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.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)