1984 revision

Masculinity and Masculinities

To define masculinity, we have to determine whether to concern about the cultural and the historical circumstance. Masculinity is a unitary conception which is biologically determined. However, if we take the culture and the historical period in which a person lived into consideration, various masculinities emerge. And sometimes, with a special circumstance, men are feminized while women are masculinized.

Masculinity determined by the biological is the sex. It’s founded on DNA structure and the level of testosterone. And it serves an essentializing function that ignores the factors such as culture and history which also form the masculine (Oxford dictionary online).In this case, masculinity is innate. The different of the masculine and the feminine is the different of the body. It’s the instinct of males to act manly. For example, in 1984, even though Winston is married, and to be caught with a prostitute means “five years in a forced-labor camp (George Orwell, 68)”, he still go with the party woman (66-72). The strong desire of sex is one of the qualities of masculinity as a product of biology. Besides this, as we can see in films and novels nowadays, most leading males are amorous, powerful, aggressive and dominated. This shows masculinity well-known propagandized by the society. The masculine traits include sex desire, strength, competency and self-centeredness, which are distinguish from that of women: “love, communication, beauty and relationships” (Gray, 18). 

     As we all know, most of the blue collars are male. That is because men are stronger than women. They have muscles, and can do harder work. We can see that sports and other magazines with a large male readership are filled with ads for muscle-enhancing products - often equating muscles with violent power. Because this power, they are also aggressive and dominant. From the time of hunting societies, men have competed with each other for women, wealth and fame. Women are only the reward of the man who wins the competition, so that when it comes to the relationship between them and females, males are hegemonic. For instance, in the novel 1984, which is on the social problem caused by Big Brother, most characters are male. And Big Brother, who has the greatest amount of power and influence in this novel, is man. That illustrates the leadership of male in our society.  

However, once the impact of history and culture are taken into account, the biology is less important. Masculinities are plural, specific with each culture and historical period. As an example, in Medieval Europe, masculinity is chivalrous and Christian. It lead to a brief that “a man's body is given to him to be trained and brought into subjection, and then used for the protection of the weak, the advancement of all righteous causes and the subduing of the earth which God has given to the children of Men” (Hughes, p.99). This can be seen in the novels describing the spirit of knights such as King Arthur and knight of the round table. While nowadays, this kind of masculinity doesn’t dominate our society. It may still contain the compassion of the weak, but it’s quite different. For example, in some extent, the booming sex tourism is caused by males’ desire to prove their masculinity on the women and the children from undeveloped countries. This is no longer masculinity in medieval era. What’s more, combined with a specific history and culture, men could become feminized while women become masculinized. Under the control of Big Brother, a person with hyper - masculinity, Winston sometimes is epicene. He does not want to make love with his wife only for producing child, but he dares not refuse because it’s encouraged by the party (Orwell 71).  And after being punished in the Ministry of love, he is de-masculinized. To reduce punishment, he chooses to submit to Big Brother (300). Comparing with him, Julia seems to be virile. She revolts against the control of Big Brother furtively. It’s illegal to sex with party members, however, Julia always does that (131). When Julia dates with Winston, she always prepares everything, even the date route is determined by Julia (112). Maybe the sex role cannot be changed, but the gender role is influenced by the circumstance of the society.

All in all, masculinity determined by the biological is the instinct of males. But standards of masculinity vary from time to time, from culture to culture, which result in various masculinities. And with the effects of history and culture, it is not necessary for men to be manly; similarly, it is not necessary for women to be womanly.

 Work Cited

Oxford dictionaries online. Oxford University Press,2011. Retrieved from:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/masculinity

Gray, John, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus New York: HarperCollins, 1992

Owell, George,1984. London:Penguin,2008. Print

Hughes, Thomas. Tom Brown at Oxford. London: MacMillan,1889

Freud topic #1 revision

            Happiness for Freud  

None of us desire to suffer from misery. What we all want is to become happy and to remain so. But is it possible to get real happiness? As Freud illustrates in the book Civilization and Its Discontents, it seems to be impossible.

