Masculinity?

What is "masculinity"?

Powerful. Courageous. Adventurous. Which gender does these characteristics more likely to fit in, male or female? I would think that most people would respond as "male". Masculinity is a term which defines men and describes men's characteristics. Although it might not be agreeable to some people, the standardized thought is that the qualities of men include the following characteristics: strong, brave, tough, tall, etc. However, masculinity not only illustrates physical qualities of male, but it is described from various aspects such as atmosphere.

George Orwell's renowned novel, 1984, portrays masculinity through Big Brother, the powerful government. The government has total power over the nations so that the citizens are fear of acting against it. Even if Big Brother exploits people only for the government's benefit, people cannot defend themselves. With “thought police”, it controls people’s mind; if people commit thought crime or show any sign of it, they will be punished. Big Brother observes every move of individuals, creating fear amongst people. Thus, the charismatic authority gets rigid power over the citizens with its unbreakable supremacy. Like this, the government’s severe control demonstrates masculinity as it symbolizes authoritative leader.

However, on the other hand, Winston, the protagonist, isn't portrayed as a bold character. Rather, he displays opposite of masculinity (it doesn’t automatically mean femininity, though): fearful, weak and worried. He is definitely against the government, yet he is not willing to stand up for it. Therefore, he timidly does things that are unfavorable for the government, for instance, writing diary, committing thoughtcrime, having a relationship with a woman named Julia. It seems like he does a lot of things that are against Big Brothers but he does it secretly rather openly. If he were to be brave enough, he would risk himself protesting, not hiding. By comparing Big Brother and Winston, masculinity can be clearly understood.

In closer respect to the literature, male values are often similarly described as the traits of heroes.  For instance, in the "Epic of Gilgamesh," features of heroes, which define masculinity, are vividly described through Gilgamesh and Enkidu. They are physically illustrated as heroes that are "tall and strong, with muscles like rock."(P85) Both of them are willing to fight without any fright (Well, Enkidu once denied to fight, yet he overcame his fear.), and have victory at the end. There is no one who can compete against them; they are admired by people as they possess perfect masculinity.

False Happiness

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

 

What's your definition of HAPPINESS?

Well, most people will agree that people “strive after happiness; they want to become happy and to remain so.”(p42) However, there is no certain information that directly tells how to become happy or whether one has successfully achieved pleasure. Besides, the definition of what happiness is as well as the process of being happy will vary amongst people. For me, happiness is a mixture of feelings of satisfaction, warmness and optimism. According to Sigmund Freud's Civilization and Discontent, "happiness... comes from the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree, and it is from its nature only possible as an episodic phenomenon."(p43)

Then, for him, can humans actually be happy? From what I have known, he denies that people experience true happiness. Also, Adam Curtis who has made a documentary called "Happiness Machines" based on Freud’s idea agrees with Freud.

Freud states that “the intention that man should be ‘happy’ is not included in the plan of ‘Creation’.”(p43) It means that people are not intended to feel any joy because they are born not to be content. Based on the concept, automatic assumption, which is people’s belief that one absence means the other, unhappiness is part of the ‘Creation’ plan since happiness is not applied. Then, it is innate thing to everyone to feel displeasure.
Furthermore, “our possibilities of happiness are already restricted by our constitution. Unhappiness is much less difficult to experience.”(p44) However, this statement encourages that people are ABLE to feel happiness which, in his opinion, is rarely found. It is thankful that even tiny portion of the feeling of pleasure exists in human although it is much easier to acknowledge displeasure. He explains that the effort, which people put in to achieve happiness, “aims... at an absence of pain and unpleasure”(p42). It means that people constantly feel discontent so they try to remove as much of pain as possible. It appears that there is no room for happiness; there might be, but it will be a small portion.

Yet, this little hope fades away as soon as Freud claims that "any situation that is desired by the pleasure principle is prolonged; it only produces a feeling of mild contentment.”(p43) Does he mean that that enjoyment people feel is not joy, but is, in fact, a satisfaction?
In my opinion, his statement applies to the modern society if a feeling of happiness, indeed, equals a feeling of contentment. As greed is powerfully positioned in human, people never satisfy with what they have. For example, a little girl, who wants red shoes, asks her mother to buy them for her. The girl would smile, then. After obtaining those shoes, she asks her mom for another one when she sees shiny yellow shoes. Then, her mother would ask, "Honey, but you've already have a new pair of shoes." Then the girl would respond, "Now, I want those yellow ones as well!"
Similarly, people are not satisfied when lack of emotions are present, especially, "love". Babies desire for attention from their parents. If parents make an eye-contact with their babies, they need to hug them as a next step; the babies are expecting more love from their parents. In a relationship, it will never be satisfied of just saying "I love you" to one's boyfriend or girlfriend. They would like to hold hands and hug each other. Like above, people feel satisfaction(happiness) only for a certain period of time. The feeling of pleasure doesn't last long enough, but it will fade away soon.

