Transcendentalism

As far as I understand it, transcendentalism is focused on individualism and self-transcendence--going beyond this world and considering yourself an integral part of the universe. It is very focused on spirituality and the divine, and the idea that higher powers are at work in our lives. To transcendentalists, it seems like we have very little control over our lives, and that we should look to a higher power for everything we do. I think the focus on self-transcendence and individualism is the main strength of the transcendentalist movement. For myself and my values, individualism is definitely something to strive towards, and I think individualists tend to lead happier, more satisfying lives. Self-transcendence is at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and few people ever reach it. Since it is at the top, it is considered to be very desirable and the ultimate form of self-acceptance. I would, however, consider the spirituality aspect a weakness. If we always believe that some higher power has some control over our lives, we will become accustomed to the idea that our decisions don't matter. This idea that some external force controls our lives is called an external locus of control, and it has been proven to make people less satisfied with their lives than if they feel that they have control over their own lives. If we feel that we have control, we will be more compelled to do the right thing and make decisions based on our beliefs rather than what we think someone else would want.

I would have to say that, for the most part, I agree with Emerson's idea of an inherent goodness in people. I think that it is bad situations or upbringings that generally bring out maliciousness in people. Also, barring those with antisocial personality disorder, people who do bad things feel remorse for their actions. In general, they do not feel glad that they committed a heinous act, and they usually want to repent for their wrongdoings. This illustrates, to me, an inherent good quality in everyone. I also agree with the individualism aspect of transcendentalism. Individualism is very important in our culture, and very highly valued. I believe that individualism is more constructive than collectivism in that people are more motivated by their individualism to do things they really believe in.

The main thing I do not agree with when it comes to transcendentalism is the idea of the divine and that of a higher power. I am not a religious person by any means (I definitely don't have anything against religion either), but I simply have to oppose the idea that we have no control over our own lives. I think that living with this mindset will get you nowhere in life--why would you ever be motivated to achieve anything if you thought that you had no control over whether or not you achieved it? It almost irritates me when people have total belief in the idea of a higher power controlling our lives. It is fine to have a belief in God and believe that He can guide us, but to give one's fate totally to some divine being is, to me, akin to completely giving up in life.

Overall, I would say I lie somewhere in between the Transcendentalists and the Anti-Transcendentalists. As I explained above, there are definitely aspects of transcendentalism, such as the idea of individualism, that I fully believe in. However, I cannot bring myself to declare myself a Transcendentalist because of their views about the divine and higher beings controlling our lives. That simply opposes my inherent beliefs too much. I also disagree with their move away from rationalism. Since I am very much a rational-brained person (I really enjoy science, and working through problems using reason), I don't think a move into the irrational and supernatural would be a good thing. I could not bring myself to think in this way all the time, without any rational thought process, which further increases my separation from the Transcendentalist ideals. On the opposite end, however, I don't know that I could fully declare myself an Anti-Transcendentalist. Their focus on the unconscious and their idea that it was a dark force is definitely something I don't agree with. The unconscious certainly CAN cause problems, but it is not an inherently dark force. I think the Anti-Transcendentalists had too negative a lens on everything--this is the key reason I don't identify with them fully. They were too focused on the dark forces that they believed were lurking in everyone to appreciate the potential for greatness that everybody really has.

The Great Gatsby

For me, Baz Luhrmann's movie version of The Great Gatsby wasn't so great. I didn't like many of the stylistic choices he made--it felt like he took liberties with the text. After having enjoyed the Fitzgerald's book, I was quite disappointed to be so disenchanted with the movie. I could never take the movie seriously, and I couldn't really engage with it for that reason.

One thing that really bothered me stylistically was the cinematography. The entire movie seemed like a dream, and I think Luhrmann intended it that way, since it was Nick's recollection of the whole summer. However, I found this to be extremely distracting and annoying. I could never quite have all of my focus on what I was supposed to--I was always paying attention to the oddness of the lighting and overall feel. It almost made me uneasy to watch it, since I felt like there was something wrong with the movie. Whenever Nick was talking to the doctor, this dream-like feel disappeared. This made it clear to me that this was no accident, but a stylistic choice made by Luhrmann. While I understand where he was coming from, and that the whole summer probably did feel a bit like a dream for Nick, I didn't like the choice he made.

