Letting Go

One of the most interesting things about humankind is how they feel about change. It is the ultimate love-hate relationship. There are so many thoughts and expressions on “change” (which is a pretty vague term to begin with). For example, “the only constant in life is change” and “do not be afraid of change”. Even Obama campaigned on a platform of “change”. So why is it that all of these things have put change in a positive light when everyone, and I have found this to be true for myself as well, has a natural instinct for defense against change? Defense against change makes sense on a natural level; if you are safe, you have food, you have shelter, and comfort, your natural instinct SHOULD be to stay where you are and be wary of change, because you never know what you could lose.
In the book The Picture of Dorian Gray, Dorian is afraid of change in the form of his beauty. Dorian fears the change that comes with aging. However, because of his fear, Dorian never grows as a person, his morality remains childish and lacking, and he does not become a better person. This book raises the idea of a theme that while human instinct fights change, it is often better to ignore instinct and embrace change, because it allows for personal growth.
Everyone in my grade is facing one of the biggest changes of their life so far-- the end of childhood, and the end of highschool. So, this is a theme I am going to personally try to focus on as my life continues-- letting go of fear of change. While it is natural to want to stay where we are in life, now is one of the most important times in which we remember the growth we will gain through taking risks. 

Good, Evil, and the Environment

This unit has been a focus on the "monster within" and "man versus self." For this reason the classic reoccurring question is as follows:

Are humans innately good, or innately evil?

The Picture of Dorian Gray definitely supplies a theme that while influence can encourage evil actions, evil can only fully occur if the human is innately evil. Dorian's actions, his decision to not care about others and to be selfish, were actions that would not have occurred if he was not innately evil to some extent.

This whole idea of innate good or evil reminded me of a conversation I was having with my friend Maggie. We agreed that there often seems to be two main types of people in the world when it comes to having an opinion on the environment; those who are disgusted with how humans have treated the Earth, and those who see absolutely no problem with the actions taken thus far, and see no reason to change human ways.

We agreed that neither of these extremes accurately represented our views on human environmental impact. My own opinion is that humankind is amazing, and capable of incredible things. I am not disgusted in us as humans. However, I am disappointed, and I do firmly believe in a need for swift change in human behavior to help the environment.

The topic of innate good and evil reminded me of my environment discussion because I realized that my opinion on human environmental actions is actually my opinion on all of human nature in general.

I am not the extreme disgusted with the human race-- I do not believe we are all uncontrollably internally evil.

And I am also not the extreme willing to ignore any and all human mistakes-- I do not believe we are all perfectly made, internally good.

Instead I must say two things:

First, I will never give up on the human race. I know for every one act of evil I have seen in our world, I have also seen at least one act of good. I have so much hope and love for humankind, and everyday I look forward to all the great things we will accomplish, with the constant encouragement of all the great things we have already accomplished.

Second, we are imperfect beings. We are not evil but there are times when we act as evil doers.

Humans are not innately good, nor are we innately evil.

Humankind is innately imperfect, but with the capability and conscience to do good.

All we must do is recognize our mistakes and imperfections, then use our capability for good to make the world a better place, both environmentally, and in all areas of life.

The Nature of Oppression

This unit has been a study of the Nature of the Oppressed through literature. Their nature has been revealed to be varied and interesting. But while reading Virginia Woolf's essay, "A Room of One's Own", a question occurred to me-- for there to be a group of "oppressed" will there always be a group of oppressors? For one to be superior, must they make another inferior? This leads to an even broader question.

What is the nature of oppression?

In the case of sexism, all that is discussed in Woolf's essay reveals there is certainty that supposed male "superiority" comes at the expense of making women feel inferior. Not just inferior individually, but inferior as an entire gender. The result is systematic sexism that inhibits art and freedom, as Woolf exemplifies.

However, that is just the case in sexism. In sexism, yes, the oppressed have oppressors. My question remains though-- is this always the case?

I have reason to believe it is not.

Recently, my friend Jen took my recommendation and read my favorite book, The Giver by Lois Lowry. When she finished it, we discussed our favorite parts, and our thoughts on the ending. With my mind refreshed on the plot of my favorite novel I had a stark realization of the connection it has with this unit, and with the nature of oppression itself.

