaker feels globalization has been one-sided, she notes there has been one benefit related to the process. What benefit does she mention? The speaker says Muslims and Westerners are obligated to two different sources of truth. What two sources (two texts) does she mention?
The conflict Sulayman discusses in her speech, which is external, is the clash between what Western culture expects of women versus what Islamic culture expects, specifically in regards to wearing the hijab.
Globalization creates conflict in that it presents cultures to each other that may have opposing values, and forces them in some way to seek reconciliation. At times, as the conflict between Western and Islamic culture demonstrates, this can be extremely difficult to do. Western society teaches women that the hijab is limiting and suppressive of individual character as well as sexuality, while Islamic culture views it as a way to "even the playing field" by not making women the constant subjects of sexual subjugation. The speaker notes that globalization has been largely one-sided, with Western culture imposing heavily upon Islamic culture but very seldom the other way around. Despite this, she also notes that Western globalization has spread an influx of positive female role models into the mainstream, encouraging women to work hard to achieve success much like Oprah or Sonia Sotomayor have.
The two texts Sulayman mentions are the Qur'an (the Muslim holy book) and the Constitution. She comments on the conflicts that arise because of differing obligations to these two texts, saying that while Muslim women adhere to the clothing guidelines outlined in the Qur'an, the Constitution's values appear to conflict with the wearing of the hijab.
The conflict Sulayman discusses in her speech, which is external, is the clash between what Western culture expects of women versus what Islamic culture expects, specifically in regards to wearing the hijab.
Globalization creates conflict in that it presents cultures to each other that may have opposing values, and forces them in some way to seek reconciliation. At times, as the conflict between Western and Islamic culture demonstrates, this can be extremely difficult to do. Western society teaches women that the hijab is limiting and suppressive of individual character as well as sexuality, while Islamic culture views it as a way to "even the playing field" by not making women the constant subjects of sexual subjugation. The speaker notes that globalization has been largely one-sided, with Western culture imposing heavily upon Islamic culture but very seldom the other way around. Despite this, she also notes that Western globalization has spread an influx of positive female role models into the mainstream, encouraging women to work hard to achieve success much like Oprah or Sonia Sotomayor have.
The two texts Sulayman mentions are the Qur'an (the Muslim holy book) and the Constitution. She comments on the conflicts that arise because of differing obligations to these two texts, saying that while Muslim women adhere to the clothing guidelines outlined in the Qur'an, the Constitution's values appear to conflict with the wearing of the hijab.
2+2=5 by Radiohead
What is this song talking about lyrically? How does the music mirror or help push the message of the lyrics? The title is an allusion to 1984 - explain the connection.
The lyrics in this song demonstrate the power an oppressive government can have to brainwash people, and also serve as a warning to people who don't pay close enough attention to the actions of their government. Like Winston in 1984, the speaker has fallen victim to the distortion of reality by his superiors, who lead him to believe that "two and two always makes a five" and "January has April showers". In 1984, Winston claims that "freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows". However, because of the government's domineering control and power to brainwash, the speaker has had his freedom to say that 2+2 does indeed make four revoked and instead has been made to believe in a lie. During the chorus of the song, the speaker claims that all this happened because the listener has failed to "pay attention", meaning that political laziness and failure to recognize governmental oppression can breed an oppressive society.
The beginning of the song has a haunting feel to it, establishing the eeriness of the singer's weakening grip on reality. Later on, as the song becomes more and more chaotic, it is clear that the singer has lost an accurate perception of reality and has fallen deeper and deeper into their self-deception.
The lyrics in this song demonstrate the power an oppressive government can have to brainwash people, and also serve as a warning to people who don't pay close enough attention to the actions of their government. Like Winston in 1984, the speaker has fallen victim to the distortion of reality by his superiors, who lead him to believe that "two and two always makes a five" and "January has April showers". In 1984, Winston claims that "freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows". However, because of the government's domineering control and power to brainwash, the speaker has had his freedom to say that 2+2 does indeed make four revoked and instead has been made to believe in a lie. During the chorus of the song, the speaker claims that all this happened because the listener has failed to "pay attention", meaning that political laziness and failure to recognize governmental oppression can breed an oppressive society.
The beginning of the song has a haunting feel to it, establishing the eeriness of the singer's weakening grip on reality. Later on, as the song becomes more and more chaotic, it is clear that the singer has lost an accurate perception of reality and has fallen deeper and deeper into their self-deception.
Friday, October 14, 2011
First Reading Blog ~ 1984, Part One
Topic: The first 1984 reading journal should deal with the structure of the society by specifically addressing the last slide of the power point (what utopias have in common). It should thoroughly (in multiple sentences and with evidence from the text) address the following:
1. How have they created equality or conformity?
2. How have they reduced conflict, specifically in regards to religion, relationships, and individual rights?
3. How have they created or forced happiness/conformity?
4. Make a claim about this society as either a utopia or a dystopia based the rest of your blog entry.
~ ~ ~
The words "Nineteen Eighty-Four" alone are unrivaled in their ability to invoke images of the quintessential dystopian society. The way 1984's society addresses freedom, conformity, social order, and human rights has almost become the standard model for writers trying to make a dent of their own in the "utopian world" genre. The attitude Orwell's fictional society holds towards these topics is the primary basis and subject matter for Part One of the novel.