Another irksome stylistic choice was the over-the-top costumes at Gatsby's parties. I realize that people at this time were flamboyant, but the costumes took it too far. There were small hints of the traditional "flapper girl" dresses, but most of the dresses looked like Halloween costumes. To me, it seemed like a costume party from the present day that was 1920's-themed; everyone was trying too hard to seem genuine. Not only that, some of the women there looked like current-day models: skeleton-thin and with severe faces and haircuts. I just can't believe that people looked or dressed like that in the 1920's. Every party that we saw just brought the movie too much into the present day for me, and each one made it less and less believable as The Great Gatsby.

There is a ridiculously large number of symbols in the novel version of The Great Gatsby. Symbols and motifs are much easier to incorporate and pull off inconspicuously in a book than in a movie. That becomes painfully obvious in Luhrmann's movie. He tries to incorporate the big symbols: the color green, the green light, etc, but, in my mind, fails miserably. It is almost as if he tries too hard to incorporate the symbols in--they are drawn to the viewer's attention far too much, and that makes them less effective as symbols. I know Luhrmann had to incorporate them somehow, but I think he could've done so in a slightly more subtle manner.

Overall, Baz Luhrmann's version of The Great Gatsby didn't do much for me. His stylistic choices, though well-intentioned, were unsuccessful in my eyes. I couldn't quite make myself enjoy the movie in the way that Luhrmann envisioned it.

Bowling for Columbine

Michael Moore is trying to say a lot of things about American identity and values in "Bowling for Columbine." While most Americans would take umbrage to most of the things he is insinuating, I believe that he makes some very accurate points. While people may not like what he has to say, I think we as a nation seriously need to think about our values as a country and as a culture, and Moore is trying to make us do that.

His biggest message is that we are a gun-crazy nation, which nobody can deny. Guns are a huge part of our culture, and Moore believes that that needs to change. He points out that the United States has more gun deaths (by about a magnitude of 100:1 in most cases, sometimes more) than any other developed country with an established government. As a country, we value guns and our right to own them. One man Moore interviewed said it is an "American responsibility to be armed." Unfortunately, this man is not alone in this mindset. For this reason, it is no wonder we have so  much gun violence.  However, this doesn't mean that we should have as much as we do. Moore tries to establish reasons for this tragedy.

He points out that it is far too easy to obtain guns and ammunition. He was able to walk into a bank and get a free gun for opening an account there. If it weren't so easy to get guns, we would probably have less gun violence, but people would be outraged. As a culture, we value our freedom and civil liberties set out in the Constitution, specifically the second Amendment. The American people are scared of government oppression, so they resist any sanctions the government tries to put on them. This is why we have such lenient gun control laws. People would live in fear if they were stricter, and people don't like fear. Moore shows time and time again how gun culture is such an integral part of our culture; so many people are a part of it and feel so strongly about it that it is impossible to avoid.

Another part of American society Moore explores is the fear culture we live in: "if it bleeds, it leads." In our news, anger, violence, and hate are the stories that do the best, and stories about tolerance and love are pushed to the background. Moore points out that all the news covers is tragedies--but only the wrong kind. We are shown violent crimes, racism, hate, and death, but never the tragedies of poverty,  hunger, and homelessness. As a society, we feed off of this fear of violence without doing anything to change it. By being constantly exposed to these things, we have come to view them as commonplace, which is a real problem. Moore also shows that people don’t like to talk about these things. As a society, we want all of our problems fixed, but we don’t want to do the work to fix them.

Michael Moore revealed a lot of ugly aspects of American identity and values in “Bowling for Columbine,” but the real problem is that nothing is being done to change these things. He shows a pretty accurate portrayal, in my opinion, of gun culture, violence, and fear that exist in our society. After watching this documentary, I really thought about how real these problems are in our society, and about how they really need to be addressed.

Sound and Fury

What is deafness? Depending on your Discourse, the term "deaf" can mean vastly different things. Both the Deaf community and the hearing community showed that they have very strong views on deafness and what it means to be deaf in the movie Sound and Fury. I found the incredibly strong views on either side of the issue to be fascinating.

