Masculinity

              To be masculine is to have the particular qualities of a male, especially strength and aggressiveness. Society has pressed the idea of masculine as being the strong protector. When taking a look at media when looking at characters that are representing masculinity, they are strong, muscular and are often the hero but they may also be the villain. The main focus of masculinity in our society is the ability to be a protector, someone to possibly be afraid of. Masculinity and power being the same thing are also ideas pressed on us by society. We get these ideas from authority figures and the suppression of women's rights. We don't see that as often in our culture presently but in other countries and our history we see that men have asserted a dominance over females.
                 Using this this definition of masculinity one can quickly see that Winston from 1984 is not masculine at all. Winston conforms and is scared of the idea of being caught, he doesn't hold any form of power. He is not aggressive and not someone to be feared. In the novel 1984 the people seem to of escaped the ties of our societies outlook on masculinity. Men and women were equal with the only difference being biological. Once newspeak had been fully developed I doubt the words masculine and feminine would even exist. The people would not know that masculinity represented strength and power.  The only people who embody our societies definition of masculinity is Big Brother and the thought police. Big Brother is strong, powerful, people respect and fear him he is the perfect example of what the popular concept of masculinity is.
                 With the contrast of 1984 and our present culture, you can see that society is what shapes our definition of masculinity.  Not only our society in the present but society in the past as well. The tradition of the man being a protector and strong goes back to the beginning of the human race when men were the hunters and warriors. In 1984 people are not shown the history of the sterotypical gender roles so they don't associate certain character traits with certain genders. As we progress we have slowly began to break the gender stereotypes that tie masculinity to strength and femininity to fair. We are beginning to recognize that we shouldn't tie words like masculine to the characteristics of power but we still have a long way to go before the idea is completely gone.

Finding Happiness.

           In the Happiness Machine Adam Curtis documents the life of Edward Bernays and the start of public relations. This film shows the trickery and thought that goes behind advertising and the pursuit of profit.  But it also raises the question of our role in society in this society that is so twisted can anyone ever be happy? Yes and no, it all depends on how you define happiness. If your mindset is purely that of a consumer than no I don’t believe you will ever be happy, but if happiness is viewed as a more personal discovery than I believe anyone could be happy.

Bernays found mankind’s desire for happiness and twisted it into a career path for himself. Bernay’s used advertising into thinking people would gain happiness by buying more. It just the thought of owning more but it was the idea behind it, for example Bernay’s made smoking appear that woman smoking was an act of power. He called them Freedom torches, using the lack of rights for woman to turn smoking into a symbol of freedom. I believe that Adam Curtis thought that it was possible to be happy, but only for a moment. His portrayal of Bernays shows that his main focus was on gaining wealth and power. Curtis shows that Bernays does not even think of people as individuals as mass consumers. When companies continue to make new products non-stop it is impossible as a consumer it is impossible to be happy. Curtis and Bernays show that happiness is something that can only be achieved for a brief moment but then as more products continue to be released our happiness will need to be found in new places. Happiness has been turned into a never ending quest. We are happy with what we have until we turn on the T.V. or walk past a billboard. Whether it is conscious or not, we see those  bright smiling faces and we wonder what is making those people in that ad so happy and how can we get that. We can not achieve something that never has an end. The consumerism race is one that will never be over and if we fall into it our quest for happiness can never be fulfilled.

            It’s upsetting to think that their happiness is unachievable, but to be happy is an individual decision. It’s up to the individual to decide what their personal goals in life are, what they enjoy doing. Don’t let your definition of happiness be defined by media and advertising because if it is you will never find it. As a society we need to prove Bernays wrong. We need to prove that are views of happiness our not controlled by those around us and the media.  If we lose our consumer mindset, we can all find happiness.

Socrates the martyr?

The term martyr always makes me think of my youngest sister. My sister is the youngest of 4 girls, quite often blows our teasing so out of proportion that she storms off and tries to get our mom to react. The first time I heard the term martyr it was when my mother told my sister to stop being such a martyr. The definition of martyr in that sense is obviously quite a bit less severe than what it actually means to be a martyr but the need for attention stays the same.  

When reading through the book again starting in Eurythphro I could see the development of Socaretes personal quest to find the meaning of piety, impiety, justice and injustice.  Socrates has set out to gain this knowledge to prove his innocence at the upcoming trial. Throughout the trial Socrates does not budge on his belief that he is completely innocent of the charges against him. Socrates at one point in the trial mentions his family but he says he will not bring them forward. “Yet I will not bring any of them forward before you and implore you acquit me.”[1]   Socrates says he’s not going to beg by bringing his family out for votes of sympathy. A martyr would have brought his family out in order to cause more of scene and gather more sympathy. Socrates in the other hand wants to be tried for his actions alone not because he has a family or not. This shows Socrates integrity, even after all his speeches Socrates is condemned to death and that is when his true character shows.