Equality and liberty are not allies but enemies of the state, as if this were not clearly illustrated enough from the get-go by the Party proclamation that "freedom is slavery". Instead, what the Party truly demands is conformity. Conformity is enforced in no more effective way than by the choking fear that the Thought Police will infiltrate your room at the midnight hour and pack the back of your brain with bullets. Even as tenacious as Winston is in clinging to his unorthodox beliefs and ideology, we can see that the Party has effectively instilled a sense of horror that pressures him to obey and conform at the same time. He still is cautious to guard any potential facial giveaways in the view of the telescreens, gesticulates during Two Minutes Hate, tries his best to falsify history as the Party would want during working hours, and submits to the routines prescribed to him in order not to arouse the suspicion of any higher-ups. Winston, a fully grown man, is reduced to a mere child at the very thought that the dark-haired girl might report him to the Thought Police for his questionable activity in the prole quarters (pg. 101-102). Winston's great outward efforts to please the Party and his paralyzing fear of being captured for thoughtcrime is a great example of how the government manages to pressure the people to conform by purely utilizing fear tactics.
The enforcement of loyalty to the Party gets a backing from the complete and utter elimination of opposing interests. The Junior Anti-Sex League indoctrinates children from a very young age that sexual desire is a conflict of interest to the Party, and that it is best to avoid it altogether and pursue the purer path of celibacy. To parallel the discouragement of sex, the Party also despises the notion of love or any sort of genuine feeling, and as such marriages are selected and arranged by the state. Except among the proles, religion is unheard of; the only permissible "religion" in 1984 is Big Brother himself, and the only mention of prayer or any sort of savior is made when a sandy-haired woman bows before the image of Big Brother, seeking a source of comfort following the dreadful Two-Minutes Hate (pg. 16). Intellectualism is confined to the discussion of the virtue of the principles of Ingsoc, and even as such there is no real "discussion", as there are no opinions to give but favorable ones.
The illusion that abundance characterizes their state of living is the only catalyst continually driving the brainwashed masses to convince themselves daily that the Party is really doing what's best for them. History is "rewritten" to characterize pre-Revolution times as hideously intolerable; the "capitalists" with their top hats were the gods of the earth and the oppressors of the people, while the general masses slaved in crippling poverty day in and day out beneath them. All that was owned was owned by the greedy capitalists, and the common man had no hope of ever seeing a day where he could perhaps live comfortably and have possessions of his own. All that changed, of course, when the Revolution dropped from the sky like a deus ex machina in a classical Greek drama. Suddenly, under the provision of Big Brother, people owned things; never would be there be a day when anybody lacked food, housing, clean clothing, silverware, books, boots, chocolate, or razor blades again. Of course, this was only the reality bolstered by the Ministry of Plenty's astronomical statistics and outrageous claims. In actual reality, people lived shoddy lifestyles where supplies of something or another were short all the time. This is demonstrated by the scene in the dining hall where an announcement via telescreen proclaims the newly released statistics about living standards. The Ministry of Plenty's numbers boasted that standards had improved by at least 20% over the previous year and that rations for foodstuffs such as chocolate had just been increased further, although only the day before an announcement had been issued that chocolate rations had decreased by ten grams. Still, despite the fact that all logic and reason contested the impossible lies and falsified numbers, Winston observed that the people around him still reacted with immediate acceptance and joy at the impostrous claims, citing the generous increase in chocolate allowance as only additional evidence of their "new, happy life". A perfect example of the blind assent the Party aims for, Parsons turns to Winston after the announcement and remarks, "The Ministry of Plenty's certainly done a good job this year. By the way, Smith old boy, I suppose you haven't got any razor blades you can let me have?" (pg. 61). Parsons is an example of the ideal individual the Party wants to breed; he himself is just as lacking in supplies as everybody else, as evidenced by his shortage of the simple household commodity of razor blades, yet he has no problem in the same breath praising the Party for all the good they've done in providing supplies for the population. Like a child, he blindly devours whatever lie the government happens to be serving up at the moment, and if the government's lies are meant to breed enthusiasm, then you can bet he'll be as enthusiastic as they want him to be. This is how the Party manages to create "happiness" among its subjects - by forcing them to suspend their logic and brainwashing them to believe that they're truly living in a well-off world, even when all instinct seems to dispute this notion.
Given all of these aspects of 1984's society, it is hard to see how anyone could characterize it as a utopia. It is the textbook example of a dystopia, a society that was perhaps intended to be a paradise but in practice is truly a hell. Nobody desires to live in a world where they cannot even think their own opinions without essentially signing up to be the next star of the public hangings. No one, when asked about their idea of the essentials of an ideal society, immediately leaps up and says, "Well, if we first just eliminate love and sex, then we'll have gotten off to a good start". It is against human instinct to truly believe that war is a positive endeavor, that slavery means liberty, that lack of knowledge entails strength. Our art, our philosophy, and the humanist and positive psychology movements that sprang respectively in the 1950's and 90's all attest to some common assertions: humans have the potential for intellectual pursuit, are capable of improving, and are capable of bringing good into the world. Even those of us that are somewhat distrustful of human nature all believe in these principles to some extent. 1984 society is the complete antithesis of these ideas, and as such, is not particularly inviting to most as the "ideal society". Therefore, I would characterize 1984 as a dystopia, rather than a utopia.