Overall, both Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud believe that it is hard to feel true happiness.

Socrates' and Plato's /Apology/: The Unjust Trial

1.    Do you think these charges are legitimate?  Is this a fair trial?

How do you think of the trials existed in the past by observing Plato’s The Apology? Didn’t you feel awkward? I don’t feel like the judges make valid decision where they should stand neutral, and make a logical judgment. I understand that the court system in the past had a different societal environment which functioned as one of the influences in juries’ decision. However, I think that no matter which time period it is, the court must be fair to everyone and stand to protect one’s right. Comparing the judicial system of nowadays and the past, I have noticed a vast difference; a long ago, people could accuse someone regarding “any” reason whereas people living in the present have to state reasonable motives. In my opinion, in the text, Socrates receives unjustifiable charges: guilty of being the only harmful influence to the youth and of being impious.

There are several effects which exert influences on youth both directly and gradually: friends, family, society, etc. However, Meletus lays a charge on Socrates of being the ONLY harmful impact to the youth. According to Socrates(the teacher), he, himself, has not affected his students adversely. He acknowledges that the teacher’s main duty is to educate students properly. Then, why would Socrates do such a thing like that? Well, to confirm his point, he calls out Meletus to show how wrong Meletus is, accusing him with illogical statement. Surely enough, Meletus struggles to respond Socrates’ simple questions which demonstrate his purity. What does Meletus do? Well, he rigidly agrees that Socrates “alone corrupt[s] [the youth]”(25-XIII) while all the Athenians exert good spirit in them; beside, he states that Socrates “willingly” has affected the young men with evil influences. If he provides them with strong supports, I would understand his point; yet, he proves weak points. Obviously, if someone hurt the other, the victim might avenge in return, which may contain violence, however, it doesn’t happen very often (I mean they don’t always put into real action). Alongside, people mostly try to just ignore it if it has small impact. Although humans may be sinned, they are not innate to be evil or harmful to the others with no reasons. Here, in Socrates’ case, he proves himself that he definitely doesn’t possess any feeling of revenge nor antipathy towards the youth; therefore, he would not attempt to put adverse effect to his students.  If the students act badly, it doesn’t mean that Socrates has the single responsibility for it, but there will be other causes.

The other charge is that Socrates is blameworthy of being impious. Basically, in Euthyphro, before The Apology, Socrates explains the true meaning of piety and impiety. What piety means is that “which is loved by the gods.”(15-XIX) On the other side, then, impiety means something that is not loved by the gods. Then, I can conclude that if Socrates is to be charged for being impious, Socrates should have done something that makes gods unpleasant, which might be NOT believing in gods. Thus, Meletus claimed Socrates as an “atheist.” This doesn’t make sense because Socrates did believe in the gods. Plus, Meletus knows it that Socrates does have beliefs. What is more surprising is that Meletus changes his previous statement into the other that Socrates is guilty of believing “in other new divinities”(24-XI) rather the gods of Athens. Does this make sense to you? At first, Meletus accuses Socrates of being an atheist, then of having different beliefs. How can someone not have any belief while believing in divine things and teaching them? It is comprehensibly shown that Meletus struggles corroborating his point by reluctantly changing his statement and imprecisely providing reasons of why Socrates should be sentenced to death. However, the juries hold up Meletus rather Socrates who evidently verifies his purity with facts and truths.

Overall, the trial is illegitimate as the judges support ridiculous statements of Meletus. The first charge is mistaken as Meletus claims the Socrates, “alone”, is responsible for the youth’s bad behavior. I know that I keep emphasize on “alone” but it is unjustified to put every responsibility on one innocent person while there are other factors and causes that influence the youth. Also, it is absurd thing to be issued on the trial in today’s society. In addition to that, nowadays, people have a right to select religion amongst various ones, and people all respect them. Living in the present society, I cannot think of blaming someone of having dissimilar religion compared to mine. Therefore, I think that Socrates has faced unfair trial, and died unfortunately.

(Well, what should I say more? Let’s blame what time period Socrates was born in. If he were to be born in the present, he would be rewarded for his great works rather than being accused of something that are so incongruous.)