On Freud’s opinion, “the programmer of the pleasure principle” (Freud 43) which shows our demand of happiness is the purpose of life. However, under the restriction of the unhappiness from “our own body”, “the external world” and “our relation to others” (44), it’s impossible to fulfill this principle; we have to moderate the claims of happiness to the “more modest reality principle” that seeks for the way “to escape unhappiness or to have survived his suffering” (44). And for protecting ourselves from unhappiness, we create civilization. However, it also seems to be the largest source of unhappiness. Social neurosis and misery derives from the creation of civilization. People become “neurotic” because they “cannot tolerate the frustration which society imposes in the service of its cultural ideals” (59). Civilization leads to “a sublimation of instincts” (74) and “a renunciation of instincts” (75).

With the development of culture, we join higher physical activities which sublimate our instincts. For example, “by channeling our sexual instincts toward a new nonsexual aim, we can perform valued tasks such as artistic creation and intellectual inquiry” (Douglas 355). This is the sublimation of our instincts because we got a higher aim. However, the sublimation of instincts is also a kind of renunciation of many of our fundamental drives. Primitive life without civilization may be short and with a poor material living standard, but many of our basic drives would not need to be repressed and the people have much freedom. But for us, since we are civilized people, we have to keep rational and clam all the time. We cannot let our instincts to direct our behaviors like the people in the past. And for this oppression of instincts, discontent arises.

Just for instance, as university students, most of us have to use much of our time on study to get a good grade. And after finishing the study, we have to go out to do part time job. The pressure from our family, the society and ourselves makes us to oppress our desire of freedom and we have to work hard every day. Can we feel happy with such a busy life without rest? Obviously we cannot. But it’s the feature of modern society to have such a quick life rhythm. If we want to slow down, what we have to do is to quit the civilization.

As demonstrated by Freud, as long as we cannot deny the development of civilization, we have to repress some of our instinct. And for this repression of instincts, we can never feel happy. However, to make a choice between civilization and savageness, we must choose the former one. Thus, happiness is still far away from us.

                                Work Cited

Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton & company, 2010. Print

Douglas, Kirsner. “Freud, civilization, religion, and stoicism.” Psychoanalytic Psychology 23.2 (2006): 354-66.EBSCOhost. Web. 20.Nov.2011.

Plato topic #1 revision

                                                         A wise man’s death

I have to say that I was astonished when I read the Apology. How could Socrates, a person famous for his wisdom, be found guilty for these ridiculous charges in a state well-known for its democracy? But a truth cannot be denied is that Socrates gives his live for this unfair trial.

As the Apology says, Socrates has two kinds of accusers, the old ones and the present ones. His first accusers accused him for “engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens” (Plato, 23), of making the weaker arguments appear the stronger and of teaching others for the same things (23). And his present accusers impeach him of corrupting the young, and of not believing in the gods whom the state believed in, but in new divinities (29).However, in my mind, all these charges are illegitimate.

 For Socrates’ first accusers, who hold of most of the people when they were children and indicted Socrates for never believed in the gods (22), are doing so because of the Socrates’ wisdom. After Chaerephon asked the oracle which said that no one was wiser than Socrates (25), Socrates began to investigate at god’s command. He cross-examined others whom are reputed to be wise, and from this examination, indignation and prejudices arose. These people who didn’t admit their ignorance had been accusing him for many years.

And for his present accusers, Meletus, Anytus and Lycon, their charges are illegitimate, too. Firstly, has Socrates corrupted the young voluntarily? If he has, he must make his companions evil, and then these bad citizens would do harm to himself. But no one likes to be injured, so does Socrates. So he couldn’t corrupt the young voluntarily or he hasn’t corrupted them at all. (31) Secondly, Meletus says that Socrates doesn’t believe in the gods in any way by teaching” the sun is a stone and the moon is earth”. However, these words are from others’ works and everyone could buy these works from the theater (32). And this is also contradicted to the charge that Socrates believes in new divinities (33). Otherwise, Socrates never teaches anyone knowledge, instead he teaches people critical thinking. How could he corrupt the young by leading them to think themselves (40)?

Overall, I have to say these charges are all absurd and illegitimate. And the trial is unfair, too. On one hand, the process of the trial isn't just enough. Socrates cannot let everyone who accuses him to spar with him in court, and if he put questions, no one could answer (23). This is quite different from the pattern of modern Litigation. As we all know, if the prosecutor doesn’t go to the court, at least his agents ad litem will come to speak to the court. And on the other hand, the jury is unjust, too. As I have mentioned above, Socrates’ first accusers got hold of most of the people when they were children. This prejudice has rooted deeply in their mind and I don’t think it can be changed immediately. Besides, distinguish from the way of modern legal system to choose the members of the jury, in ancient Athens, there is no need for the members have the ability to read and write. That means the vote may be falsified by others. And what's more, the law is unjust. To finish a trial of life and death in a single day is so careless. The time is not enough for Socrates to clear himself of great prejudice. Generally, today, a party has the right to appeal any judgment to at least one higher court. But for Socrates, in ancient Athens, he does not have the chance, and have to accept the adjustment. So, even though Socrates has the chance to defend for himself, the trial is still unfair.

