The Better Choice

 For my final monthly blog, I chose a question from The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Socratic seminar. Question 20 asks, “What statements are made throughout the novel, either directly or indirectly, about humanity and human nature?” In the novel, Dr. Jekyll tried to purify himself, but instead, he separated the evil in him, which made Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll had such a fascination with Mr. Hyde, but Mr. Hyde was indifferent towards Dr. Jekyll. Since Jekyll vs Hyde represented good vs evil, it is evident that the novel was showing how it is human nature to find the bad choice the easier one, rather than doing the good thing. Jekyll could have stopped experimenting with Hyde, but he chose not to. He found pleasure in Hyde’s adventures, although they were not the best choices. He hurt people, but Jekyll still chose to experiment. I believe that this novel was an example of how it is in our human nature to want to choose the bad side.

 This can relate to our society because I do believe people find the wrong choice the better one. If this was not true, there would be no crimes. If someone wants money, they could either work really hard for it, or simply steal it from another. It would probably be easier to steal the money, but it is not right. Some people also find crimes and other morally wrong choices entertaining and do it for the fun of it.  Almost everyone has thought of taking the easy way out and doing something morally wrong because it was easier, and it is in our human nature to do so. But, our actual actions are what matter, and only the strong can choose to always do the good thing. The bad choice may seem easier, but I think the good choice will always have a better outcome. It may be harder, but it is worth it in the end. Like the novel showed, it is in our human nature to find the wrong choice easier and seek pleasure in them, but it does not always have the outcome we really want in the end. 

The Masterpiece

While reading "A Room of One's Own," I was introduced to a lot of new ideas and opinions that I have never really thought of before. So, my discussion this month will come from Virginia Woolf's essay. Question 2 from chapter 4 asks us to discuss the statement, "For masterpieces are not single and solitary births; they are the outcome of many years of thinking in common, of thinking by the body of the people, so that the experience of the mass is behind the single voice." The masterpiece she is discussing is a novel written by a woman that did exceptionally well. What Woolf means by this statement is that the one woman did not write and make this novel successful alone. Because of all the women who came before her, her novel was able to be taken seriously and accepted in her society. If it wasn't for those women who came before her, she would have had to gone through what they did in the 16th century and her "masterpiece" wouldn't have been considered that anymore. This ultimately relates to the whole essay because Woolf basically explains the timeline for women writers and what they had to go through in able to allow a woman's novel to be considered a masterpiece.

I definitely think this statement can still be applied today, just in a somewhat different manner. I actually think this statement has a lot to do with famous movements that changed the world, like women's rights and desegregation. But a more recent example would be gay rights. Most people wouldn't think of legalizing gay marriage as a masterpiece, but it could be. It wasn't just one couple who wanted to get married and changed the law, it was a lot a couples throughout many years that made it possible for that first couple to get married. Another "masterpiece" so to say, could be something completely different like a company like Apple. Apple didn't become an extremely successful business just because of Steve Jobs. It took many years and a lot of help and support of others, especially from its customers, to make it what it is today. Steve Jobs might get all the credit for it, but it actually has the mass behind his single voice. 

The "Perfect" Woman

The Cult of Domesticity: A new ideal of womanhood arising from women's magazines, advice books, popular culture, etc.
After reading a few of the books this unit on gender studies, I've learned a lot about the way society viewed women a long time ago. Of course I knew that women were seen as inferior, but after learning about the Cult of Domesticity, I was introduced to a different side of what I thought I knew. My discussion this month is simply about the Cult of Domesticity in general; how it applied to women long ago and how it has branched off to, in a way, still apply to women today. Godey said "The perfection of womanhood... is the wife and mother, the center of the family, that magnet that draws man to the domestic altar, that makes him a civilized being a social Christian." In the 19th century, the ideal woman had piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity. It is easy to see how the cult of domesticity played a role in the books we have read in this unit. For example, in The Awakening, Edna had the qualifications to be the ideal woman, but her mindset was not "right" in the way that most women were. She did not want to be like all the other women. Adele showed to be he perfect woman in everything she did. She followed the "ideal woman in the 19th century" rules just right. But Edna was different. She wanted to do things for herself, not for her husband like she was expected to. She wanted to paint because it was entertaining to her. She wanted to keep seeing Robert because he made her feel special, unlike the way she felt with her husband. Throughout the whole novel, Edna began to experience her "awakening" in a way that she began challenging the norms of a woman seen by society. Another example of the domesticity as seen in our readings would be in A Thousand Splendid Suns. Mariam and Laila also challenged the societal views of women, but also exemplified the Cult of Domesticity. Throughout the beginning and middle of the novel, Mariam and Laila were submissive to their husband, Rasheed. He was so awful to them, but they had to take it and do whatever he wanted them to because he was the man, and they were expected to be submissive and obey him. Towards the end, they both started to break free from this societal view and began to become more independent. They tried to leave, but were stopped from doing so, unwillingly that is. They both kind of broke free at the end, although, Mariam's was fatal. But, although she died, she still became independent. Laila finally had a happy ending once Jalil came back, which I was very happy about. Although A Thousand Splendid Suns is a lot more modern than the other novels we have read, I think the reason that Mariam and Laila were kept submissive was because of the situation and environment that they were in. Being in Afghanistan was very difficult for women in this time, and they couldn't do much about it, even though they tried. Luckily in today's world (well, at least in the United States), women are not held so much under the Cult of Domesticity. It still comes up occasionally, but not nearly as bad as it was in the 19th century. What I mean by "it still comes up" is that women are still occasionally seen as inferior and often submissive to men. For example, women in the work force. Women are more likely to be paid a lot less than a man when they are in the same exact position. I don't understand why this is, but it just is. And going back to the first definition of The Cult of Domesticity, in today's context, I do think women try to be like the other women they see in magazines. Those women are extremely photoshopped and made to seem absolutely perfect, and every other woman is expected to be naturally like those models. That does not happen. It is impossible. Some men do still see women as inferior, but I personally think they are stuck in the past and need to realize that this is the 21st century, and women have every right to be treated equal.