Le Guin Blog Response: Omelas vs Our Society

3. To what extent is Omelas an analogy for our own society?  Please discuss and provide examples.

After reading Ursula K Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas", I thought that Omelas, where the author introduces us as a "utopia," is described based on our real world. 
In the story, people sympathize with the unfortunate child; however, the only thing they do is just watching. Of course, people who see the child feel something inside their hearts: “disgust … anger, outrage, impotence”(3). Yet, they are frightened of giving a hand to the child because of their constant thought that their “perfect” world would be destroyed. Although it is unknown how their world would change after performing good deed, people never try. Besides, they leave the child live like the way it used to be since it is hard to replace the "happiness of thousands [with] the chance of happiness of one"(4). It is individual's decision of whether one would help the child, keep the city, or run away from the city. The author highlights "being alone" in the end by illustrating those who get along leave the city without forcing anyone (even close ones) to be with them; people make up their own mind whether it's right or wrong. 

How do these (disregarding the child’s desolation, protecting one's community rather than single and making own decision) have remarkable resemblances to our real world?

Well, most of us know that Nike had been involved in illegal child labor. (or is it continuous? It has been reported that the company ceased it.) There were about 15,000 children from India and Pakistan who made 70 percent of world's handmade soccer balls. The problem was that they were not paid properly after long hours of work; they earned about 3 cents. 3 cents!!! Now, since we know the fact that buying Nike products would make the children suffer from working too long, are we not going to buy the products from Nike? Well... We cannot suddenly stop purchasing because it will cause serious problems such as unemployment. Thus, we keep doing what we are used to do: shopping at Nike stores. We easily forget the sad truth and move on. We concern more about our economy rather than the working children, and make our own choice of buying the Nike products.
Now, let’s start looking at how both people in Omelas and us are used to escape our remembrance of others’ sadness.

Does everyone throw oneself into others’ problems without hesitation? It is true that we passionately participate in helping those who are in need by donating food and essential supplies, aiding in person, doing charity work, etc. However, when helping others negatively affects our society, we tend to find a way to get out of it. In the past, there were numerous innocent citizens dying in the Middle East because of religious conflict and secretariat violence. Canada and the U.S., the first countries, decided to support and defend the people by sending the troops. Yet, many families of the soldiers were against it; they strongly protested. They knew that sending the troops would create safety and security to the endangered people, but they were frightened that the troops, who were part of their family, would get hurt. Like this, if we are to get disadvantages from being accommodating to others, we give up protecting ones who suffer. Consequentially, we descry ourselves just watching them anguish, hoping that some would survive.
Then, are we doing nothing but watching to maintain our settled relationships amongst community? In school, there would be a number of students who struggle from not having “a” single friend. As a result, some of them commit suicide because of lonesomeness and neglect. Ironically, the solution to this problem is VERY straightforward. Anyone can save them from the depressive loneliness by stretching out one's hand first. How simple is that? However, despite the fact that the solution is easy, people can hardly do it. Instead, we keep aloof from the loners. Maybe it is because of the "bystander effect" which is a tendency to decrease our helping behaviors when others are present, thinking that they would help. Or maybe it is because we do not want to be a “special" person who does something out of the line. We certainly feel sorry for them but we just let them be alone, like people in Omelas. Having a smooth relationship, we are worried that it might be broken if we start associating with the loners. Therefore, we avoid distracting (giving hope to) those who are alone, but rigidly shield ourselves, probably waiting for the others to do the job. To keep our relationships with others, it is better if we stay in our usual groups, and let them be alone as usual. 

Everyone has a choice including people living in Omelas. They have an option about whether to continue their ordinary life or save the child. Living in a community where we interact with others, we have different perspectives, thoughts and minds, which result a unique decision. Nobody can order what color of shoes to wear, how much chocolates to eat, which car to buy and so on. Alone, we make our individual decisions. Yes, we might get some ideas and opinions from others, but we are the ones who actually "decide." Like those who walk away from Omelas, we determine which way to go, and build our own future. For instance, there are increasing numbers of (young) mothers who have an abortion because of their deprived environment or some other reasons. People know that it is brutal to kill babies; however, doctors cannot compel the mothers to give a birth to their child. Since it is their baby, the mothers have to carefully make a decision to keep the unborn or not. Whether it is small or big, significant or insignificant problems, we make a choice of our own considering what is best for all; even if it might be wrong, we follow our hearts, mind and final choice.
Throughout Le guin's passage, I have realized how relevant her world and our society is. I was able to reminiscence my past experience, and provide examples relating to the passage. Omelas, where she portrays as a “perfect” city, actually seems like the world that we are living in. Even though it is not exactly the same, I found out that there is an comparable relationship between Omelas and our real world. Acknowledging that we tend to forget others' miserable realities, I have recognized how difficult it is to sacrifice oneself for the others. Also, the fact that we are apt to keep unchanged status of our community, and to be self-determined, I have had a chance to get a hint of what kind of person I am and how I have to become to build a better society.