Work Cited

Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Upper Sadder River: Prentice Hall, 1948

Masculinity/Masculinities

  Masculinity and Masculinities

To define masculinity, we have to determine whether to concern the cultural and the historical circumstance. Masculinity is a unitary conception determined by the biological. However, with the culture and the historical period in which a man lived, various masculinities emerge.

The biologically determined masculinity is the sex. It’s founded on DNA structure and the level of testosterone. And it serves an essentializing function that ignores the factors such as culture and history which also form the masculine (Oxford dictionary online).On this side, masculinity is innate. The different of the masculine and the feminine is the different of the body. It’s the instinct of males direct them to act manly. For example, in 1984, even though Winston is married, and to be caught with a prostitute means “five years in a forced-labor camp (George Orwell, 68)”, he still go with the party woman (66-72). The strong desire of sex is one of the qualities of masculinity as a product of biology. Besides this, the masculine traits include strength, competency and self-centeredness, which is distinguish from that of women: “love, communication, beauty and relationships” (Gray, 18).

     As we all know, most of the blue collars are male. That is because men are stronger than women. They have muscles, and can do harder work. We can see that sports and other magazines with a large male readership are filled with ads for muscle-enhancing products - often equating muscles with violent power. Because this power, they are also aggressive and dominant. From the time of hunting societies, men have competed with each other for women, wealth and fame. Women are only the reward of the man who wins the competition, so that when it comes to the relationship between them and females, males are hegemonic. For instance, the novel 1984 is on the social problem caused by big brother, and since that male is the major group of the society, the main character, Winston, is a man. And in the ads for beers, the major roles are always males.

But, once the impact of history and culture are taken into account, the biology is less important. Masculinities are plural, specific with each culture and historical period. As an example, in Medieval Europe, masculinity is chivalrous and Christian. It lead to a brief that “a man's body is given to him to be trained and brought into subjection, and then used for the protection of the weak, the advancement of all righteous causes and the subduing of the earth which God has given to the children of Men” (Hughes, p.99). This can be seen in the novels describing the spirit of knights such as King Arthur and knight of the round table. While nowadays, this kind of masculinity doesn’t dominate pop culture. It may still contain the compassion of the weak, but it’s quite different. For example, in some extent, the booming sex tourism is caused by males desire to prove their masculinity on the women and the children from undeveloped countries. This is no longer masculinity in medieval era.

All in all, masculinity determined by biological is the instinct of males. But standards of masculinity vary from time to time, from culture to culture, which result in masculinity.

                                                            Reference

Oxford dictionaries online. Oxford University Press,2011. Retrieved from:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/masculinity

Gray, John, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus New York: HarperCollins, 1992

Owell, George,1984. London:Penguin,2008

Hughes, Thomas. Tom Brown at Oxford. London: MacMillan,1889

Curtis' /Happiness Machines/ and Freud's /Civilization and its Discontents/ Topic # 1:the reason why it's impossible to happy for Sigmund Freud,

       Happiness for Freud  
After reading the book Civilization and its Discontents, I think that it’s impossible for us to obtain happiness.

On Freud’s opinion, “what decides the purpose of life is simply the programmer of the pleasure principle” (Freud 43). This principle shows that what people “demand of life and wish to achieve in it” is happiness. “They want to become happy and to remain so”. And they struggle not only for “an absence of pain and unpleasure” but also for “the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure”. (42)

But what does happiness come from? “We can derive intense enjoyment only from a contrast and very little from a state of things”. (43) So comparing with the unhappiness from “our own body”, “the external world” and “our relation to others”, “our possibilities of happiness are already restricted by our constitution”. (44) And “under the pressure of the possibilities of suffering”(44), “the programme of becoming happy, which the pleasure imposes on us, cannot be fulfilled” (54), so we have to moderate the claims of happiness to the “more modest reality principle” that “if a man thinks himself happy merely have to escape unhappiness or to have survived his suffering, and if in general the task of avoiding suffering pushes that of obtaining pleasure into the background”(44). We can make choice from several paths: to get satisfaction from the external world, to make ourselves independent of it, or to alter the world to suit our wishes. However, any choice may expose us to the dangers if “a technique of living that has been chosen as an exclusive one should prove inadequate”. (55)