We're All Humans

"I am not even quite sure what women's rights really are. To me it has been a question of human rights" –Henrik Ibsen

 I found this quote while doing my project for A Doll House, and I found it extremely interesting. I have never really thought of different people’s rights as simply just human rights, and I know I am not alone in that. Henrik Ibsen was ahead of his time when he made this remark.  My discussion this month comes from the Socratic seminar for A Doll House. Question 18 asked, “Consider the following statement made by Ibsen in the understanding of the drama and its relevance in today’s society: ‘I am not a member of the Women’s Rights League. Whatever I have written has been without any conscious though of making propaganda. I have been more the poet and less the social philosopher than people generally seem inclined to believe… To me it has seemed a problem of mankind in general. And if you read my books carefully you will understand this…My task has been the description of humanity.’” Ibsen was ahead of his time, like I said earlier. When A Doll House was first published, it was a very controversial play. I mean, the thought of a women having rights back then was just outrageous. That is why productions in Germany made Ibsen rewrite a different ending for them. They couldn’t let women know they have the potential to be independent! Because the ending with Nora leaving her husband, Ibsen was often called a feminist, which I think is understandable. Nora was different than most other women. She took matters into her own hands to save her husband. Yes, she could have done a better job, but she was so sheltered from the world that she didn’t know. Nora shows a lot of self-respect when she leaves Torvald at the end of the play. And I think it’s good that she did. He just got finished yelling at her and saying horrible things to her. He acted as if everything was going to go back to normal when they find out Krogstad is no longer blackmailing them. But Nora realized her potential. Having an independent woman in a play was not heard of when this play was first published. So saying that women do have this potential to be independent, I think it is understandable for people to think he was a feminist. But, after reading the quote I found, I realized Ibsen’s true person. He was not fighting women’s rights, but human rights. He saw women as they are: human. And by showing Nora as independent, he showed that all humans have this potential. Men too.

I think a lot of people in today’s society could learn something from Henrik Ibsen. Today, there are all these issues with women not being treated equal in every way, gay rights, racial discrimination, etc. A lot of people have different opinions on every issue. And a problem in society is that if you say “women should be paid equally as well as men in the workforce” you can easily be labeled a feminist. But you might not consider yourself a feminist. You just think that it is fair, and what’s the big difference between men and women? They’re both human. When you strip away gender, skin color, love preference, religion, etc.; we are all just human. So, why should anyone be treated differently than anyone else? Why should some humans have to fight for rights or privileges that other humans already have? I think that is what Ibsen was trying to say and what he was trying to show to humanity through A Doll House. 

My Morals vs. Your Morals

When I first starting reading the article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” I thought I really agreed with everything it was saying. Now, I was only on the first page, but I liked the idea of having an open mind, not judging others, and that “if we assume that our ideas of right and wrong will be shared by all peoples at all times, we are merely naive.” But, as I continued reading, I realized that Cultural Relativism was not what I truly believed. The article introduced me to things I have never really thought about before. I really liked how the article asked why people did the things they do, and how it showed how everyone’s morals actually are similar in a way. I thought it was extremely interesting when the author explained the reasons for actions, like the infanticide and the society that does not eat cows. I would have never thought of that as in depth as this did.
This article can connect to Things Fall Apart, since it is a strange tribe to us that does not follow our society’s morals. In our society, we would view some of the things they do as strange, and some people will judge them on it. For example, having multiple wives and leaving twins in the forest to die are not exactly good things in the U.S. But, there is more of a reason on why they have these beliefs that not everyone outside of the tribe understands. This is explained through the article in “How All Cultures Have Some Values in Common.”
I think it could be easy to find the challenges of cultural relativism throughout our society today. “We fear what we don’t understand.” This quote popped in my head while reading the article. And it’s true. People will see a society different from their own, say, the Muslim religion, and since they have different morals, some people judge them on it. They think what they do is strange, when in fact, it’s quite similar to a lot of other religions. They worship a god. They just do it differently than, say, Christians. I also was intrigued by the quote “there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist.” If we agreed to the rules of cultural relativism, then we would not be able to survive. I doubt there would be any laws because if someone did something illegal, then they could just say it was part of their beliefs, so it was ok. Like with WWII, if people just let all those Jews get killed because they didn't want to judge that society for their beliefs, then it would not have ended well.
I still do agree with some parts of Cultural Relativism, just not every aspect of it, which is why I enjoyed how the article ended with the quote, “There are important points, not to be taken lightly. But we can accept these points without going on to accept the whole theory.”

