Masculinity: A Social Construct

What is "masculinity"? What are "masculinities"? What defines these concepts?

Masculinity can be described as any qualities or characteristics pertaining to typical or idealistic male. Failure to oblige by these social interpretations of what a man should exhibit could result into a frustration of one’s identity and even labels of homosexuality. The social construct of masculinities breed the notion of what any one man should acquire or even develop over time, which have been reinforced through generations. One could also define masculinity with contrast to femininity, which is echoed in George Orwell’s 1984, and how masculinity is reflected in times of conflict – specifically in regards to a nation.  Masculinity, therefore, is defined by primitive evolutions of a depiction of a man, the contrast to femininity, and the role it plays in times of conflict.

The typical powerful and self-assured male figure may have begun by hunter and gatherer in its’ primitive stages, and evolved into the modern day assertive businessman or even an athletic specimen who is tall with broad shoulders – most likely seen in advertisements such as Nike Sport or CSI: Miami. These once were desirable trait for maybe fending off mountain bears, but now are more of symbolic reminders of the simplistic approach to determining the characteristics of a male. With the evolution of man, also comes a reinterpreted sense of what an ideal man requires. In most cases, it is a combination of these traits in a modern time that constitute as an ideal man – who much be successful, assertive, tall, and even carries over to personal characteristics as being charismatic and accepted by their peers – which can be reflected in President Obama’s term in government.

While the description of a masculine man may have altered, the same cannot be said about its’ definition that is derived by the direct contrast to femininity. George Orwell explores this unique relationship in his 1984, in which he reflects a woman’s dependence on the male figure. Similarly, the major characters in the text are male who in turn hold importance and power, in which the women fall secondary. He describes a male as “perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, [and] persecuting” (Orwell, 77), whereas a female would be considered reliant on a male’s protection. Accordingly, this dependency on a masculine figure is translated into times of war, where an idealistic man opposes the will and defends the honor of their wife and children. Marchbank et al. in her research articulates ethnic conflict was used as rape and sending gender ethnic message, for example: One rapes women – women not accepted now – impregnate them – muddy their blood – and men who are supposed to be protecting their women are not able to – thus making them less of a man than the men who are raping them (Marchbank & Letherby A, 44-9). Men and boys are consequently being systematically raped and not just woman, who are now beneath of the man who can impose there will.

The definition of masculinity, therefore, are primitive evolutions of a depiction of a man, the contrast to femininity, and the role it plays in times of conflict. While it is not necessary for all of these aspects to constitute as masculinity, a combination of them will parallel a relationship to a masculine persona. Thus, the connection between masculinities and their perceived application to the idealist man is time-orientated, where different aspect in history will construe to different characterizations accordingly. 

The Pursuit Of Happiness

For Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy? Why?

            Being happy in itself involves one of the two concepts that a person seeks to be happy, or alternatively seeks to avoid unhappiness. Sigmund Freud, in his work Civilization And Its Discontents, understands humans “are foredoomed to discover that moments of happiness and contentedness are few, transient, and infrequent. The same cannot be said of the experience of the opposite.”(Sigmund Freud, 15) Freud does not believe true happiness exists with the oppression of civilization to control our “primitive impulses”(17) as sexual beings.

            Throughout his work, Freud argues that people use false measurements of their standards for happiness: that they seek things such as power, wealth and success and underestimate what is of true value in life. Happiness can be not derived by simplistic approaches, but rather elaborate false sense of accomplishments either from nature, external or internal sources. This resonates in Freud’s hypothesis that

“we can derive intense enjoyment only from a contrast and very little from a state of things. Unhappiness is much less difficult to experience. We are treated with suffering from three directions: from our own body, which is doomed to decay and dissolution and which cannot even do without pain and anxiety as warning signals; from the external world which may rage against us with overwhelming and merciless forces of destruction; and finally from our relations to other men.”(43-44)

While the first two are easier to manipulate through medicine and proper safety precautions from the external pulls, the latter is perhaps the most enduring than the others. Through these potential dangers, a person’s approach to achieving happiness is altered – “the pleasure principle itself, indeed, under the influence of the external world, changed into the more modest reality principle”(44) – than one’s goal of achieving happiness only from the fact that they have escaped unhappiness gives less prominence to pleasure itself.

            Freud argues that misplaced libido in order to seek pleasure fulfills our need for happiness, which cannot be truly fulfilled but can only be brought nearer to fulfillment through a positive approach, that of gaining happiness, or the negative approach, that of avoiding unhappiness. However, I believe that the definition of happiness is essentially different from one person to the next, and whether they achieve happiness is dependent on one’s own expectations of it and what they demand to fulfill those needs. And from this we can infer “that the abolition or reduction of those demands would result in a return to possibilities of happiness.”(59) For example, children in developing nations today are content with absolute essential needs such as clean water and a proper education, and accordingly this is how their definition of happiness is formed. In contrast, children growing up in Hollywood have a different outlook on what is considered a necessity as opposed to something they want. What some could say as "spoiled", children from a higher socio-economic background have their interpretation of happiness entrenched in foreign cars and the newest style on the fashion runway. In regards to happiness, one's definition will change immensely relative to personal aspirations, rather than a universally applied theme.