In The Giver, a dystopian society has eliminated all strong feelings, emotions, and even sexual urges. As a result, there is no hate, and there are no wars. But, additionally, there are no family ties, there is no passion or love. Every member of the society, from doctors to government officials, takes the medication that extinguishes emotions. Only two individuals feel pain, love, passion, and grief. They are the Giver and the Receiver. The Giver holds every memory of the past in his mind. What the world was like before feelings were eradicated. And when the Giver gets older, it is their duty to pass on these memories to the next generation, the Receiver.

When Jonas, the main character and the current Receiver, begins fully grasping stronger feelings, and love, he begins to realize the extent of the emotional oppression he had been facing-- and that everyone in his society continues facing, without even knowing what their lives are missing.

And, talking to Jen about the book, it hit me. In the case of the society in The Giver, there was no "oppressor", there was only the oppressed, because everyone was oppressed. This situation of oppression without an active human oppressor exists in fiction, and it is my belief it can occur, somehow, in real life as well.

The Dangerous Power of Modern Gender Roles

It seems as if from the beginning of time, human beings have been expected to act certain ways in accordance to their gender. This idea has come to be defined as "gender roles". Gender roles are very broad and encompass the way a girl is supposed to act, dress, eat, and live versus the way a boy is supposed to do these things.

As a disclaimer, because I myself am female, and in part due to the female point of view of the books we have read this semester, I will be focusing on female gender roles.

The Awakening by Kate Chopin is a very intense and heavy novel that expresses the idea that, due to gender roles expected to be played by women, specifically in that time period, several women who did not fit into these gender roles felt alienated. In the case of Edna, she felt she had absolutely no place in society, leaving her with no other choice but death.

Edna was expected to be a wife and mother before anything else-- even before discovering herself, before learning her true passions.

This book does a truly amazing job at expressing the most harmful impact that gender roles have. This harmful impact is that they inhibit women from being who they truly want to be. In the case of Edna, the extremity of gender roles in her society inhibited her from even knowing who she wants to be.

I find it very easy to relate to Edna. Gender roles have developed. And while, in America, they no longer very strongly control what you can do with your life, what career or education you can have, they still impact women in this society.

I believe gender roles have developed to focus on how women dress and act. As a female who does not dress or act in a feminine manner, I have personally experienced the harm of gender roles. From comments about how "butch" an outfit is, to "why don't you grow out your hair? It'd be so pretty."
Edna faced a society with outright gender roles, and now I believe females are facing a society with hidden, sneaky gender roles. The low-key nature of gender roles in modern society gives them a unique power, making them more dangerous. People have begun to believe that gender roles no longer exist whatsoever. It is my personal opinion that the fight against gender roles must continue, as it is a definite, and unfortunate fact, that gender roles still exist.

Parties and How They Define Heroes

I love partying. I love hanging out with my friends and dancing and having a wild time. I enjoy meeting new people as well, because you never know what connection you might make with a stranger at a party. In fact, I went to a party at my friend’s house and while there, I struck up a conversation with a boy in my grade, but from a different high school, named Tom. And it turned out that Tom and I both had an incredible passion for science, and both of our future college majors were types of engineering. His biomedical and mine chemical. I guess I am pretty different from J. Alfred Prufrock. The man could hardly ascend the stairs to knock on the door to the party he was invited to. 

I do not understand what makes a middle-aged man with social anxiety a hero, even a “technical literary” hero. 

This is the largest issue I have seen in our Hero Unit. Where are the boundaries for what makes a hero a hero? For example, if Prufrock is a hero just for feeling anxious about a party, I must be quite a hero for having actually attended one, and having conversed with Tom while I was there. This issue is not an issue within literature; I believe the problem exists within literature analysis. And it is an issue because when we analyze works like The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and qualify Prufrock as hero, does that not take away from the heroic nature of more fantastic heroes, such as Beowulf? I mean at that rate, any literary character is a hero. So is it even a distinctive title to be a literary hero anymore? No, it is not. 

I believe there were several characters in this Unit that were analyzed as heroes and should not have been, and among them stands Prufrock. Simply experiencing social anxiety is not heroic feat on its own. We all face it Prufrock. Some of us attend the party anyways, and I guess some of us write a poem about it instead.

