Masculinity / Masculinities

In the dictionary, the term 'masculine' is defined as "possessing qualities or characteristics considered typical of or appropriate to a man..." such as strength, muscularity, bravery, confidence, power etc. Essentially, a 'masculine' man embodies traditional male qualities. Masculinities are the actual properties that make up being 'masculine', such as strength and bravery. Masculinity is simply the sum of these qualities,  masculinities as a whole representing the idea of a typical male.

This idea of a 'masculine' male is undoubtedley favoured by society today, through the portrayal of men in things such as movies and in the media. Often, the 'hero' in a movie is a man who demonstrates power, bravery and strength. He is a man with a muscular physique who can solve any problem, rescue the damsel in distress, and is unable to be defeated. In typical male targeted advertisements, men are represented in a similar manner. One often comes across a masculine male in  products advertising underwear, jeans, watches, cologne, etc.  The stereotypical 'masculine' individual, of course is depicted as a tall, muscular man who appears strong and tough. 

Contrastingly, George Orwell's '1984' depicts the typical man of Oceania as lacking these traditional 'masculine' traits. The description of Winston Smith, the main character of the novel, is proof of this notion as he is said to be a “...smallish, frail figure” (Orwell 4) who has no control or power over his own life.  It is the all mighty Big Brother and party members who hold the traditional male qualities associated with masculinity, more specifically power and strength. Essentially, both Big Brother and the members of the party have the power to do anything and have complete authority over the citizens of Oceania. Additionally, Big Brother embodies the typical heroic male through their manipulation of reality. The people of Oceania have clearly been tricked into believing that Big Brother is protecting them through propaganda and alteration of facts.

Evidently, there is a significant difference between the portrayal of men in our society and the portrayal of men in the Oceanic society of George Orwell's '1984'.  In present day media and pop culture,real  men are portrayed as embodying traditional male qualities that define masculinity, while the men in Oceania seem to lack these characteristics.

Is happiness possible?

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."-Edward Bernays

Through the film "Happiness Machines", which is based on the ideas of Edward Bernays (the father of Public Relations), it can be inferred that Adam Curtis believes it is possible to be happy. The principle of the matter, however, lies in what brings one happiness and how this is controlled, which is explored further in this film.

In my opinion, the statement above made by Edward Bernays provides an accurate summary of the point Curtis' film is attempting to make. It is stating that we as individuals have undoubtedly lost control of shaping ourselves, and as a result, have also lost the power to decide what makes us happy. In the movie, Bernays points out that society is easily manipulated, and through this manipulation, we lose the control of defining happiness on our own terms. Viewers are shown how we have lost this control because of the influence of Bernays himself. Essentially, after Bernays discovered how effortlessly society can be mislead, he helped the American corporations have the ability to make people want things they didn't need, a power that still dominates today's society. Through the power of mass production, Bernays tricked the people of his time into acquiring unnecessary products that not only defined their happiness, but that they also believed defined themselves. A powerful example of this in the film is the way Bernays mislead women of the 1920's into believing that smoking cigarettes symbolized power, and perhaps even more important than power, freedom . He did this by presenting the cigarettes as "torches of freedom", leading women to believe that if they smoked, they would be fighting against the standards of the male-dominated society they lived in.

Currently, we are still manipulated by this same strategy that Bernays discovered back in the early 1900s, and I believe it is highly unlikely that this will change anytime soon. As of right now, we as a society are doing anything but fighting the control that media and advertisements have over us. Personally, I admit to feeling overwhelmed with happiness when I purchase something new, especially new clothes; however this state of bliss does not last long because as soon as different labels come out with exciting new fashion trends, I am no longer happy until I have this new article of clothing. This is a never ending cycle that we have been tricked into, a cycle that I feel began because of Edward Bernays.