Socrates' Controversial Charge & Trial

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

In F.J Church’s translation of “Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito”, the legitimacy of the charges against Socrates and the ensuing trial are debatable, thusly so for a lack of concrete reasoning behind the charges and the exact parameters of the trial procedure. While it is true that what was expected in Athens at the time of the trial is vastly distorted from present society standards, I explore this issue from my interpretations of the dialogue parallel to present standards.

Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon collectively accused Socrates of impiety, which loosely translated in him “corrupting the youth, and of believing not in the gods whom the state believes in, but in other new divinities” (F.J Church, 29). This is tainted by the fact that Meletus et al. are scorned over Socrates cross-examination and wittingly undermining their intelligence. This is resonated in Socrates speech, in which he addresses to the jury and judges,

“But be assured it is certainly true, as I have already told you, that I have aroused much indignation. This is what will cause my condemnation if I am condemned; not Meletus nor Anytus either, but that prejudice and resentment of the multitude which have been destruction of many good men before me, and I think will be so again” (34).

Furthermore, Socrates traps Meletus in a contradictory statement in which Socrates argues that if he in fact believes in divine things, than in turn he should also believe in divinities which directly correlates to divine things, ironically defined by Meletus himself. This ironic and contradictory fashion is also portrayed in Socrates argument that if he had not questioned the wisdom of the wisest of men, that he would be directly disobeying the oracle, thus disobeying the direct order of the divinities themselves, resulting in the same predicament: so who is to decide which instance will be given more weight than the other. Socrates further goes on to argue that Meletus et al. did not state he has ever demanded or received any payment for his teachings, which to they have no witness, and he, in turn, has sufficient witness to the truth of what he says: his poverty and utter devotion to god in which he carries out his life. Socrates articulates that he was, and still is willing to engage in conversation despite one’s social stature and financial state, and did not ask for followers but merely attained them through practices of piety.  In addition, Socrates refutes that if he had indeed corrupted the youth in his past, they would take revenge upon him by now, and if not, their family and elders would have avenged this injustice indefinitely. He then directs this into the audience in which he exemplifies this notion, that in reality they “will find all these men ready to support me, the corrupter who has injured their relatives”(41). For these reasons, I believe that the charges against Socrates are illegitimate and in most cases exhibit prejudice, highlighting the indignation of Meletus, Anytus and Lycon.

            In respect to the trial itself, I believe that it also was flawed. Taking in account that our current system of justice focuses on “innocent until proven guilty", Socrates in contrast had to prove his innocence by cross-examining the facts himself. This seemed apparently futile to me, for Socrates was essentially accused of impiety – a vague concept that was illustrated by Socrates and Euthyphro’s episode – which the jury exploited to mask their indignation: ultimately leading to Socrates' demise. 

Omelas As An Extension of Our Society

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


DRAFT


             In regards to the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, author Ursula K Le Guin explores to what extent Omelas is an analogy of our own society.  While Omelas is portrayed to be a utopia throughout the text, I believe it to be a paradox; what is defined to be,

“… a city in a fairy tale, long ago and far away, once upon a time. Perhaps it would be best if you imagined it as your own fancy bids, assuming it will arise to the occasion…”(Le Guin, 1-2),

does not in fact exemplify what an ideal utopia entails. Ironically, in this “utopia”, the author goes on to describe a graphic and lurid depiction of a caged boy that astonishingly represents the backbone for the society of Omelas; the utility and prosperity of Omelas that is “depended wholly on this child’s abominable misery”(3).

           While it is clear that the society of Omelas is prosperous, the average reader cannot help but sympathize with the mistreated boy locked up in a cellar. It is questioned why does the author include this in a society that is deemed to be “joyous” at all. But isn’t that necessary? To be able to acknowledge happiness with the presence of sadness and metaphorically in the text, the boy is caged, which in many ways is represents the fears of society that is locked away and separated from society to keep the peace and prosperity.  Similarly, in our own modern society, we have separated ourselves in order to create a better understanding of who we are and the values we stand up for. We have created “bad” and “good” neighborhoods to raise our families and to shape our future accordingly. We have then further separated ourselves based on majority ethnic backgrounds and global demographics. People from other countries are denied entry to more successful countries based on strict criteria to regulate and maintain the status of our region. Anything to aggravate the situation is frowned upon and receives immediate attention to either quarantine the problem or expel of it. Which is why sympathy of the child in the cage resulted in helplessness and anger, and ultimately a choice – to accept it or refuse to accept and find an alternative. The latter holds uncertainty, which is why it is a road less travelled and often travelled alone.