1. How have they created equality or conformity?
2. How have they reduced conflict, specifically in regards to religion, relationships, and individual rights?
3. How have they created or forced happiness/conformity?
4. Make a claim about this society as either a utopia or a dystopia based the rest of your blog entry.
~ ~ ~
The words "Nineteen Eighty-Four" alone are unrivaled in their ability to invoke images of the quintessential dystopian society. The way 1984's society addresses freedom, conformity, social order, and human rights has almost become the standard model for writers trying to make a dent of their own in the "utopian world" genre. The attitude Orwell's fictional society holds towards these topics is the primary basis and subject matter for Part One of the novel.
Equality and liberty are not allies but enemies of the state, as if this were not clearly illustrated enough from the get-go by the Party proclamation that "freedom is slavery". Instead, what the Party truly demands is conformity. Conformity is enforced in no more effective way than by the choking fear that the Thought Police will infiltrate your room at the midnight hour and pack the back of your brain with bullets. Even as tenacious as Winston is in clinging to his unorthodox beliefs and ideology, we can see that the Party has effectively instilled a sense of horror that pressures him to obey and conform at the same time. He still is cautious to guard any potential facial giveaways in the view of the telescreens, gesticulates during Two Minutes Hate, tries his best to falsify history as the Party would want during working hours, and submits to the routines prescribed to him in order not to arouse the suspicion of any higher-ups. Winston, a fully grown man, is reduced to a mere child at the very thought that the dark-haired girl might report him to the Thought Police for his questionable activity in the prole quarters (pg. 101-102). Winston's great outward efforts to please the Party and his paralyzing fear of being captured for thoughtcrime is a great example of how the government manages to pressure the people to conform by purely utilizing fear tactics.
The enforcement of loyalty to the Party gets a backing from the complete and utter elimination of opposing interests. The Junior Anti-Sex League indoctrinates children from a very young age that sexual desire is a conflict of interest to the Party, and that it is best to avoid it altogether and pursue the purer path of celibacy. To parallel the discouragement of sex, the Party also despises the notion of love or any sort of genuine feeling, and as such marriages are selected and arranged by the state. Except among the proles, religion is unheard of; the only permissible "religion" in 1984 is Big Brother himself, and the only mention of prayer or any sort of savior is made when a sandy-haired woman bows before the image of Big Brother, seeking a source of comfort following the dreadful Two-Minutes Hate (pg. 16). Intellectualism is confined to the discussion of the virtue of the principles of Ingsoc, and even as such there is no real "discussion", as there are no opinions to give but favorable ones.
The illusion that abundance characterizes their state of living is the only catalyst continually driving the brainwashed masses to convince themselves daily that the Party is really doing what's best for them. History is "rewritten" to characterize pre-Revolution times as hideously intolerable; the "capitalists" with their top hats were the gods of the earth and the oppressors of the people, while the general masses slaved in crippling poverty day in and day out beneath them. All that was owned was owned by the greedy capitalists, and the common man had no hope of ever seeing a day where he could perhaps live comfortably and have possessions of his own. All that changed, of course, when the Revolution dropped from the sky like a deus ex machina in a classical Greek drama. Suddenly, under the provision of Big Brother, people owned things; never would be there be a day when anybody lacked food, housing, clean clothing, silverware, books, boots, chocolate, or razor blades again. Of course, this was only the reality bolstered by the Ministry of Plenty's astronomical statistics and outrageous claims. In actual reality, people lived shoddy lifestyles where supplies of something or another were short all the time. This is demonstrated by the scene in the dining hall where an announcement via telescreen proclaims the newly released statistics about living standards. The Ministry of Plenty's numbers boasted that standards had improved by at least 20% over the previous year and that rations for foodstuffs such as chocolate had just been increased further, although only the day before an announcement had been issued that chocolate rations had decreased by ten grams. Still, despite the fact that all logic and reason contested the impossible lies and falsified numbers, Winston observed that the people around him still reacted with immediate acceptance and joy at the impostrous claims, citing the generous increase in chocolate allowance as only additional evidence of their "new, happy life". A perfect example of the blind assent the Party aims for, Parsons turns to Winston after the announcement and remarks, "The Ministry of Plenty's certainly done a good job this year. By the way, Smith old boy, I suppose you haven't got any razor blades you can let me have?" (pg. 61). Parsons is an example of the ideal individual the Party wants to breed; he himself is just as lacking in supplies as everybody else, as evidenced by his shortage of the simple household commodity of razor blades, yet he has no problem in the same breath praising the Party for all the good they've done in providing supplies for the population. Like a child, he blindly devours whatever lie the government happens to be serving up at the moment, and if the government's lies are meant to breed enthusiasm, then you can bet he'll be as enthusiastic as they want him to be. This is how the Party manages to create "happiness" among its subjects - by forcing them to suspend their logic and brainwashing them to believe that they're truly living in a well-off world, even when all instinct seems to dispute this notion.
