Blog 16: Response to Carol Gilligan

Reading Carol Gilligan's "Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle" was very interesting and exhilarating. She quoted many well known physiologists; so with their research combined with her own the essay grabbed the attention of their readers right away. The information given was so fascinating and proven to be true over and over again in history it was hard to disagree with her findings and the findings of the physiologists she quoted.

To answer the question of differences between men and women in terms of the way the hold relationships I will use a quote that is so very true it made me laugh a bit, “Thus males tend to have difficulty with relationships, while females tend to have problems with individuation” (Gilligan 804). Through the information found during research, Gilligan and the others found that separation from their mothers at a young age, by four or so, is crucial to the normal, masculine development of boys and men. Whereas for girls who grow into adult women, the feminine identity is similar to their mothers, and we get the opposite affect than boys; girls cling to the mothers and identify themselves as being female from their mothers, hence no individuation latter on (Gilligan 803-804).

The separation of boys and the clinging of girls makes complete sense. I associated the processes of masculinity and feminine identification with the known facts that all of us when we were little girls tried on our mothers high heels and attempted to walk around the house just as she did. Then for little boys they tend to only need their “mommies” if they get hurt playing their own individual games that does not include their mothers. Latter on in their intimacy and relationships it makes total sense that men are more independent; it is all they have known throughout their lives since age four. Where women are more prone to adopt features of their mates so they both have a lot in common and the men are more easily happy and do not leave the relationship; so there again is this clinging that women naturally posses. From Chodorow’s analysis, Gilligan quotes, “As a result, in any given society, feminine personality comes to define itself in relation and connection to other people more than masculine personality does” (Gilligan 803).

This quote instills further that latter on since males grow up being independent, they are going to have closeness and commitment issues in their relationships. Whereas women grow up adopting their feminine characteristics from other people they are close to, hence latter in their relationships with males, they are the ones comfortable with commitment, but have separation issues. This is why it is sad to see that throughout history, women will do what ever it takes to keep their men around, even when it is not healthy for themselves; from relationships such as these spawn abuse and neglect for women.

I enjoyed this essay it had a lot of information I already knew, but told and analyzed in different ways. Gilligan elaborated on the reasons men and women are they way they are in relationships and in life in general. It was so interesting to see these facts proven true. I feel as though I now have a better understanding of the opposite sex, and I can see why women are they way they are. Although, some boys and girls break the typical separation and clinging barriers, and grow up to be different than the researches usually found; so it goes to show that the way children are raised and influenced while young has everything to do with who they are latter in life. It also shows that not every man and women in the world grow up the same and have the same outcome.

Gilligan, Carol. "Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle." From "In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2006. pp 797-819.

Blog 15: Simone De Beauvoir

In "Woman: Myth and Reality, by Simone De Beauvoir, she describes and analyses what she calls the myth of the Eternal Feminine. Throught her description Beauvoir states that beliving in this myth resembels Platonic ideas (Beauvoir 784). Although she goes into great detail about the myth of the Eternal Feminine she, herself does not believe in it. As Beauvior states, "the myth of woman, sublimating as immutable aspect of the human condition- namely, the "division" of humanity into two classes of individuals- is a static myth" (Beauvoir 784). Here she explains that this "myth" (which is something that has yet to be proven true fact) separates individuals into two groups, slaves and masters; in which the women are the slaves and the men are the masters. This is typical feminist thinking, and Simone De Beauvoir was most definatly a feminist.

She goes into greater detail ripping the myth apart to anaylze every aspect of it to prove it is faulty. She states that the myth, "justifies all privileges with alleviating the pains and the burdens that physiologically are women's lot, since these are "intended by Nature;" men use them as a pretext for increasing the misery of the feminine lot still further" (Beauvoir 787). Here she is speaking of how this myth was created and what it was intended for. She said the myth was "intended by Nature" to do what it does to women. She also goes on to say that men use the myth to their advantage, to power over women, for that was what nature wanted and why they created the myth. All throughout the essay she repeats that women are mysterious to the rest of the society (men). I believe this is beacuse since men are so sexest and one-sided they do not take the time to learn and really see what women are like, what they do, and who they are; that is the only reason men find women a mystery. I really loved the sentence by Beauvoir when she said, "mystery is never more than a mirage that vanishes as we draw near to look at it" (Beauvoir 791). She was explaining how if we never take the time out to actually grasp something, it will start to vanish before our eyes.

Personally, this text was difficult to understand. I found myself re-reading sentences over and over again just to grasp what was meant. Troughout reading I started to think that the myth must have been created by a male of some sort, for there is no doubt that a female would never put burdens such as these on herself. While reading I noticed that Beauvoir kept repeating herself that she did not believe in this myth of the Eternal Feminine, but that she was just explaiding and anaylzing it to show how un-true it is. I agree in that there was such a thing as the Eternal Feminine, but that women were characterized wrong. I think that in today's socitey this myth would not stand a chance; for women have many more rights and priviliges now.