Society's Existence Creates its Foundation

The issue of Cultural Relativism is presented by James Rachels in his article entitled "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism". An interesting part of his argument was that there are some codes adopted by all societies because without them a society would not exist. An example of one of these such codes is a rule against murder. Rachels explains that in a society where all members agree murder is allowed, the people would be fearful and untrusting, because they could be killed at any time. This would make societal growth nearly impossible, as the members of society would try to be as self sustainable as possible. And then Rachels makes the point that people would likely break off into groups of those they trust, agreeing not to murder one another, and therefore establishing a rule against murder.
However, there was one part of this argument I would call into question. Rachels says "There are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist." He describes the rules as "moral" implying they have something to do with ethics. But it was previously proven that the only reason that this code against murder exists in all societies is because a society cannot exist without it. Therefore, morals are not at all fueling this code.
In the novel Things Fall Apart, the main character Okonkwo accidentally commits a murder. He is resultantly exiled for seven years, as it it is a crime against the earth goddess. In this society, their reasoning behind punishment for murder is religious belief.
In our society, modern day United States, if you commit murder you are locked in prison. I would say our reasoning behind this punishment, as most Americans would, is ethics. It is morally and ethically wrong to prematurely end the life of another human being.
There seem to be several reasons and explanations for this code against murder. And I do agree, murder is a wrongdoing. One of the worst. But my question is, what is the main actually cause of the existence of a code against murder? I would like to think it is because we live in a ethical society. That is why we cannot murder anyone. Because it is wrong, everyone agrees it is wrong, and the government enforces our moral code. Rachels seemed to want to implicate morals were involved in this decision as well
I do not believe that entirely. I think there are many reasonings behind the a law against murder. But I now believe, after considering the idea of Cultural Relativism, that the main reason we have this rule is simply because society could not exist without it. This is not to say that for many people, including myself, morals are also an important reason for a rule against murder. But this is to say that the underlying and foundational reason is and always will be society's reliance on this code for existence.

Heroes: The Exception to the Rule

     What is the point of being a hero in literature? Initially that may be seen as a silly question, because we think "who does not want to be a hero?" The hero is loved, the hero receieves glory and recognition and the hero is always victorious. However, considering the terrors a hero must face to receive recognition, is it worth it to be a hero?

     Beowulf is a story centered on a hero and his heroic feats. And there is no doubt through the entire poem that every time our literature hero, Beowulf, completes something his society deems heroic, he is showered with love and other rewards. Now, if we take into account what Beowulf had to do in order to be appreciated, would it be considered a fair trade?

     Beowulf faced two demons straight out of hell, and an angered dragon. That's three menacing terrors too many in my opinion. 

     Most story tellers would agree that a successful story will have a main character that is likable and relatable. And while there is no doubt that a hero will usually be a likable character-- are they relatable?  Oftentimes, the accomplishments of a hero in literature are so outlandishly impressive that a reader can no longer find that character relatable. Once the reader cannot put themselves into the shoes of a main character, a story drastically loses it's appeal. This is an issue of literature; that heroes are less relatable because they are so fantastic. 

     To contradict this point is the fact that stories about heroes are immensely popular among all readers. In fact, heroes seem to be one of the only exceptions to the rule that readers enjoy reading about a relatable main character. Why is this?

     Perhaps another way to look at it is through real life instead of literature. In the real world there are heroes, just as there are in literature. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero. He fought for equal rights for people of color, and he lead large groups of people to do good in the world. He greatly impacted his era and many eras to come. This is a heroic and outstanding feat. However, just because this feat is so amazing does not mean people of the world are discouraged by his actions. One would not say "MLK did such amazing things, and I have no chance of completing anything as impactful as he did." In fact, the opposite occurs; people are inspired by him. People aim to work harder for equal rights of all mankind because he proved change can be made. 

     My proposition is that literature heroes work the same way-- and that is why they find themselves to be an exception to the rule. Yes, most reader's enjoy a story in which the main character is likable and relatable. But it is also true that readers enjoy the passion of feeling inspired. And that is exactly what a hero as a main character does: inspires the reader. It gives them hope that maybe, the hero is not so unrelatable after all. 

-Liv Cannon