This presents the dilemma should Socrates die for a trial that was not just? When Socrates is in prison Crito comes to him and offers a way of escape but Socrates refuses. This could be an example of Socrates being a martyr dying when he could instead escape. I believe it actually strengthens the case for him dying for what he believes in. For Socrates to escape would be unjust, therefore going against the very beliefs he was claiming to have in trial. For Socrates to escape would prove the Athenians that Socrates was an unjust man and would leave them to believe that the trial had been true.  So although it meant dying Socrates chose to stay true to his beliefs rather than live.

Another point to look at is Socrates attitude while he is imprisoned. “But I have found you all along the noblest and gentlest man that has ever come here.” [2]  This statement by the guard speaks volumes, Socrates if a martyr would have been exaggerating every little discomfort to get sympathy. Socrates also did not complain about the unfairness of the trial. He did not mention it to friends right before he died looking for pity. He does the opposite and tells those around him not to cry. Socrates was someone that would have driven me insane, but he also went about things not to gain attention but to seek out the true meaning. Socrates, although probably providing a good number of headaches to those he talked to, was not a martyr. He stayed true to his beliefs until the end.

[1] Plato, Euthyphro, Apology Crito, trans. F.J. Church. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948. pg. 41 section XXIII

[2]pg.69 section LXV

Omelas and Our Society

          

Omelas, a city filled with such joy and life. Being perfectly honest at first I could not see any resemblance of this city to our society. Part of the reason very well may be that I associate joy with sunshine, but my main reason was my thought that nothing could exist that was so wonderful without some sort of catch. Oh, and is there ever a catch or cost as some would prefer to say.  A child locked in a room never to see sunlight, play with other children, and experience the joy of Omelas.  What society would do this? Certainly not our society, our very comfortable way of life. Comfort and joy, the two words that really got me to understand the comparison of our society to that of Omelas. Our comfortable society has come at a cost. 

            When reading the story I was disgusted by the citizens of Omelas not helping the boy, ignoring him, not even granting him the chance of experiencing life the way they did. But the child, dirty and unintelligible, disgusted the people of Omelas. How could you be disgusted by some one in so much need? Unfortunately our society is quite often disgusted with people in need when they are not publicized like the children we see in commercials. I realize that’s a pretty strong statement and may offend some people but I want you to think of the people living on the streets. I know I have definitely have avoided those people and I have watched others do the same. Afraid to make eye contact with them because they might talk to me or worse ask for money, which leads me to feel guilty if I don’t give them any. I definitely don't want to talk to these people, and most of the time I notice people, myself included, walk around these people as if they are just lifeless obstacles that need to be avoided.
          Our society is definitely not proud of these people living on the streets but nor do we really ever focus on the problem. If you pick up a travel guide for Vancouver you’re not going to see the homeless and the addicts. There will be beautiful pictures of scenery, maybe some nice architecture, certainly not a person starving in our well-developed nation. Wouldn’t it be better if they were locked away and we didn’t have to see them? That's a harsh statement and I would never want that to happen but it sure makes you at least feel some sort of compassion for the people, maybe anger at me for suggesting such a ludicrous idea.  Maybe we don’t physically lock these people away, but mentally do we acknowledge there existence? Do we allow these people to take part in what we may consider everyday life? No, we may acknowledge these people in certain situations occasionally, but do we actually care. Here’s some money to keep you quiet, here’s some food to make me feel less guilty. Just as the people of Omelas have come to accept the cost of the child, our society has come to accept that there are homeless people everywhere.
             There are exceptions which need to be taken into account. There are people in both societies who feel something, maybe along the lines of guilt, but something that makes them want to walk away. Walk away from the ideas that people suffering should be an everyday norm that is just accepted.Walk away from a lavish lifestyle, when they know it's something not everyone can achieve. We read about it in Omelas as the people who walk away from the city. In our society it may mean living a radical lifestyle of helping others. Giving up your house, your car, and other comforts to provide for others. Which most of society would view as crazy. Then that person who has given up everything would be separated from society as well.
        The lesson I have learned from both Omelas and our society is that we are both societies seeking comfort. Our comfort comes at a cost, that cost being a good life for other people. Whether we choose to recognize it or not, we go on living our lives with a child locked in the cellar.