Given all of these aspects of 1984's society, it is hard to see how anyone could characterize it as a utopia. It is the textbook example of a dystopia, a society that was perhaps intended to be a paradise but in practice is truly a hell. Nobody desires to live in a world where they cannot even think their own opinions without essentially signing up to be the next star of the public hangings. No one, when asked about their idea of the essentials of an ideal society, immediately leaps up and says, "Well, if we first just eliminate love and sex, then we'll have gotten off to a good start". It is against human instinct to truly believe that war is a positive endeavor, that slavery means liberty, that lack of knowledge entails strength. Our art, our philosophy, and the humanist and positive psychology movements that sprang respectively in the 1950's and 90's all attest to some common assertions: humans have the potential for intellectual pursuit, are capable of improving, and are capable of bringing good into the world. Even those of us that are somewhat distrustful of human nature all believe in these principles to some extent. 1984 society is the complete antithesis of these ideas, and as such, is not particularly inviting to most as the "ideal society". Therefore, I would characterize 1984 as a dystopia, rather than a utopia.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Meaning of 'Utopia'
The denotation of the word 'utopia' in modern-day English usage is an ideal society or community that manages to achieve complete political and social perfection. 'Perfection', however, is a highly subjective concept that has as many meanings as there are people in the world. For example, my ideal view of the world might be one that possesses an overflowing abundance of chocolate, but for the person who's grown up hating chocolate their whole life, such a world might instead be a personal hell. One man's "political and social perfection" might be, to another man, a dull, bland world in need of more individuality and cultural diversity. As for my personal definition of what a utopia would be, I believe it would be a society where everyone is not necessarily "equal", per se, but one where everyone at least has the same opportunities.
The soundtrack to my utopia would play music according to my mood. Happy moments would feature more upbeat music, while sadder occasions would call for more melancholy tracks.
The soundtrack to my utopia would play music according to my mood. Happy moments would feature more upbeat music, while sadder occasions would call for more melancholy tracks.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Chuck Baird Claims
The author's voice demonstrates an appreciation for diversity among lifestyles and people.
A culture represented within the artist's paintings is the deaf. A claim we can make about this culture based on the artist's portrayal is that they tend to value alternative means of communicating with others, rather than simple words and language.
A culture represented within the artist's paintings is the deaf. A claim we can make about this culture based on the artist's portrayal is that they tend to value alternative means of communicating with others, rather than simple words and language.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Reading Critically
The author in this essay highlights several steps the reader ought to take in order to read a piece both critically and effectively. The process begins at the forefront of the piece itself: the title. Sizing up the title itself early on can give the reader a pretty good picture what they are about to digest. Titles can help set the context for the passage as well, which helps the reader understand its plot, setting, and purpose. Additional help for establishing the context can be found in details about the author of the piece; knowing the writer's background and perspective can give the reader a hint of what the passage might be about. Once ready for the first full read-through, the reader not should focus on smaller details, but instead try to get a general gist of the writing. After the initial read, he or she should go back and re-analyze the piece in more depth. It is during this second time that the reader should make notes and annotations in the margins of and highlights within the body of the piece. The three critical steps to remember during this process are analysis, inference, and synthesis. These three steps allow the reader to build down and then reconstruct the passage, giving them a more well-rounded perspective on the purpose and intent of the piece.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
"You Were Right" ~ Built to Spill
Evaluative: The song does not do a very good job of conveying the dark and dreary message contained in the lyrics.
The reason is because the tempo is very upbeat and energetic; listening to the overall instrumentation of the song instead of the lyrics wouldn't give the listener any idea that the song is meant to be remorseful.
Inference: The sound of the song is all over the place and disorderly; this is because the artist wants to emphasize a feeling of confusion.
Analytic: The artist must be familiar with many styles of music to be referencing lyrics from so many different songs.
The reason is because the tempo is very upbeat and energetic; listening to the overall instrumentation of the song instead of the lyrics wouldn't give the listener any idea that the song is meant to be remorseful.
Inference: The sound of the song is all over the place and disorderly; this is because the artist wants to emphasize a feeling of confusion.
Analytic: The artist must be familiar with many styles of music to be referencing lyrics from so many different songs.
"Shame" by the Avett Brothers
This song is about the death of a relationship between two people. The tone is sorrowful, ashamed, and regretful.
Words that help convey the tone:
1. "sink" - has a strong negative connotation - implies the speaker is "sinking" into an inescapable position of shame and regret
2. "overwhelming" - creates a feeling of heavy weight or despair that the artist conveys in his message
3. "fall" - implies the speaker was once at a better place, but "fell" to the position he's at now, emphasizing the tone of regret
Words that help convey the tone:
1. "sink" - has a strong negative connotation - implies the speaker is "sinking" into an inescapable position of shame and regret
2. "overwhelming" - creates a feeling of heavy weight or despair that the artist conveys in his message
3. "fall" - implies the speaker was once at a better place, but "fell" to the position he's at now, emphasizing the tone of regret
"Younglife" by Bo Bartlett
1. Claim: The couple pictured is unmarried.
Fact: Neither of them have any kind of wedding rings on.
2. Claim: The scene pictured originates in the South.
Fact: The reddish soil is indicative of a Southern setting, as the Southern states are known for having this kind of soil.
3. Claim: The man in the painting hunts for a living.
Fact: He's holding a rifle in his hand and a dead animal is laying across the top of the truck.
Fact: Neither of them have any kind of wedding rings on.
2. Claim: The scene pictured originates in the South.
Fact: The reddish soil is indicative of a Southern setting, as the Southern states are known for having this kind of soil.