For protecting ourselves from unhappiness, we create civilization. However, it also seems to be the largest source of unhappiness. People become “neurotic” because they “cannot tolerate the frustration which society imposes in the service of its cultural ideals, and it was inferred from this that the abolition or reduction of those demands would result in a return to possibilities of happiness” (59). For Freud, the characteristics of civilization are order and cleanliness, “a sublimation of instincts” (74) and “a renunciation of instinct” (75). For the repression of instinct, civilization creates discontent.

        Though love, as “one of the foundations of civilization” (80), bring people satisfaction of happiness, when taboos, laws and customs appear with the development of civilization, further restrictions appears, too. “Sycho-analytic work has shown us that it is precisely these frustrations of sexual life which people known as neurotics cannot tolerate” (89) Men are “creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressive”(94) .And though love can bring people together, the aggressive instinct ,which represented the death instinct, prevent the tendency. “The evolution of civilization” presents “the struggle between Eros and Death” (111).And guilt and neurotic repression of instinct are simply the price we have to pay for not losing love. We still can’t escape from the discontent of civilization.

        As long as we cannot deny the development of civilization, we have to repress some of our instinct.Just like people today are too busy to relax, we do not have the same freedom like the people in the past. We cannot do whatever we want to do because we are civilized people. We should keep rational and clam. But to make a choice between civilization and savageness, we can never quit the present life to go back to primitive society, so happiness still is far from us.

Plato topic#1 Do you think these charges are legitimate? Is this a fair trial?

                      A wise man’s death

I have to say that I was astonished when I read the Apology. How could such a great person be found guilty for these ridiculous charges in a state well-known for its democracy?

Socrates has two kinds of accusers, the old ones and the present ones. His first accusers accused him for engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker arguments appear the stronger and of teaching others for the same things (Plato, 23). And his present accusers impeach him of corrupting the young, and of believing not in the gods whom the state believed in, but in new divinities (29).However, in my expression all these charges are illegitimate.

 For Socrates’ first accusers, who hold of most of the people when they were children and indicted Socrates for never believed in the gods (22), are doing so because of the Socrates’ wisdom. After Chaerephon asked the oracle which said that no one was wiser than Socrates (25), Socrates began to investigate at god’s command. He cross-examined others whom are reputed to be wise, and from this examination, indignation and prejudices arose. These people who didn’t admit their ignorance had been accusing him for many years.

And for his present accusers, Meletus, Anytus and Lycon, their charges are approximately the same with the former ones, but there are still some little differences. Firstly, has Socrates corrupted the young voluntarily? If he has, he must make his companions evil, and then these bad citizens would do harm to himself. But no one likes to be injured, so does Socrates. So he couldn’t corrupt the young voluntarily or he hasn’t corrupted them at all. (31) Secondly, Meletus says that Socrates doesn’t believe in the gods in any way by teaching” the sun is a stone and the moon is earth”. However, these words are from others’ works and everyone could buy these works from the theater (32). And this is also contradicted to the charge that Socrates believes in new divinities (33). Otherwise, Socrates never teaches anyone knowledge, instead he teaches people critical thinking. How could he corrupt the young by leading them to think themselves (40)?

Overall, I have to say these charges are all absurd and illegitimate. And the trial is unfair, too. On one hand, the process of the trial isn't just enough. Socrates cannot let everyone who accuses him to spar with him in court, and if he put qustions, no one could answer (23).And on the other hand, the people who vote for the verdict are unjust, too. As I have mentioned above, Socrates’ first accusers got hold of most of the people when they were children. This prejudice has rooted deeply in their mind and I don’t think it can be changed immediately. And what's more, the law is unjust. To finish a trial of life and death in a single day is so careless. The time is not enough for Socrates to clear himself of great prejudice. Though Socrates has the chance to defend for himself, the trial is still unfair.