The Trial of Socrates

After becoming familiar with the details of the trial of Socrates, most importantly learning why he is being prosecuted, I find the accusations made by Meleteus to be extremely unfair. Socrates is essentially being put on trial for carrying out acts of impiety: namely corrupting the youth and "...inventing new gods and for not believing in the old ones" (Plato, 2). That being said, I believe these allegations are merely opinions, or beliefs, of Meletus, not actual facts. Similar to how “...some of the gods think one thing just, the others another; and ...what some of them hold honourable or good, others hold dishonourable or evil "(Plato,8), what is an act of corruption to one person can be seen by another as the complete opposite. In this case, what Meletus deems as an act of corruption is a belief not shared by Socrates, righteously so in my opinion. Meletus, the prosecutor, is depicted in the text as a traditional individual, not wanting any reforms being made to the state and presumably believing very strongly in the gods. Seemingly understanding that knowledge is power, he sees Socrates educating the youth as a prospect that they could begin to question what they’ve been led to believe so far in their lives and, because of this, possibly go against the state. Evidently, to Meletus, corruption is doing anything that goes against the state or the gods’ beliefs, something he wants to prevent at all costs. However, perhaps to Socrates, though not said out right, doing wrong would be him not sharing his knowledge to the youth of his society and in that way not allowing them to create their own opinions. As stated, his "...love of men makes [him] talk to everyone whom [he] meet[s] quite freely and unreservedly"(Plato, 3). Therefore, to Socrates, he does not consider bestowing his knowledge on a young individual as an act of corruption, rather he views it as a gift of opportunity for the person to gain more wisdom, and with that wisdom, become his or her own person with unique views. However, though I find the trial completely unfair, I cannot declare the act of prosecution of Socrates by Meletus to be illegitimate. This is because to say whether or not it is legitimate, or lawful, would mean placing myself back in that day and age, almost 2,500 years ago, where freedom of speech was not widely accepted or practiced like it is presently. This is why Socrates expressing his distinct values leads to Meletus putting him on trial. It is obvious that the laws of our world today differ tremendously from those of the time of the Socrates trial, and because of this, it is incorrect to reason that what Meletus is doing is unlawful. It can however, still be seen as unfair, which is where I stand on the issue.

Le Guin Blog

Topic #2-

The burden of carrying around guilt over someone else's misery is something that everyone experiences at some point in their lives. At the time, it seems that we can never rid ourselves of the pain we are experiencing, the sadness and helplessness we feel over watching someone else suffer. We often become overwhelmed by the feeling, and sometimes, make decisions in the heat of the moment.  An example of this is the adolescent girls and boys who decide to leave Omelas right after witnessing the horrific conditions the child lives in for the first time. In that particular moment, their outrage over the way the boy is treated drives them to make the crucial decision to leave their utopian town. In my opinion, the reason they leave in the first place is because they are feeling incredibly guilty, yet they can't identify what they feel because they have been shielded from it their entire lives, so they attempt to walk away from it completely. I understand that in the story, the author states that guilt is not present in Omelas. I think this is only the case because they live in a utopia where they are never exposed to it. The only time they can experience guilt, something that, up until that point, has been foreign to them, is when they are first introduced to the boy. In time, however, this underlying feeling of guilt is sure to pass. Personally, I feel it is impossible to constantly feel guilty over someone else's misery. After weeks, months, perhaps years, the guilt is sure to fade as they will likely start to forget about the boy and the intensity of injustice they once felt toward the situation as they continue on with their own lives. The feelings may still be there, but surely not as strong. They may think about the boy from time to time, but it is unlikely that any of them are constantly feeling guilty over it. A non-textual example that supports my opinion would be the pang of guilt a lot of us feel when we see a homeless person on the street, often begging for money. When I come across this, it always breaks my heart. I'm left feeling powerless and guilty for not fully appreciating the food and shelter I am lucky enough to have. As I walk away from a homeless person, I often think there is nothing I want more than to abolish homelessness completely. The sadness of the situation invades my thoughts and I feel as if it will never leave my mind. Yet I arrive home hours later and as I prepare a plate of food or get into bed, the guilt I once felt over seeing the homeless individual suffering seems to have vanished. From time to time, I may sit in the comfort of my home and think of all those that are without one, the guilt overwhelming me for a while, but the feeling is never constant, as is the guilt one may feel about the misery of others.