On one side of the issue was the Deaf Community, represented by Peter and Nita, and also by Mari's parents. To Peter, "deafness is peaceful... if someone gave me a pill to make me hear, I'd throw it up." Deaf people are very proud of being deaf, and they feel that the cochlear implant surgery is scary and invasive. As Peter mentioned, "English is just moving lips; signing is motion." He feels that signing has more meaning than speaking, and that people can connect more through signing. It was interesting to see their side of the argument about the cochlear implant. They feel that it is almost a betrayal of their Deaf culture to give baby Peter or Heather an implant. They want the children to stay a part of "their world," and not move over to the hearing world. In my eyes, they are almost being discriminating towards hearing people. They claim that the hearing discriminate towards them, but I see it clearly as a two-way street. They don't want their kids to be a part of the hearing world; they don't mind if they interact with hearing people, as long as it is through sign language. The Deaf community is very concerned with personal identity--whether or not someone with an implant will identify as deaf, hearing, both, or somewhere in between. Many of them don't want Heather or baby Peter to identify with the hearing world because they fear that they will lose touch with the deaf world.

The other side of the debate encompasses the hearing: Chris and Mari and Chris and Peter's parents. To them, deafness is a disability, and they can't see why it shouldn't be fixed with a cochlear implant. To Mari, "the implant surgery is a miracle." They see hearing as being normal and deafness as being abnormal. To the Deaf community, this is very offensive. The hearing also cannot see why parents of a baby who is born deaf would not immediately consider implant surgery. They see it as helping the child be more "normal," and they think it will help them fit in. They worry about the child growing up and being ridiculed or excluded because they are deaf, and about the child having trouble having a career in the hearing world. Being a hearing person, I can definitely see this side of the issue. It would definitely be hard trying to be a professional and trying to communicate with the hearing while being deaf. However, this goes both ways. It is difficult for hearing to communicate with the deaf as well. Both have to make concessions and change the way they normally communicate.

Overall, thinking about this argument, it is very hard for me to say which side is "right." I have virtually no experience with the Deaf community or culture. However, I do think that everybody in this situation should've had a more open mind to the whole situation.

My Fear of Feet

Podophobia. It doesn't make sense, doesn't seem like it should be real. It's the fear of feet. Those sweaty, five-toed, fungi-ridden appendages just give me the shivers. I don't have a rational reason for the fear; however, it's not completely baseless. When I was six years old, and my sister was eight, I can remember us playing together in the living room, not a care in the world. I already had reason to be wary of my sister--she had always been the bane of my existence (or so my six-year-old mind thought). She constantly terrorized me just for the fun of it. Of course, my mom never saw what she did, only what I did in retaliation.

This particular occasion was no different. We were playing in the living room, my mother busy in the kitchen, when my sister decided it would be funny to shove her feet in my face. She peeled her socks off when I wasn't looking, and when I turned around to grab a Barbie, her wrinkly, smelly tootsies were smack in my face. Literally. She had underestimated and my face ran into her feet. I screeched and immediately recoiled, then sprinted to the kitchen (still screaming, to my mom's dismay and my sister's delight) and scrubbed my face in the sink. My mom was utterly befuddled by the situation, but my sister was elated and was rolling on the floor laughing (at least that's what I thought; my face was shoved deep into our kitchen sink at the time, so I relied on my ears and best judgment).

Once I felt I had been adequately decontaminated, I snatched up the towel and scrubbed my face some more. I then turned to my sister with fire in my eyes and made a beeline back to the living room. My mom caught me around the midsection before I could get anywhere, and sent both of us to our rooms. Both of us! As if I'd done anything wrong! I was furious, and at the same time I was completely disgusted. Never again will I look at feet as a normal entity. My feet are the only ones that should ever be near me. And don't even get me started on bare feet. Socked feet I can deal with, but bare feet? Try again later. I don't believe my sister recalls this particular incident, but she and the rest of my family frequently taunt me with my irrational fear. However, I have some vengeance of my own: my sister's irrational fear of people touching her neck.

Is "Blurred Lines" a Little Too Blurred?

"I know you want it, but you're a good girl," croons Robin Thicke as he dances seductively next to nearly-naked models. His hit song "Blurred Lines" has been touted "kind of rapey" by reporter Tricia Romano, and she is not alone.The video is offensive, sure. The lyrics are questionable, and the video is worse. Clearly, chivalry is not a strong theme in the song, but to go so far as to call it conducive to the rape culture? To me, that seems a little far.