3. Claim: The man in the painting hunts for a living.
Fact: He's holding a rifle in his hand and a dead animal is laying across the top of the truck.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
"Good Old Desk" ~ Harry Nillson
Subject: His work God
Occasion: 1970's
Audience: Those who enjoyed his music, the Beatles-listening generation
Purpose: To express his appreciation for hisjob God
Speaker: A religious person, someone very appreciative of their God
Tone: Joyous, cheerful
Nilsson is talking about God being his source of support and his friend. His "desk", oftentimes used as a symbol for stability, is what he uses to symbolize God.
1. "It's always there"
2. "Keeps my hopes alive"
3. "Giant of all times"
Occasion: 1970's
Audience: Those who enjoyed his music, the Beatles-listening generation
Purpose: To express his appreciation for his
Speaker: A religious person, someone very appreciative of their God
Tone: Joyous, cheerful
Nilsson is talking about God being his source of support and his friend. His "desk", oftentimes used as a symbol for stability, is what he uses to symbolize God.
1. "It's always there"
2. "Keeps my hopes alive"
3. "Giant of all times"
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
"The Runaway" ~ Normal Rockwell
During the 1950's, the fabric of American society was undone and again rewoven to incorporate many social changes new to our culture. A counterculture was born and bred in this era, bringing with it new values that challenged the traditions held by the parents of the 50's generation. "The Runaways" pictures a small boy running away from home, sitting next to a police officer in a diner, unusually casual. Normally, we would think an officer to be shocked and troubled at this situation, but the officer here appears to hold no qualms about the young escapee. This demonstrates the devaluing of what the older generations thought and the growing dominance of the younger generation's values - the boy is running away to establish independence for himself, and the older gentlemen seems to accept this. Rockwell's "The Runaway" overlooks the fundamental rift that was rising in America throughout the 1950's - an emerging counterculture that was not concerned with how things were but rather how they are.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
"Shooting an Elephant"
Subject
The subject of George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is that conforming to sociocultural pressures in order to become accepted by society is not always a moral decision and can cause one to commit atrocities they may regret. This emphasis on conforming is illustrated through the fact that the narrator made his decision to cruelly shoot the elephant based on what he believed others expected of him. This support illustrates the subject because after the narrator shot the elephant he came to realize the potential immorality of his actions and immediately regretted it.
Occasion
"Shooting an Elephant" was written during the fall of 1936. The essay's time of creation is exhibited by the mentioning of Burma as an Indian state under British rule and the mentions of imperialism. Britain had practiced imperial rule in Burma during this time, which confirms the 1936 time stamp. The probable place of the essay's creation is in Moulmein, Lower Burma. This is supported by the author's introductory sentence, where he states plainly the location of the article's events: "in Moulmein, in Lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people — the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me." He describes his dealings with the Burmese people in the article, further confirming the location.
The time and place of the essay's creation influence the essay by influencing what he thinks of British imperialism and what he thinks of the Burmese. The author is influenced by the disgust he's supposed to have for the Burmese people as a British man, but at the same time, his hatred of imperialism. "With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny...with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts." The time, when imperialism was prevalent, allowed the narrator to witness its practices and form a negative opinion of them, but the place, Burma, paradoxically also infused a hatred in him for the victims of imperialism, the Burmese.
Audience
George Orwell's specific audience for "Shooting an Elephant" is the British imperialists. The author's target audience is exhibited by his overall focus on imperialism and its evils. His anti-imperialist statements demonstrate that he is trying to influence the mind of those who subscribe to imperialism.
The author's general audience is the British people. The author's general audience is communicated through his focus on a subject that most British people would be initially familiar with, but might not know the intricate details of like Orwell does.
Purpose
George Orwell's purpose in "Shooting an Elephant" is to demonstrate that although a practice is culturally or socially accepted, it does not make it a moral practice, and one should always trust their ethical conscious above what social rules might dictate. This purpose is manifested by the narrator's initial reluctance before shooting the elephant and subsequent guilt after committing the act. The purpose is further revealed by the fact that the narrator's incentive to commit the act was based on what he thought others' wanted of him, not by moral consideration.
Speaker
George Orwell, 20th century author, believes imperialism is evil. This value is illustrated by his persistent saying that the Empire's imperialism is "dirty work". He further states "I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better". Imperialism at the time was accepted as a practice in Great Britain, but the narrator's obviously staunch opposition to it demonstrates that he believes it is not entirely moral.
Tone
George Orwell articulates a somber and spiteful attitude about the unjust societal practice he has just adhered to in "Shooting an Elephant". These attitudes are expressed by his somber statement that "in the end I could not stand it any longer and went away". The narrator realized his actions were so horrendous, he could not "stand" to stay at the site of the shooting any longer. This attitude validates the tone he uses to earlier express his feelings on imperialism - they both demonstrate disgust, suggesting that what he has done is in some way in link to the way he feels about imperialism. His concluding sentence, "I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool", expresses a degree of anger and spite at others' failure to realize the true immorality behind his actions.
The subject of George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" is that conforming to sociocultural pressures in order to become accepted by society is not always a moral decision and can cause one to commit atrocities they may regret. This emphasis on conforming is illustrated through the fact that the narrator made his decision to cruelly shoot the elephant based on what he believed others expected of him. This support illustrates the subject because after the narrator shot the elephant he came to realize the potential immorality of his actions and immediately regretted it.