                     Work Cited

Plato. Euthyphro, Apology,Crito. Upper Sadder River: Prentice Hall, 1948

LE GUIN Topic #1 revision

Walking away from Omelas

When being asked about the question that whether I would walk away from Omelas, I may answer without hesitation as the time I saw the poll. If I was a citizen of Omelas, I would walk away and never come back. Just think about human nature, and then you will understand why I think so.

 “The need for self-preservation” (Thomas Pg.4) let people to think about themselves before others if they are in trouble. This brings out a more “ruthless aspects of human nature” (Pg.4) - selfishness. Honestly, I am selfish, too.

There is no doubt that Omelas is a utopia. Le Guin describes it as a place where everyone lives a happy life (1). If I only consider myself, you might say that I should stay here. However, I will choose to leave. As we all know, while the citizens are happily celebrating the festival, the little child is suffering from hunger and pains. Can I ignore it, pretending that I have never heard of the poor little child and go on enjoying every day? Of course I can’t. I’m not a hypocrite, so I must be guilty for the child’s unfortunate childhood. Though Le Guin says that, after weeks or years, this guilt decreases for the people who face paradox after having seen the child, I don’t believe that my guilt will decrease as time goes by as well(4). You see, no one would like to stay in such a horrible place day and night by himself. And with morals like ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’’ (Analects of Confucius 12, 2), how can these people get the view that it’s better for the child to stay at the cellar than to be released? The only explanation is that they hope to persuade themself to eliminate their guilt. I don’t want to be dishonest with myself like these people who are deceiving themselves, as well as others, into having no more guilt. So, the result will be that whenever I feel happy, I will be reminded that there still is a child opposite from me. Unless I refuse to accept this kind of happiness, I will be restricted by the guilt and never find real happiness.

Even though I’m guilty, I wouldn’t stay there to find the way that can help the child get equality, respect and freedom. I know that is unrealistic and idealistic. Selfishness is in human nature, and nobody would agree with me to break their utopia for only one child. I don’t want to be a sinner that destroys thousands of, or even millions of people’s dream, nevertheless, I also don’t want to be the child’s own saint and hero, since that would let me feel guiltier. What I want is just one thing, and that never changes--my happiness. Even though nobody in Omelas knows that what kind of society lies outside the city, to leave here, I still have half a chance to lead to a real utopia. There is no difficulty in making a choice between having nothing and having just a bit more than nothing. A half means a hope while zero indicates despair and total loss. Maybe it’s hard to find a society that I have been dreaming of, but where there is a dream, there is a hope. I believe, finally, that I can find a world that satisfies me.

I’m just an ordinary person and, as I have said, I cannot act altruistically. No matter what I do, I would think about my own happiness first. Because of this, if I was a citizen of Omelas, I would just walk away towards the unknown world to find a better place and never  come back.

             Work Cited

Thomas, David. “Cunning, deceitful, utterly selfish.” Daily Mail 27 July 2001: Pg. 4. LexisNexis. Web. 18 Nov. 2011.

Le Guin, Ursula K. “The one who walk away from omelas” n.p. n.d.

The Analects of Confucius. London: Penguin, 1979

LE GUIN Topic# 1 Would I walk away from Omelas

 For this question, I may answer without hesitation just as when I saw the poll. I would walk away and never come back. Just think about the human nature, and then you will understand why I think so.

Selfish is human nature. All human beings will think about themselves first if something occurs. So it’s not strange for me to think of my own happiness before others’.

Then, you may say if I consider of myself, I should stay there.Well, no doubt that Omelas is a utopia. Everyone lives a happy life there. But as we all know, the little child is suffering from hunger and pains. Can I ignore it, pretend that I have never heard of the poor little child and enjoy every day? Of course I can’t. I’m not a hypocrite, and I may feel compassion to the child. Thus, each time I enjoy myself, I would be guilty since that all my happiness of life is based on others misery. Unless I refuse to accept this kind of happiness or I will be restricted by the guilt and can never find the real happiness.

Even though I’m guilty, I wouldn’t stay there to find the way that can help the child get equality, respect and freedom. I know that is unrealistic and idealistic. Selfish is human nature, and nobody would agree me to break their utopia for only one child. I don’t want to be a sinner that destroys thousands of, even millions of people’s dream. And I also don’t want to be the child’s own saint and hero.What I want is just one thing,and never changes--my happiness.

I’m just an ordinary guy, and honestly, I would think about my own happiness first. Because of that, I would just walk away towards the unknown world to find a better place and no more come back.