Thicke's video is abhorrent to many women (and even men), and rightly so. The explicit version features women clad only in nude-colored thongs, while the "clean" version (only released after outrage) has the women scantily-clad, but technically covered. From the video, it is very clear how the song came to be so controversial. However, when one digs deeper into it, the song may not be as harmful as people are claiming it to be. As Jennifer Lai puts it, "Blurred Lines" is "overly cocky and presumptuous as hell," but that does not mean it is promoting rape.

As Lai points out, the song's lyrics do, in fact, let the woman call the shots. Thicke says "Go ahead, get at me," clearly indicating that he's waiting for the okay from the woman. In the video, it is definitely not just Thicke who is "getting nasty." Granted, he is fully clothed and making all of the suggested remarks, and has scantily dressed the women surrounding him, but he is not the only one whom kids shouldn't look at as a role model. The women in the song, though they don't say a word, speak volumes with their dancing. Now, I'm not suggesting that women who dress or act seductively are asking to be raped. However, they are acting very enticingly, and most men I know would certainly be aroused by them.

Critics, including Romano, point out the repeated murmuring of "I know you want it" throughout the song. While this can be a rapist's slogan, it can also be the sentiment of an aroused man who is just trying to get with a woman. So, while the video could certainly be taken as promoting rape, as Tricia Romano thinks, it should be looked at more closely, and from all perspectives. There is nothing to say what Thicke's true intent for the song was, but he claims it to be speaking to the "tired, overused good-girl-with-a-freaky-streak fantasy." If this is true, it is easy enough to understand. By reading the lyrics more closely, one can see that the song is probably not about rape, as it does speak to the woman and her actions and desires.

Though Thicke has clearly crossed a line with his "Blurred Lines" song and video, there is nothing to definitively suggest that it is suggesting that men become rapists. Sure, it is a dirty song with an even dirtier video, and clearly doesn't play to the chivalrous attitudes so many women desire. However, not all women desire a knight in shining armor. Some, as in the ones in the video, want to be suggestive and seductive, and want men's attention. Some really do "wanna get nasty," as Thicke says in the song. So, while not all women want what Thicke is offering, there is definitely a population out there who does want it. They may like rough sex, or may have other deviant desires, and that is no wronger than women wanting the "perfect man." There are different types of men, and different types of women, and "Blurred Lines" simply plays to a very specific group.

On the surface, Robin Thicke's hit "Blurred Lines" could easily be seen as "rapey," or conducive to the rape culture. However, on closer investigation, it is simply tailored to a very specific group of men and women, and to many, it is hard to understand their ways. Any way you look at it, the video is pretty awful (even the censored one), but there is nothing to tell us for sure that Thicke is promoting rape as okay. Some of his lyrics are definitely questionable, such as "I know you want it," which is repeated throughout the song, but there are also those who suggest that all of this is just innocent fun for everyone. Not everyone enjoys the kind of sex that Thicke is suggesting, but that is okay. Admittedly, the song is catchy; that doesn't mean I agree with its message. I just think it's a bit too far to call the song, and by extension Thicke himself, "rapey."

"Autobiography of a Face"

For my nonfiction book, I chose Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy. In the novel, Lucy describes her long-fought battle with a potentially terminal cancer, Ewing's sarcoma. The cancer is in her jaw, and she must undergo multiple surgeries that leave her face permanently disfigured. Grealy was diagnosed at age nine, and her entire life was shaped by her face.

When Lucy is first diagnosed, she certainly doesn't take the news like most other children, or even adults for that matter, would. She is excited because she has always wanted to be "different from everyone else." She sees cancer as her way of standing out from the crowd and getting noticed. Lucy states that her "heart thrilled when [she] heard the words 'emergency surgery,'" and she wasn't referring to a thrill of fear. This was intriguing to me--I still get nervous about getting a shot. I can't imagine the fear I would have felt as a nine-year-old having to face countless surgeries, tests, and other procedures. It made me wonder what it is that make some people like this. Why is Lucy so excited for the surgery, and to be "different?" Why, on the other hand, are some kids so eager to fit in and be just like everyone else? Did Lucy truly understand the impact this disease would have on her life, and if she did, would she ever have been so excited? "Sometimes it is as difficult to know what the past holds as it is to know the future." This idea is very poignant, especially in Lucy's situation. It really made me think about how much our past can shape our lives, whether we realize it or not. Something that happened five years ago could have an impact 10 or 15 years down the road--we just never know. This is kind of scary to me, because it adds yet another element of unpredictability to our lives.