What a Tragedy...

The word “tragedy” can be interpreted in several different ways. In literature especially, different authors have different ways of writing a tragedy. For example, for class, we had to answer questions about the essays that served as a transition between the novels we are reading. In this assignment, we learned about “The ‘Tragic Vision,’” “Tragedy According to Aristotle,” as well as “Arthur Miller’s Definition of a Tragedy.” The “Tragic Vision” said that in order for a story or play to be a tragedy, it had to include a catastrophic conclusion, a sense of inevitability, human limitation, suffering, and disproportion, and a learning process and acceptance of moral responsibility. According to Aristotle, a good tragedy had certain elements to it, including a single motive, the fall of a man whose character is good and high in power, an error caused by the protagonist, it should cause pity and terror in the audience, explore the actions of God towards mortals, purify emotions and possess unity. Arthur Miller’s version is similar, but different in ways such that the protagonist can be a common man who must be ready to lay down his life, the tragic flaw in unimportant, it must include an under-lying fear, and does not have to have an unhappy ending. In Oedipus and Hamlet, we see more of Aristotle’s version, rather than Miller’s. There is an unhappy ending in both, which results in many deaths in both plays. Both protagonists are in high power, Oedipus a king and Hamlet a prince, and both have a tragic flaw that ultimately leads to their downfall.
In society today, many people, including myself, believe a tragedy can happen to anyone, and it does. When a tragedy occurs in our world today, there is no set of elements that people go through before officially calling it a tragedy. The word “tragedy” is often used to describe a horrible event. Like 9/11, the Boston Bombing, or Sandy Hook. Those are all tragedies as seen by society.
When I think of a tragedy in society, I am the same way. I think of things that weren’t supposed to happen but did and ended up in untimely deaths. When I think of a tragedy in literature, I do think of the more Shakespearean idea of it. I don’t agree with Miller in saying that it doesn’t have to have an unhappy ending. Basically every story ever written has something go wrong in it, but that doesn’t make it a tragedy. I think tragedies are more related to deaths and unhappy endings like Aristotle discussed.

Are You A Hero?

What do you think of when you hear the word “hero”? Do you think of Superman, and Spiderman? Or do you think of firefighters and policemen? Everyone’s vision of a hero is different. Question 14 on the Beowulf Socratic Seminar asks “What does the poem teach about the qualities of a hero? Of a villain?” In Beowulf, a hero is someone who does great deeds for their people. Now, this sounds like our society, but when they say “great deeds” they don’t mean saving a cat from a tree or helping an old woman across the street. They mean battling a creature like Grendel, fighting a dragon, and swimming an ocean with just one arm. These are superhuman deeds that the writers and storytellers of Beowulf see as qualifications of a hero. And the heroes know it, too. They have no problem gloating about all their heroic deeds. If someone did that in today’s society, they would no longer be seen as a hero, but as egotistical. In today’s society, heroes can still be seen as the superheroes that we see in movies, but since they are fictional, there are many more qualifications for being a hero that are much more realistic. For example, firefighters and policemen are often seen as heroes. They risk their lives every day to ensure the safety of their people, just like Beowulf. But today, heroic deeds don’t have to be as intense like in the poem. Movies today are starting to make heroes out to be just like everyday people. This way, little kids are able to see them and think “I can be a hero too!” Personally, I don’t think heroes have to be policemen or firemen. I think anyone can be a hero. If someone does a good deed, that could make them a hero. To me, heroes are brave, humble, thoughtful, caring, and honestly just a good person.
Now villains. In Beowulf, the villains are the enemies. They are Grendel, Grendel’s mother, the dragon, basically anyone trying to hurt Beowulf or his people. Today, villains are still kind of seen in the same way. They are hurtful, evil, etc. Terrorists, murderers, and criminals are the villains of today’s world. I see villains in the same way; people who hurt others and try to ruin our society, like the terrorists on 9/11, the shooter at Sandy Hook, etc. Those people are the ones I, and most of society, see as villains.