Occasion
"Shooting an Elephant" was written during the fall of 1936. The essay's time of creation is exhibited by the mentioning of Burma as an Indian state under British rule and the mentions of imperialism. Britain had practiced imperial rule in Burma during this time, which confirms the 1936 time stamp. The probable place of the essay's creation is in Moulmein, Lower Burma. This is supported by the author's introductory sentence, where he states plainly the location of the article's events: "in Moulmein, in Lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people — the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me." He describes his dealings with the Burmese people in the article, further confirming the location.
The time and place of the essay's creation influence the essay by influencing what he thinks of British imperialism and what he thinks of the Burmese. The author is influenced by the disgust he's supposed to have for the Burmese people as a British man, but at the same time, his hatred of imperialism. "With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny...with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts." The time, when imperialism was prevalent, allowed the narrator to witness its practices and form a negative opinion of them, but the place, Burma, paradoxically also infused a hatred in him for the victims of imperialism, the Burmese.
Audience
George Orwell's specific audience for "Shooting an Elephant" is the British imperialists. The author's target audience is exhibited by his overall focus on imperialism and its evils. His anti-imperialist statements demonstrate that he is trying to influence the mind of those who subscribe to imperialism.
The author's general audience is the British people. The author's general audience is communicated through his focus on a subject that most British people would be initially familiar with, but might not know the intricate details of like Orwell does.
Purpose
George Orwell's purpose in "Shooting an Elephant" is to demonstrate that although a practice is culturally or socially accepted, it does not make it a moral practice, and one should always trust their ethical conscious above what social rules might dictate. This purpose is manifested by the narrator's initial reluctance before shooting the elephant and subsequent guilt after committing the act. The purpose is further revealed by the fact that the narrator's incentive to commit the act was based on what he thought others' wanted of him, not by moral consideration.
Speaker
George Orwell, 20th century author, believes imperialism is evil. This value is illustrated by his persistent saying that the Empire's imperialism is "dirty work". He further states "I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better". Imperialism at the time was accepted as a practice in Great Britain, but the narrator's obviously staunch opposition to it demonstrates that he believes it is not entirely moral.
Tone
George Orwell articulates a somber and spiteful attitude about the unjust societal practice he has just adhered to in "Shooting an Elephant". These attitudes are expressed by his somber statement that "in the end I could not stand it any longer and went away". The narrator realized his actions were so horrendous, he could not "stand" to stay at the site of the shooting any longer. This attitude validates the tone he uses to earlier express his feelings on imperialism - they both demonstrate disgust, suggesting that what he has done is in some way in link to the way he feels about imperialism. His concluding sentence, "I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool", expresses a degree of anger and spite at others' failure to realize the true immorality behind his actions.
"Across the Universe" - The Beatles
1. "pools of sorrow, waves of joy"
2. "words flowing like endless rain into paper cups"
3. "a million suns"
The first line, "pools of sorrow and waves of joy", sets pools of water as symbols for emotions, perhaps expressing that the artist's emotions are so strong that they are uncontainable and unpredictable just like water.
The sun can stand as a symbol for joy, good fortune, and a bright future.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Listening Journal 8/26 ~ "Inspiration Information" by Shuggie Otis (1974)
The word might be ridden with clichés, but I can think of no better way to characterize this song other than "funky". The song is as relaxed and mellow as the era it originated in. The combined effect of Otis' laid-back vocals and the lightly thumping bass creates a sound highly reminiscent of a Prince production.
"Inspiration Information" is composed of a groovy guitar beat and accompanied by light, airy vocals that work together to create the carefree feeling of the song. The snapping sound further helps the song create a joyful and funky atmosphere. A prevalent bass and intermittent keyboard ties it together as somewhat standard, nonetheless enjoyable, '70's soul fare.
"Semeadores" ~ Diego Rivera
Subject: Mexican laborers
Occasion: early 20th century Mexico, during the Mexican Revolution
Audience: the Mexican people and working class
Purpose: demonstrate a kinship with the Mexican working class, advocate Communist ideals
Speaker: member of the Mexican Communist movement, identifies with the plight of common Mexican laborers
Tone: dark, lifeless, mourning - the artist wants to portray the lack of appreciation at the individual level society pays the laborers
What's most notable about this painting is how the workers almost entirely blend in with their background and possess completely indistinguishable faces. Rivera painted the men this way to demonstrate how society treats commoners as less than human, faceless, with no individuality to tell one apart from the other. In addition, the workers' feet are not visible; they appear to be almost "planted" into the dirt. This represents how the laborers are locked into their life of poverty, unable to "walk" away from their hardships.
Wilco and Creative Writing
Wilco's approach to songwriting involves first shaping the bare bones of the song and then adding on more elements, piece by piece. They reconstruct parts they don't like again and again until they reach the final "draft" they can agree on.
My creative writing process involves first mapping out what I must accomplish in the piece I'm formulating. I repeatedly reread the assignment or prompt I've received and determine what I want to say and in what order or structure I want to say it in. I create a brief outline of what topics I am going to cover in each of my paragraphs, create a thesis that conveys the main points I will prove, and then start writing my essay. The first draft is usually sloppy, so I go back and reread to identify errors in my grammar or wording and correct them. I try to read what I've written from an objective point of view, asking if this essay will convey my message in a way the reader will understand. If the answer to the question is yes and I have already finished correcting grammatical errors, then my writing is finished.
