Oh Masculinity

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.

Masculine: Like a man; manly; strong; vigorous.

Masculinity: A masculine quality or condition.

Using the definitions above, it can be assumed that masculinities are perhaps qualities of being masculine. So what defines these concepts most in my opinion? Is it culture? Is it media? I personally believe the media plays a huge role in defining what exactly masculinity is. Over the decades, the idea of masculinity has generally remained unchanged: manly, strong, assertive, etc. Although, there are small features that come and go; being a cowboy was at one point in time seen as very masculine, perhaps not so much now. Media has a very significant role in portraying what the new idea of what a real ‘man’ is or what traits a man should posses in order to be considered masculine. Television, print ads, commercials, and even in novels, we are constantly being bombarded with images of the ideal man and therefore, what is manly. One year it might be Johnny Depp in a leather jacket, but several years later it’s Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen or Justin Bieber in a cardigan (please refrain from comments, he was the only teenybopper kid I could think of. I am aware however that him being masculine is debatable but for arguments sake lets say he is).

In the last 50 years, I believe it’s fair to say that it has been assumed by many that one of the most masculine features of a male physically was to be strong and muscular. It seems to me however that this idea has been changing. It is becoming more and more common to see “skinny”, maybe even scrawny males being considered masculine. In The Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh would be considered the most predominantly masculine character. He goes around and shows his dominance by having sex with the wives of newly married men, travels to the Ceder Forest just to kill the beast and show he is capable of such tasks, and truly seems to believe he is the best man on earth both appearance-wise and overall. But now, so many of the celebrities in the world that are considered the best of the best are nothing like that. They may workout at the gym but at first glance they do not appear to be overly strong at all.

Masculinity is not all about appearance however. It is also possible to have masculinities in other form, such as control. The clear example of a masculine character that can probably withstand the changes of what is and is not considered masculine from Orwell’s 1984, is the character of Big Brother. Big Brother is a very masculine character in the sense that it is a strong, powerful figure in Oceania. People fear it and it holds a great amount of influence over the population. What Big Brother and the Party say goes and they even have the ability to read peoples thoughts as well as monitor them while inside their own house. This is not to say however that masculinity means being feared but it is a possible trait.

No matter what being masculine is thought to mean, whether physical, presence, or an attitude, it is greatly defined and influenced by the media. The media is able to manipulate and control what our preferences are through many of its outlets. 

Controlling the Masses

2. For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, can we be trusted to take care of ourselves?

Can we be trusted to take care of ourselves? Of course we can! We do it on a daily basis. Most people do a fine job of not only taking care of themselves, but also taking care of others. This would be a common answer among most to such a question. But how much control do we really have?

Sigmund Freud appears to have had very upfront opinions about human beings. It is my opinion after reading Civilization and its Discontents that Freud was rather sinister in the sense that when discussing people, he seemed negative and pessimistic. It appears as though this sort of outlook was common in the family however. After watching Century of the Self by Adam Curtis, we learn about Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays. The man who singlehandedly developed a way to create consumerism, all the while calling anyone that fell into his trap stupid. Between the two of them, it becomes evident that both have very strong opinions about human beings and feel that we cannot be trusted to take care of ourselves. Right in the first twenty seconds of the film, Curtis states what Freud believed; that because of the sexual and aggressive forces deep within humans, we need to be controlled. If not, chaos and destruction would soon ensue. This idea has since been used by people in power to attempt to control groups of people. One of first people to use this theory was Bernays. He took what Freud thought and then used it to control American citizens and get them to buy unnecessary products.

Keeping this in mind then, let’s return to one of my original questions: How much control do we really have? After watching Century of the Self I no longer feel confident answering such a question. I believe that thanks to Freud and Bernays we are being so easily controlled; but not only are we just being controlled, we are being controlled well because many of us don’t even realize what is going on.

Side note: Wouldn't it be interesting, if Bernays was still alive today, to hear what he think of the mess he created (mass consumerism, debt, etc)? I think so.

Just Decisions

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

   When deciding whether or not the charges against Socrates are legitimate, one must consider the time period. One of the charges that Socrates was faced with was creating gods of his own while not believing in the gods of the state. In today’s context, the charges would most likely be considered illegitimate because we have the freedom to believe in whatever we choose. If one decided to invent their own god(s) or choose to not believe in anything at all, that would be acceptable because we are all given religious freedom.  As a matter of fact, it is common for people to all have different beliefs.  The other charge is corrupting the young.  This charge too would be considered illegitimate because he is not doing anything wrong.  It is not as though he is forcing his opinions and thoughts upon anyone, instead people go to him looking for answers and to hear what he has to say. The decision that the charges would be illegitimate only applies to modern times however as I stated earlier. The case is different though when we go back in time.

    We have to consider the time period when this whole trial took place. The gods played a very significant role in the daily lives of the Athenians, therefore for someone that is as respected as Socrates is to say that he believes in different gods, could indeed be a great concern. Not only because he himself does not believe, but also because he has a great influence over many people. Just look at Plato for example; the man dedicated his whole life to recording the words and thoughts of Socrates. There is no doubt that it was worrisome that their beliefs were being questioned and so it was Meletus that chose to do something about it.  With this in mind it is my belief that the charges were legitimate no matter how wise or clever Socrates was, he was going against the ways of the Athenians and therefore it is evident how the Greeks would have felt.

