Societal Implications

What is "masculinity"?  What are "masculinities"?  What defines these concepts?  Use examples from Orwell's 1984 as well as those drawn from popular culture, literature, advertising, and so forth to furnish your response.

      Often, there is a general consensus between certain peoples of a society, which leads to the development of a concept. Common present day internet terms resemble this, such as 'haters', 'lol', 'troll', etc. These net terminologies surfaced through adaptation by a plethora of people in the net community. It would not have been possible for it to become mainstream without the aid of this community support. Another aspect that should be considered is that the meaning of these terms are also derived from the community's perception of them. With these observations I come to the conclusion that 'masculinity' is also has it's concepts and principles drawn from society. It is an expectation of men that is imposed and has no real definition other than the implied definitions that we get from our peers. For example, one person may think of masculine being in a person's features, in terms of appearance, whereas another would think personality and actions. However, the combination of both can also occur. The main idea is that there are different interpretations of masculinity, but there are a few main principles that society constantly throws at us citizens through pop culture, media, and other forms of communications. I will be writing about a few of them.
     First, let's address George Orwell's 1984 briefly. Does it not occur to one that the party in power is named Big Brother? Is it not intriguing that the group that the Thought Police want to eradicate named The Brotherhood? Why Brotherhood and not Sisterhood or Big Sister? I feel as if these imply that men are meant to be in a higher status of control and are a symbol of action. This can be related to masculinity. A general assumption when looking at the ideal man is one who exerts action and one who also steps up to right the wrong. It may be also assumed that men should have an aura of control, whether it be work or family. This is also another implication laid out by society and contribute towards the definition of masculinity. However, there are many other things that outline masculinity and are not in the form of text, but auditory as well.

    Music has had an extreme impact on views on men and once again lay many implications. One of the major contribution from what I believe is modern, mainstream, pop music. A popular idol of mine and probably many others is Chris Brown. Take a look at some of his songs, a lot are related to the sexual pleasures a man can place upon a woman. They indirectly suggest that men should be able to make women feel good and that is a part of masculinity as well. It is not only seen in Chris Brown's songs. Additionally, there are many other mainstream artists that address the ability of a man pleasuring a woman. On a different note from sexual pleasure, there are also artists like Nicki Minaj who talk about a man's physical appearance. A line from the rap in her song Super Bass says, "I like you better with the fitted cap on."

     Appearance is an essential factor in many peoples' views on masculinity. It is still not generally accepted for a man to dress in a skirt or anything frilly, as it apparently decreases his masculinity. However, sitting in the AQ area of the Burnaby SFU campus, I overheard a few girls talking about their ideal guy. They were talking about how one of their acquaintances or friend was very muscular. His possession of a good build led the girls to say that they wanted to get in a relationship with him. They then talked about another guy, who had lacked the build. One of the girls even stated, "Him? Why would I date him? He's so skinny and he has no muscles." Therefore, another measure of masculinity may be their level of muscle. I have talked to friends before and most of them wanted muscle to attract women as well.
     Looking at all these factors, there is no actual definition for masculinity. However, it may be defined by society, but since each individual may have a different perspective on the meaning of masculinity. As a result of this, I feel as if it does not have one solid guideline or concept that truly solidifies its meaning.

Works Cited

Orwell, George. 1984. Ontario: Penguin Books, 2008. Print

The ability to attain happiness

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

          For every and each individual, the possibility to be happy is different.  I believe that the methods that one take to pursue that sample of bliss varies as well.  Adam Curtis shows numerous perspectives of happiness in several individuals with his documentary.  There is the manipulation of people for commercial means by Edward Bernays, in which he seemingly enjoyed doing, and Hitler's controlling of the nation to pursue what he envisioned to be happiness within Germany.  The difficulty in which one attains happiness is different as well.
          The first element that is shown in Adam Curtis' film is the effective application of Sigmund Freud's observations on human psychology to business.  Although Edward Bernays was technically manipulating people to buy material goods, is it not correct to say that those people who bought them felt overall happy?  The film looks at the situation from a perspective that perceives a negative connotation, but it also implies people attaining their joy through Edward Bernays' exploit of human nature.  Take the women's cigarette campaign for example.  Females had never been accepted to smoke before this campaign, and it can be said that there are some individual women who had wanted to smoke, and probably did so secretively.  However, after the campaign, women who smoke are accepted socially.  Does Adam Curtis not imply that those women were able to achieve some level of happiness by showing us the results of this event?  Not only does he show us this event, but also the promotion of individuality in women.  This also proves as evidence for us to feel joy when we are shown the post-reactions of women.  However, Adam Curtis portrays the ability to be happy in more than just one way.
           Another portion of the film was dedicated to Hitler and his use of Freud's and Bernays' successful methods to appeal to the people of Germany.  Although his pursuit of happiness strayed towards the extreme, he had successfully met peoples' needs and granted them their desire of recovery from the crisis they faced.  With that, he also provided people with their happiness for a brief period of time.  After a long period of economic depression and low standards of living, who would not be happy to receive aid and have their standards improved?  I believe that Curtis has successfully outlined a second view on happiness by showing us it is not only attained by getting what we desire, but what we need as well.