My creative writing process involves first mapping out what I must accomplish in the piece I'm formulating. I repeatedly reread the assignment or prompt I've received and determine what I want to say and in what order or structure I want to say it in. I create a brief outline of what topics I am going to cover in each of my paragraphs, create a thesis that conveys the main points I will prove, and then start writing my essay. The first draft is usually sloppy, so I go back and reread to identify errors in my grammar or wording and correct them. I try to read what I've written from an objective point of view, asking if this essay will convey my message in a way the reader will understand. If the answer to the question is yes and I have already finished correcting grammatical errors, then my writing is finished.
Nostalgia
Nostalgia is the wistful, fond remembrance of a time or memory of the past. It's the longing for what once was but no longer is - your childhood, a past relationship, the great time you had at a sleepover just last weekend. Nostalgia can be invoked through almost anything that somehow reminds you of a better time in your life.
The first song, "Rock Around the Clock", makes me recall a '60's diner with pretty blonde girls, donned in cherry red lipstick and polka-dotted dresses, cheerily dancing with slick, black-haired boys. The next song, "Sixteen Candles", reminds of a slow dance in a '50's high school, much like the dance scene in Grease.
Driving down the neighborhood where my babysitter used to live invokes very strong nostalgia for me. So many memories of my childhood were born there, after getting off the third grade bus everyday and rushing into the backyard to play cops and robbers or imagine that we were all characters in a TV show. I'd spend long hours with all of my elementary school friends at her house playing video games, role-playing, eating ice cream, or swinging on the swingset from the afternoon hours until the sunset disappeared. In the winter I remember her setting up a green Christmas tree with the same gaudy red and gold lights every season; even today, whenever I drive past her house in December, I briefly see those same red and gold flashes of color and I think of simpler times I wish I could return to.
The first song, "Rock Around the Clock", makes me recall a '60's diner with pretty blonde girls, donned in cherry red lipstick and polka-dotted dresses, cheerily dancing with slick, black-haired boys. The next song, "Sixteen Candles", reminds of a slow dance in a '50's high school, much like the dance scene in Grease.
Driving down the neighborhood where my babysitter used to live invokes very strong nostalgia for me. So many memories of my childhood were born there, after getting off the third grade bus everyday and rushing into the backyard to play cops and robbers or imagine that we were all characters in a TV show. I'd spend long hours with all of my elementary school friends at her house playing video games, role-playing, eating ice cream, or swinging on the swingset from the afternoon hours until the sunset disappeared. In the winter I remember her setting up a green Christmas tree with the same gaudy red and gold lights every season; even today, whenever I drive past her house in December, I briefly see those same red and gold flashes of color and I think of simpler times I wish I could return to.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The Pinch of Poverty
In 1891, artist Thomas Kennington published a striking painting entitled "The Pinch of Poverty". The painting suggests, however, that Kennington sees the devastation of poverty as more than just a small "pinch". Indeed, his gloomy rendition of an impoverished England family is nothing short of honest and realistic: the faces of the mother and her two children appear very sullen and worn. Kennington makes no attempt to hide the true bleakness of the situation; the girl, clearly very young, appears to be selling flowers in order to provide what few meager wages she can for her family. I think what the painter is trying to get across to his audience about poverty is that it can affect anyone, both the very young (the two children and the infant) and the older (their mother). Nevertheless, through the use of his color scheme, I think the artist is also trying to say that there exists hope even among the very poor. While the painting, as a whole, is rather bleak and dreary, utilizing primarily colors like black, grey, and brown, splashes of color are seen in the flowers and the baby's blanket. This suggests that the artist believes there is a glimmer of hope in escaping poverty, perhaps through the next generation (the baby) or through making enough money to sustain a living (selling flowers). This belief in the existence of hope is also apparent in where the characters are placed; the mother and boy sit in front of an enclosed gate with their heads turned to the side, but the flower-girl steps forward, away from the gate and looking straight ahead. This suggests there is always a dissenter to the cruel cycle of poverty, one who will try and break free from its chains and create a better future for themselves.
My own opinion on poverty is that it is cyclical. Once born into it, it's incredibly difficult to escape. Born into a family with no money, an impoverished child's access to the education that could broaden their future is extremely limited. Subsequently, many poor children in third-world countries will never learn to read, write, or acquire the necessary job skills to find work; the jobs that do exist are handed off to those who have already obtained these skills. Thus, it becomes a tragically repeating cycle over the course of many generations: poverty breeds poverty, and wealth breeds more wealth.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Poverty ~ Reading Response Blog
Poverty. Forced labor. Child labor. What do you think when you hear these words? Do you cringe? Do you become enraged? Do you immediately condemn the way these issues are treated in Western culture and demand a proper change? Like many others, including myself, you probably have some very strong feelings when it comes to these issues and what should be done to combat them. Two writers, Divakaruni and Singer, elaborate on their own opinions regarding world poverty in their respective articles, "Live Free and Starve" and "The Singer Solution to World Poverty". Their thoughts on poverty and the struggles accompanied by it are very unique and differ widely.