            Collectively, we constantly live in a world that ignores the needs of the few for the “greater good” of the majority. While we flirt with the fine line between individual needs and the needs of society, somewhere along the way of keeping the balance the needs of the majority ultimately outweigh the needs of the individual. This is heavily translated into utilitarianism and what we understand it to be in modern society is drastically different. While we are saddened to see third world countries struggle to make ends meet, we are content on being consumers that regularly buy goods that further reinforce work labor of malnutritioned children in more than unsatisfactory work environments. For example, companies such as Nike are running sweatshops in Indonesia, which are majorly filled with child laborers working endless days, but for the everyday consumer, it is just another item at a bargain price. While most are informed of this injustice, few actively show their disapproval with some sort of protest, which for the most part goes unheard. Why? Because it is only the opinion of the few and not enough to sway the majority that merely follow the status quo.

There are reasons to believe Omelas is a slight extension of our society, and with the exception for the lack of creative license, it certainly proves to be in regards to happiness and what we ultimately define it to be: the distinction between sadness and happiness, and doing anything possible to strive for the latter.

“This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil ad the terrible boredom of pain. If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. If it hurts, repeat it. But to praise despair is to condemn delight, to embrace violence is to lose hold of everything else. We have almost lost hold; we can no longer describe happy man, nor make any celebration of joy.”(1)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REVISED

In the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, author Ursula K Le Guin explores to what extent Omelas is an analogy of our own society.  While Omelas is portrayed to be a utopia throughout the text, I believe it to be a paradox. Le Guin comments Omelas as:

“A city in a fairy tale, long ago and far away, once upon a time. Perhaps it would be best if you imagined it as your own fancy bids, assuming it will arise to the occasion” (Le Guin, 1-2).

Ironically, in this “utopia”, the author goes on to describe a graphic and lurid depiction of a caged boy that astonishingly represents the backbone for the society of Omelas; the utility and prosperity of Omelas which is, in Le Guin's words, “depended wholly on this child’s abominable misery”(3).

It is clear that the society of Omelas is prosperous; however the average reader cannot help but sympathize with the mistreated boy locked up in a cellar. It is questioned why does the author includes this in her society that elicits a “joyous” ambiance. But isn’t it necessary to distinguish happiness in comparison to sadness. Accordingly, the caged boy represents the fears of society that is quarantined from society to keep the peace and prosperity.  Similarly, in our own modern society, we have separated ourselves in order to create a better understanding of who we are and the values we stand up for. We have created “bad” and “good” neighborhoods to raise our families that shape our future accordingly. People from other countries are denied entry to more successful countries based on strict criteria to the status of our region. Anything to aggravate this structure is frowned upon and receives immediate attention to expel of the source. This also translates into aspects of evolution; the less evolved were forced to evolve or be eradicated by the superior being. Even today, exclusion and the sense of normality define our everyday living. The disabled or mentally ill are separated from the “norm”, and are to be sympathized with, rather than viewed as equal. If we truly lived in a mosaic of accommodating social classes and cultures, there would be no need of immigration law and separate divisions for people with disabilities, especially in a school environment where the mind is most impressionable. We are raised to believe that the disabled need to be separated and overtly empathized with, thus excluding them or enable feelings of low self-worth.  This is why sympathy of the child in the cage resulted in helplessness and anger, and ultimately a choice – to accept it, or refuse to accept and find an alternative. The latter holds uncertainty, which is why it is a road less travelled, and often travelled alone.

Collectively, we constantly live in a world that ignores the needs of the few for the “greater good” of the majority. Society flirts with the fine line between needs of the individual and society, and somewhere along the way of keeping the balance, the needs of the majority ultimately outweighs the needs of the individual. While we are saddened to see third world countries struggle to make ends meet, we are content on being consumers that regularly buy goods that further reinforce work labor of malnutritioned children in unsatisfactory work environments. For example, companies such as Nike are running sweatshops that are majorly filled with child laborers working endless days, but for the everyday consumer it is just another item at a bargain price. While most are informed of this injustice, few actively show their disapproval with some sort of protest, which for the most part goes unheard. Why? Because it is only the opinion of the few, and not enough to sway the majority that maintain the status quo.

There are reasons to believe Omelas is an extension of our society, and with the exception for the lack of creative license, it certainly proves to be. In regards to happiness and what we ultimately define it to be, it is the distinction between sadness and happiness. The majority does anything possible to strive for the latter, even if this means negotiating with their values.