          Showing us these two individuals, Curtis outlines different methods in being happy.  It might be of a grand scale like Hitler's, where he helped people with what they needed, or of Bernays, where he fuelled peoples' desires.  After analysing  the film "Happiness Machines", I come to the conclusion that Curtis believes that humans can be happy to a certain extent, and the amount is dependant on the individual.

Accusation or Committed Crime?

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

     The righteousness of certain actions and accusations is usually hard to determine; this is exactly the case with Socrates' trial.  He is charged for committing a crime of introducing new gods and corrupting the youth, which is apparent to be a large crime in Athens at the time (Plato 2).  The unacceptability of this action is portrayed by the audience shouting and interrupting his speech later on in his speech (Plato 36).  However, the aspect of the charge that is in question, is whether it was a plausible and correct to accuse him of his crime.

     As stated before, the charge that was laid upon Socrates was the lack of worship towards old gods and the introduction of new gods, which corrupted the youth.  Socrates' however, does not introduce new gods.  In fact, he seems quite knowledgeable and loyal to the gods.  He proves his friend wrong in Euthyphro when he states, "[...]might be an action well pleasing to Zeus, but hateful to Cronos, and Uranus, and acceptable to Hephaestus, but hateful to Hera" (Plato 9).  This proves that he does worship the old gods, since if he did not, he would not have known that Euthyphro's actions would be pleasing to one, but unpleasant to the other.  One must have at least some faith to be able to memorize what each god is affectionate towards.  As for corruption of the youth because of the introduction of new gods, it seems like it might be more of a misunderstanding due to Socrates' personality.  Shown in many situations, such as the talk with Euthyphro, he refers to well-known people or relatives' names.  This might contribute to the names he refers to  being the new "gods" which he had been charged for, since not everyone must have known these people he refers to.  During Euthyphro, he refers to "Daedalus" (Plato 13).  Furthermore, he uses a metaphor that he is being accused of being the Daedalus (Plato 19), which is also a questionable way to put things.  It is his weird way of speaking that leads him to his charges.

     It is seemingly unrighteous for Socrates to be charged with the evidence that I have provided so far, but it is mostly, if not all, negated because of his speech during the Apology.  He has appeared to believe in the gods in all of Euthyphro, as he refers to the gods.  However, during his speech in Apology, he does not at any point refer to a specific god's name.  He only addresses them as, "the gods" (Plato 29).  Throughout the speech though, there is one point where Socrates makes a big mess up.  He starts to ignore "the gods" and address "the god", which would make the audience believe that he worshipped not polytheism, but monotheism, which in turn would be a different religion (Plato 28).  After his first referral to "the god", he continues with that name, until the end of his speech.  Although he may have not intended for it to mislead people, but it was a major mistake on his part.

     Socrates does not seem to be a person who would commit the crimes that he was charged for.  Despite that fact, his charges were proven legitimate by his speech in Apology.  From a spectator's point of view, it would be extremely suspicious for a person not to refer to a god when he is being charged of not believing in them.  It further proves that he does not worship them.  Even though it is possible that Socrates believed in the gods, making the accusation unjust; one cannot ignore the lack of portrayal of faith during his speech, making the charges indeed legitimate.


Works Cited

Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Tran. F.J. Church. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948. Print.

Le Guin Blog Topic 2) Do you think it's possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others? Please explain and provide examples.

     Throughout human life, it is generally assumed that one must witness other's miseries or tragedy at some point in time, whether it is during early childhood, adolescence or even adulthood.  It is inevitable that most if not all people will stumble, willing or unwilling, upon the sufferings of other people.  Take the homeless for example, or the more colloquial term, "hobos".  As a child, I would look upon these poor and usually old men (women too) and tug at my parents shirts to donate an "adequate" amount of cash so we could aid them.  "Adequate" to me at the time was about three bucks, as that was more than enough pocket money for me at the time.  Growing up, I began to saw more and more of these homeless people. Until present day, I have become so accustomed to the sight of these homeless people and as insensitive and unsympathetic it may sound, I do not even stop to glance at them.  This "adaptation" can be applied towards the feelings of guilt as well.  The more often one is witnessing events unappealing to the eye, or the more one commits an action well-deserving of guilt, is it not that our feelings would dull and dampen towards that certain action?
     The bottom line is, human beings can not constantly feel guilty towards things.  In fact, I believe many human emotions subside after a certain period of time.  It is similar to feeling grief over a death.  Over a long period of time, one starts to forget and not think about it. This has relation to Ursula K. Le Guin's "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas".  What I understand from the story is that the child has already been locked up in the room for a seemingly lengthy period of time.  The citizens of Omelas have also made it into tradition to treat the child with such an atrocious manner.  It may be possible that the people did feel some sort of guilt at first, but after abusing the child becoming a daily and normal thing, they stopped feeling it.
     Although we can not constantly feel guilt, it can still occur again from time to time.  Once again, I believe that the repetition of action and being able to see others' misery to cause for the inability to continue feeling guilt for one thing or event.