Divakaruni addresses primarily the issue of child labor in her article. She criticizes the U.S. House bill that prevented the import of resources and goods from countries that permitted the use of child labor, saying that although this decision might seem logical to the average rich, free, white American, most child laborers have no choice but to sacrifice their liberty if they want to eat. She argues that the bill, which could potentially "lead to the unemployment of almost a million children", does not take into account the laborers' willful trade-off of their basic freedoms in exchange for the even more basic needs, such as food, water, and shelter. Divakaruni tells the story of a boy named Nimai who used to work in her family's household when she was still a child. Nimai made his wage doing menial chores like dusting, sweeping, running to the market, or pumping water from the well; hardly an "ideal" existence for a ten-year-old boy, but Divakaruni says that nonetheless he would "walk a little taller" past "the many children...by the mud roads, their ribs sticking out through the rags they wore". Nimai might have not experienced childhood the way a free individual would have, but still, Divakurani says, it's better than starving.
Personally, however, I have to wonder if Divakurani's solution of maintaining child labor is not but simple-minded and poorly thought through. I may, indeed, have a bias as an already free American, but I believe it is possible for a child to both be free and have the necessities to live at the same time. Tackling the level of poverty on a national basis in these third-world countries would prevent a child from ever having to struggle just to live in the first place. I agree with the author's statement that "a bill like the one we've passed has no use unless it goes hand in hand with programs that will offer a new life to these newly released children". If America were to help expand the educational opportunities for these children and work to increase their literacy level, as well as providing some of the basic necessities they lack in the mean time, I believe we would have a more well-rounded approach to combating child labor.
Singer's thoughts about poverty would likely appear as the more conventional of the two when presented to an American audience. His approach takes the more mainstream route - "donate more" - but to a more drastic degree. "Whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities," he states, rather matter-of-factly, "should be given away". Not too much of a radical idea there. What may appear radical to some, however, is the level of giving heasks for demands from the American people: "an American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities...therefore, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000". $20,000 is an undeniably hefty sum no matter which way you approach it, but is asking for this level or generosity truly unfounded? In my opinion, it is possible to give up more of our salaries than we may immediately realize, and the lives saved are indeed a worthy cause. Even for those who cannot afford to simply hand away of sum of $20,000 can cut back on extra expenses slowly and donate the accumulated amount after saving it up. I would never accuse, however, those that are unemployed with families or those on welfare of murder for outright refusing to donate their money. I may, perhaps, carry bias in that regard, as for much of my life my own mother has been unemployed and I sympathize with the financial struggles of the families that have been hurt by our economy. I think, though, that even those approaching this article without any bias could agree that sometimes saving lives entails real sacrifice, and there is no harm in encouraging more selflessness in today's American culture.
Divakaruni addresses primarily the issue of child labor in her article. She criticizes the U.S. House bill that prevented the import of resources and goods from countries that permitted the use of child labor, saying that although this decision might seem logical to the average rich, free, white American, most child laborers have no choice but to sacrifice their liberty if they want to eat. She argues that the bill, which could potentially "lead to the unemployment of almost a million children", does not take into account the laborers' willful trade-off of their basic freedoms in exchange for the even more basic needs, such as food, water, and shelter. Divakaruni tells the story of a boy named Nimai who used to work in her family's household when she was still a child. Nimai made his wage doing menial chores like dusting, sweeping, running to the market, or pumping water from the well; hardly an "ideal" existence for a ten-year-old boy, but Divakaruni says that nonetheless he would "walk a little taller" past "the many children...by the mud roads, their ribs sticking out through the rags they wore". Nimai might have not experienced childhood the way a free individual would have, but still, Divakurani says, it's better than starving.
Personally, however, I have to wonder if Divakurani's solution of maintaining child labor is not but simple-minded and poorly thought through. I may, indeed, have a bias as an already free American, but I believe it is possible for a child to both be free and have the necessities to live at the same time. Tackling the level of poverty on a national basis in these third-world countries would prevent a child from ever having to struggle just to live in the first place. I agree with the author's statement that "a bill like the one we've passed has no use unless it goes hand in hand with programs that will offer a new life to these newly released children". If America were to help expand the educational opportunities for these children and work to increase their literacy level, as well as providing some of the basic necessities they lack in the mean time, I believe we would have a more well-rounded approach to combating child labor.
Singer's thoughts about poverty would likely appear as the more conventional of the two when presented to an American audience. His approach takes the more mainstream route - "donate more" - but to a more drastic degree. "Whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities," he states, rather matter-of-factly, "should be given away". Not too much of a radical idea there. What may appear radical to some, however, is the level of giving he
Monday, August 15, 2011
"Round and Round" - Ariel Pink's Haunted Graffiti
Ariel Pink does a very good job of making the listener feel like they've taken a blast to music's past. Their song Round and Round utilizes multiple layers of vocals in a way that is somewhat reminiscent of Earth, Wind, and Fire - the layered vocals make the song smooth-sounding, fluid, and catchy. My own listener's bias may have kicked in as a result, as this style of vocals is familiar to me in the type of music I was exposed to when I was young. I've grown up with this kind of sound, therefore making me biased in my opinion of it, because it is both familiar and personal to me in a way that makes it more likable.
In addition to the vocals, another musical fact notable about this song is the band's use of synthesized instruments. A vast amount of my generation's popular music also makes use of electronic instruments - you'd be hard-pressed to turn on the radio and make it through a Lady Gaga or Nicki Minaj song without being bombarded with the sound of synths. I am very much accustomed to both their use and overuse in modern music; thus, in this regard I am quite biased when it comes to approaching this song. The use of synthesizers makes it feel, once again, more familiar to me - I am more inclined to like it because I easily recognize its sound. These are the correlations between the facts and my opinion about Round and Round and how my own personal bias is incorporated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)