Society and I

             Through Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud’s views on civilisation we see that humans are unable to care for themselves. After watching Century of the Self I came to realize that we, the masses, no longer think individually. We think as a whole. We may view each other as different, or even view ourselves as unique, but what makes us unique? The clothes we buy, the food we eat, or maybe even who we hang out with? But these factors only guide us into becoming part of the masses.

            The clothes we buy drive the masses closer to becoming one. We have similar styles to those around us, and that dictates what will be sold. When companies and corporations understand what the mass demands, they supply us with our demands. For example, when UGG Boots came out, every girl needed to have them. However, now there are cheap knock offs sold in almost any store. Even as winter begins to settle in, students on campus will be seen wearing trench coats. The fact that this is so predictable should give the masses an incline to step away from becoming uniform. Sadly, the fact is that humans like to think they know everything, paraphrasing Socrates; poets may write, but they may have no understanding of their work. 

            The food we eat, although it may not seem like it, plays a key role in society. From places where we hang-out, to dates, or even just grabbing a bite to eat, we choose these places because of the advertisements embedded in our brains. We choose to go to Macdonalds when we’re hungry because it is fast, consistent and convenient. However, we may go to Chop or Moxies for a date, because of the ambiance. If no one wants to leave the house, take-out is available too. And no longer does take-out pertain to just pizza, but nowadays take-out applies to many other companies. 

            Those that we hang out with have the greatest influence on how we live our lives. For example, if a friend were to be interested in clothes, odds are you would be too. We are not as unique as we would like to think we are, nor are we smart enough to tackle the world by ourselves. Freud suggests that in a civilization in order to promote uniformity individuals must sacrifice some personal happiness. Freud believed that if we were to embrace our true impulses we would lose control of ourselves. 

            Individuals of society have fallen towards the masses. We no longer have the ability to separate our lives from those around us. Sigmund Freud and Edward Bernays played a key role in this movement, but through this they formed a uniform society. I would like to believe that humans have the ability to take care of themselves, but after seeing Century of the Self and how easily we could be manipulated it is hard to believe.

Reasonably Guilty?

In today’s courtrooms we are not so eager to thrash the gavel in order to give a verdict. Courts nowadays have many new rules and laws by which they must abide, but two laws constantly obscured my thoughts as I was reading. Habeas corpus is the legal right to appear before a judge; however, Socrates was unable to appear before a judge and instead was greeted by many men who had already formed biased opinions of him. At first I thought that these men were in the audience. Then I came to realize that they had to vote, which made me come to the conclusion that they were in a jury. Then Socrates set me straight when he addressed the Athenians as “judges,” even explaining his right “in calling [them] judges” (Church 42).  These men were far from judges. The judges I know have a high regard in today’s society. They make important decisions that normal citizens cannot come to agreement upon, or in cases such as Socrates they must decide our fate. For crimes judges will let us appeal, look at our history, and look into all the minuscule details in order to come forth with a decision. These men sat through a short plea and hastily made their decision. A man’s life was at risk, and it seemed to me as though these men barely had the respect let alone the decency to listen to his argument at all, for if they did Socrates needed not to remind the Athenians “to not interrupt [him] with shouts,” (Church 33). On top of this, a law by which all countries must employ is that every person has the right to a fair trial, if a country does not follow this standard it is a violation of the Human Rights Act. I understand that these laws are in place today because of history’s mistakes, but I have grown up in this society. This is my opinion, and I have the right to voice my opinion just as Socrates should have had his, but was so wrongfully denied. The other legality that came to mind was the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt which meant the defendant in a criminal case, such as this, could not be found guilty unless a solid factual case proved him to be guilty without any doubt. It is clear that those who sided with Socrates believed he was innocent, but those who did not were in majority. Had this been just a regular civil case, beyond a reasonable doubt has no grounds, the judge just needs to be inclined towards one area. Socrates however was not a civil case. He was a living man. He was not a material good, but another living breathing human. Had this case been taken to court fairly, I would not be so bothered by it, but seeing as this man’s fate sealed before he even had a chance to redeem it was sickening, revolting even. I cannot even comprehend how the men in that court could just turn away from a man pleading for his life. In short, my opinion of the trial being fair is far true. As for the charges, in my opinion they seem ridiculous, but once again I am not from that time period so I cannot truly argue that I understand the issue. What I do understand is Socrates denies embellishing his stories, but when I was reading I did not have sufficient evidence that stated he was free of the crimes the plaintiff accused him of. This is when I realized that the book is set up in order for the reader to feel sympathy. And despite what Socrates said, he seemed to embellish his story slightly. The book is set up so the Euthyphro displays Socrates as a caring individual who does not give up on his friends. I do not deny that this is true; I am just making a note. It establishes that Socrates makes efforts to guide Euthyphro away from making a mistake, despite the urgency of his trial. The body, the Apology, displays Socrates being innocent and neglected. And finally the ending shows that there are many writing this, and that the writings came from one of his followers. This bias has led me to believe that I am not receiving all the information that was there in that time. I cannot assess the charges without the information, but by what is provided to me, I believe that Socrates could not be guilty of the charges laid against him purely because of his characteristics of being a kind, honest, witty and pure man. I hope that Socrates is up there indulging himself in conversation with the likes of Homer, may he rest in peace.