   In terms of the trial being fair or not, I believe it was.  When I think of an unfair trial, I think of a situation where a trial really does not occur at all. By this I mean that before it even begins the decision is made. Not only was Socrates given the opportunity to defend himself, but he was also given the chance to do so in front of 501 Athenians. It was not as though he stood in front of 20 people that held his fate in their hands, there were plenty of people there for him to convince that the charges were unjust. Unfortunately for him though, what he repeatedly stated as not being arrogance, came across as arrogance. To the Athenians, it may have seemed like he was in a way mocking their intelligence because he spoke in such a way. After the verdict has been revealed, Socrates was even given the choice of prison or exile but rejected both. Instead, he proposed paying a fine. When that is denied, he is finally given the death sentence. It is for these reasons that I believe that the trial was fair.

The Sad Truth

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

    At first, it may seem like there are no similarities between Omelas and our society because it is absurd to think about anyone, let alone a small child, being used in such a negative way for the benefit of others. If a child was locked up in a tiny room, given no clothing, malnourished, and put on display for anyone to visit in Vancouver, the moment citizens found out, there would be a public outcry for something to be done. Then, without a doubt something would be done. Chances are the child would be removed and given to child protection services where it would then, eventually, be put in the care of a more suitable guardian. After all, it’s the right thing to do.

    This is not the reaction for all the children in our world however, who are living in such poor conditions and being treated unfairly. At this very moment in the countries where our shoes, clothes, and other material items are produced, children are being exploited by big named companies (as well as small ones) by being forced to work long hours for little pay. So what happens to these kids?  Does the government intercept and reprimand the offenders, then remove the children? No. Nothing happens. It is common knowledge to many of us that children and adults are being exploited in various regions of the world, yet the majority of people do nothing about it. They continue to purchase the same goods and do not take any sort of a stand.

    So this makes me ask the question; why do we become upset and look for change when it is in our own backyard, yet if it is happening elsewhere, no one really cares? Perhaps we share similar views to those that live in Omelas with an ‘out of sight out of mind’ mentality? Or maybe it is the fear that if we did instigate change, the effect on us would be so negative that it is just not worth the trouble? After all, I am assuming that that is indeed the reason that nothing is done about the child in Omelas. The citizens are very content with their life and for that to change would just be too much. Therefore it is easier to just turn away and try to forget about that young boy and the distress he is in.

    Another example in our society where one group suffers while others benefit would be testing on animals.  I will not go into great detail on this subject as I have done much research on it in the past and there is too much to get into, however; animals also suffer from our indifference and ultimately our greed. Basically dogs, cats, bunnies, and all kinds of other animals that many of us would consider to be pets are being confined to small spaces and tested on, many for frivolous reasons such as make-up testing, etc.  The tests are unnecessary and brutal and in most cases lead to either the death of the animal or the animal suffers life long consequences. There are plenty of other options for the companies that conduct such tests but for some reason not all companies have ceased their testing on animals. As a matter of fact, many haven’t stopped.  Still animals are dying painful deaths just so we can wear a certain type of makeup or use a particular type of shampoo.  Here is full list of companies that DO test on animals:

http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/companiesdotest.pdf

How many of those brands do you or your family use on a daily basis? At first guilt may set in for a moment when realizing just how many animals have been tortured so that we can have yet another type of deodorant, but that guilt in many will pass. Then how many of you will just continue to use them? I am aware that many people share the belief it does not really matter because they are just animals, or because they are bred for that, but how does that matter? We are all animals, so if we bred humans to be tested on that would be fine because that’s what they were created for? It just should not be done when there are other options available. 

    My final example is on a slightly larger scale. It is relied upon for everything; literally, I am referring to the Earth. Our planet is reaching a point when it can no longer support our extravagant life styles. As technology advances and populations continue to increase, natural resources are slowly but surely running out. It seems to me (although this may be a stretch) that the young boy in Omelas could possibly symbolize the Earth and that the people of Omelas are the entire human race. The boy is mistreated and used for the sole purpose of others happiness. While some may visit the boy and be upset initially, they try not to think about it afterwards and seem to forget. This is the same for our planet. Just the like boy screams, our Earth screams too but in a different way. Extreme weather, the extinction of various types of animals, and a smog filled atmosphere, these are the earths way of telling us to stop. We sadly just do not seem to listen fast enough.

    It seems that Omelas is indeed very similar to many parts of our society. The loss for some is a gain for others. My question is why? This passage should teach us all something and open our eyes a little more to the inner workings of our society, and really prompt a lot of thought as to what can be done to make change. Whether it is children working in a sweat shop, testing on animals, or abusing our planet just to mention a few, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” written by Le Guin can be applied to all.

Just because I can’t resist:

http://www.peta.org/living/beauty-and-personal-care/companies/default.aspx