Another big element to Lucy's story is bravery. In my mind, this is the part of the book that is the most heartbreaking. Lucy tries her hardest not to cry or get upset, which is understandable, but when she does, she gets extremely angry at and disappointed with herself. Her expectations are too high--sometimes everyone just needs to let it out. Especially a child with cancer (or, frankly, anyone with cancer). Her philosophy is "one must be good. One must never complain or struggle...One must never, ever cry." This stopped my in my tracks. Never cry?! That would be detrimental to a person, to never show any emotion! It also brought up the age-old question: nature vs nurture. Lucy's parents hold the same philosophy she did. Her mother, after Lucy cried at her first chemotherapy appointment, tells her that she is "disappointed...that [she'd] cried." I would like to know if Lucy's mother was truly such an unsupportive parent, or if she really didn't understand any of what her daughter was going through. Obviously, Lucy was raised on the idea that crying meant weakness, but surely it couldn't be that ingrained in her head? Lucy all but punished herself for crying at her appointments. She later states that her mother "was afraid for" her, but I don't think that she should've transferred her fear onto Lucy in such a fashion; Lucy was dealing with far too much.

"What was it like to be somebody else?" Lucy is constantly asking herself this question. She believes that she is ugly, that nobody will ever love her, and that her face will define her life. I think that her face does define her life, but only because she lets it. She places so much stock in her appearance that she is never able to let her personality shine through. In order for Lucy to live a better life, I think she should've just tried to forget about what everyone else thought and just focus on being the best person she could be. I realize, however, that I am in no position to say this; I have never had to deal with anything more appearance-altering than a scar on my leg that has since faded. This is the problem with Lucy's disfigurement: it will never go away. A large portion of her jaw was removed in an attempt to cure her, and it will never grow back, never fade. I can't even imagine what it would be like living with that, but I would like to think that I would be able to put it aside and just live my life. Lucy has a very hard time doing that, and I think it is because it happened so young. Children her age are so impressionable and cruel--Lucy was forever mentally scarred from the incessant teasing and taunting that happened to her. Other boys told her no one would ever love her, and I think that is where her belief comes from. She was too young to have to deal with any of this, let alone the cruelty of others. This is an overarching belief that she holds until the day she dies--that she will never be loved because she is too ugly. I can't imagine living like this.

Lucy's story really affected  me. She faces so many hardships in it, and has little to no support from anyone throughout her ordeal. I know that Lucy was an incredibly strong person (she died in 2002); she dealt with this all alone and lived through it. When I seriously think about it, I don't know if I could've gone through what she did. It is incredible to me that she never had any problems with depression or mental illness. Most people I know would probably turn to drugs or alcohol (I don't like to think so, but I may even do so) in the face of what Lucy dealt with. Her face and the problems in her life were infinitely connected. She wanted someone to "fix [her] face, [her] life, [her] soul," and that really stuck with me. We put so much stock in appearances that an "unfortunate" one can completely take over our lives. She even asks "where was all that relief and freedom that I thought came with beauty?" Our expectations of being beautiful are so unrealistic, but we don't realize that until it is too late. With Lucy, even though she was a survivor of cancer, she could never shake the mark it left on her, physically at least. Oddly enough, she didn't seem to have any psychological problems that stemmed from her ordeal, besides thinking that she was ugly, unlovable, and worthless. Lucy's story really taught me a lot, and it made me think about what is truly important in life. It also made me very grateful for my health, and for the supportive people in my life. Lucy had neither of those things, and yet she was able to go on living. I admire her for that. She truly believed that "[her] life was 'different' from most people's, but it was essentially [her] own."

I will leave you with an incredibly thought-provoking quote from Lucy. It really struck me and changed the way I think about things:

"Joy is a kind of fearlessness, a letting go of expectations that the world should be anything other than what it is."