Id, Ego, Superego

Guilt. I would like to make the assumption that everyone in the world has, at one point, felt guilt. I recall when I was child, I would behave bad and feel guilty all the time. But what does feeling guilty all the time really mean? When we are young we are exposed to television shows and books such as "The Tell-Tale Heart" where guilt manages to manifest and causes beloved characters to suffer an abnormal amount of guiltiness. The idea of feeling guilty constantly about the misery of others is hard to fathom. I believe that it is impossible to constantly feel guilty about others’ misery. But in order to truly understand the concept of the mind, the masterful workings of Sigmund Freud must surface. Freud was an influential thinker of the twentieth century; he was a medical doctor, psychologist and the founder of psychoanalysis.  The theories that Sigmund Freud articulated ranged from the unconscious, infantile sexuality and repression to a tripartite of the mind’s structure. Through the comprehension of Sigmund Freud’s id, ego and superego; “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” By Ursula K Le Guin demonstrates the mind constantly jumping from rationality and remorse.

Id is the primary component of personality, and the only component of personality that is present from the day of birth. Id is determined by the need for immediate satisfaction of all desires, wants and needs. If these needs are not met, a state of anxiety or even tension may arise. This however was not the case for those who lived in Omelas. It becomes clear that those in the society were given all their desires, wants and needs. This is a utopia consisting of “old people…, merry women carrying their babies…” and children, but what of the other mid-aged adults (Le Guin 1)? Have they walked away from Omelas out of constant guilt? The child in the basement is 10 years of age. This means that many children were born into society with luxuries and many before were not. The people who were born before the utopia was set were rational and exposed; meaning, that they too lived in a society much like our own. Ego is the component of personality that deals with reality. When the adults are exposed to the child in the basement an alarm sets off. Through ego, the adults are able to see the suffering that the child in the basement must undergo in order for their lives to remain pleasant. Id and ego are components that do not tend to morality; however, superego is the aspect of personality which develops morals. Which also means that superego provides a guideline for making judgements. I would like to refer to Marshall McLuhan who so brilliantly stated: “the medium is the message.” Quite simply the “message” indicates to think outside of the box, and find the non-apparent changes or affects. In the case of “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” this is the suffering that the child must endure in order to provide a utopia. The “medium”; however, “is anything from which changes emerges” (Federman 2). Think of the child as a medium. Once exposed to this medium, the message becomes clear to the public, but not all of the utopians allowed themselves to visit this child they "all know it is there…" and many “are content merely to know it is there” (Le Guin 3).  With only being content and not witnessing the inhumane treatment of the child, it is clear that their superego is unable to argue against the rationality of their ego. Without superego being tapped, there may not be any guilt in Omelas (Le Guin 2).  But for those who do dare to tap into their morality, a battle occurs between rationality and morality. Emotion eventually takes control which results in the outcome of the ones who walk away. When we are angry, we act out. Not because we rationally thinking act out, but rather because we feel the need to, this is when superego dominates ego. Once we complete acting out, all that is left to feel is regret, why did I do this?Those who dared to witness the child felt “anger, outrage, impotence…” a mix of emotions that no one in a utopia could have felt before. They say the first cut is the deepest, but cuts eventually heal, just as guilt dissipates.

This is why I feel that guiltiness cannot be constant, but rather served in portions. Even in today’s society, with the knowledge of all the suffering children undergo in sweatshops and kilns, we still indorse companies that employ such working conditions; and for what? A cheap pair of shoes and maybe some shirts, but as we strut in these shoes, does every footstep remind us of the child who suffered to make them?

Work Cited

“Freud’s Personality Theory.” eSSORTMENT. Demand Media. <http://www.essortment.com/all/freudpersonalit_rkjd.htm>

Stephen P. Thornton. “Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).” July 8, 2005. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/freud/>

Kendra Cherry. “The Conscious and Unconscious Mind.” About.com. <http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/consciousuncon.htm>

Kendra Cherry. “The Id, Ego and Superego.” About.com. <http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/personalityelem.htm>

Dennis Duffy and Kate Johnson. “Findley, Timothy.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Dominion. <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002815>

Mark Federman. “What is the Meaning of the Medium is the Message?” July 23, 2004. <http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm>

Guilty For Life

Guilt. I would like to make the assumption that everyone in the world has, at one point, felt guilt. I recall when I was child; I would behave bad and feel guilty all the time. But what does feeling guilty all the time really mean? When we are young we are exposed to television shows and books such as The Tell-Tale Heart where guilt manages to manifest and causes beloved characters to suffer an abnormal amount of guiltiness. The idea of feeling guilty constantly about the misery of others is hard to fathom. I believe that it is near impossible to constantly feel guilt for others’ misery. In “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” only those who allow guilt to manifest to the point of insanity walk away, they walk away alone. Humans, being social creatures, feel guilt often as a social correction; however, this stems into morality, principles, ethics and rationality. This can be demonstrated collectively as well, such as the children from Omelas who are exposed to the child in the basement in groups. Often when guilt is felt collectively, acceptance tends to be easier. This is why the majority of people from Omelas do not leave. This is why I feel that guiltiness cannot be constant, but rather served in portions. Even in today’s society, with the knowledge of all the suffering children undergo in sweatshops and kilns, we still indorse companies that employ such working conditions; and for what? A cheap pair of shoes, but as we strut in these shoes, does every footstep remind us of the child who suffered to make them?