De Beauvoir, Simone. "Women: Myth and Reality." From "The Second Sex." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. H. M. Parshley. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 781-795.

Blog 14: Virginia Woolf

In "Shakespeare's sister," by Virginia Woolf, a fictional character is created realistic to women of the Shakespearian time. This character, Judith Shakespeare would have been completely unable to compose such works as Shakespeare did; for women were less than men. Only men could write such beautiful plays with all their intellegence, for women lacked in education because society would not let them continue. Women in this time were expected to raise the children and tend to the household needs. Not go out and think up the next big, famous play (Woolf 768).

Although Judith was fictionaly just as gifted as her brother, she could not become as successful as him. She had to remain in the house, and there were no dues given to exceptional women who completed their household chores on time. As Woolf described, "She had no chance of learning grammar and logic, let alone of reading Horace and Virgil" (Woolf 769). Because of the education system barring women from continuing their schooling and even barring them competley from it, she could not follow in her brother's footsetps. Although she would have been just as good a playwrite if not better.

While reading this piece from "A Room of One's Own," I could not help but wonder, what if she was given a chance to prove her skills. Would the society at the time just allow her to write plays and learn the works of Horace and Virgil? Or would she have broken the mold and paved the way for other women to follow? It would have been interesting if Judith Shakespeare was not fictional, but a real live woman who had the chance to change society's "norm." Woolf was an obvious feminist, yet I would not call her radical. She just as others of her time wished the currcumstances would have been different for women, but the harsh reality was that things were not equal between men and women. I know I would have gone nuts if I had lived in the sixteenth century...for I am not published, gifted author or playwrite, but I am a woman seeking higher education and going into a career that would have very "off limits" to me in that time, dentistry. Just as Woolf stated, ..."that any woman born with a great gift in the sixteenth century would certainly have gone crazy, shot herself, or ended her days in some lonely cottage outside the village" (Woolf 770). It is unfair and hurtful to know that giften women were seen as crazy loons, and evil witches. If only thoes women had lived in today's society... they could fully express their views, emotions, poetry, and excellence.

Woolf, Virginia. "Shakespeare's Sister." From "A Room of One's Own." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 761-777.

Blog 12: Response to "Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer:"

In “Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer,” by Robert B. Reich he speaks of three different classes of workers; the routine producer, the in-person server, and the symbolic analysts. He then goes into a detailed discussion about each class. But, I am only going to elaborate on the routine producer, so everyone can get a detailed look into their hardships. Reich states the routine producer get paid very little wages to do most of the “dirty” jobs in a society. He also states that in the future, these types of workers will succumb to extreme hardships because of the outsourcing of their job capabilities as well as new and improved technology taking over their job positions. Reich links this class to the class that would be most like factory workers in today’s society.

Because of all the outsourcing and new technologies theses workers will be put out of jobs and this will catalyst the rest of the economy into a downward spiral which they can only get out of if they stop outsourcing. The routine producer, at one time were the people who were paid relatively well and considered the higher of the middle class. Now-a-days, factory workers (same as routine producers) are paid the bare minimum just so they can get by from week to week on their pathetic paychecks. “The consequence,” Reich states, “is clearest in older, heavy industries, where high-volume, standardized production continues its ineluctable move to where labor is cheapest and most accessible around the world. This quote is the key as to why America out-sources; for mass production to flourish, because in out-sourcing conditions we are getting large amounts of products made very cheaply (not to mention inadequately) so that way we have more to sell for a higher price than its cost of manufacturing, so hence, these greedy American CEO’s are making a large profit. But for what, is it really worth demolishing the whole middle class to rags and then letting the economy fall with them just for a profit?

Let’s take the automotive industry for example, In Detroit especially, the automotive industries are the life line to the economy, and as of right now that life line is looking more and more grim; it is dying. “The Big Three,” which would be Chrysler, Ford and GM are all out-sourcing their jobs to foreign countries, such as China and Japan. Why are they doing this you ask? For the same reasons Reich explained earlier, for their products to be made in mass amounts for cheaper wages to pay the makers, than if we had kept those cars in America and had to pay the workers more. This way the car companies can make more of a certain product and sell them as the demand heightens. Although is the demand going to heighten, probably not considering out-sourcing creates, what I like to call, the “trickle affect…” The trickle affect happens when the auto workers are being laid off or fired just because there is no work for them (because it all is going over sees), then since they have just endured a HUGE pay cut, they can no longer afford to eat out as much- so the restaurant industry starts to go under. Among restaurants, people can no longer afford to buy all these new cars that are being made by the thousands- so the car dealerships start to go under, and so on. Basically just from out-sourcing cars the whole entire economy had suffered.

So again, I ask are the hardships automotive employees suffer from, hence creating a downward spiraling economy worth the profit; so the CEO’s, owners, and presidents can get more rich while the rest of the nation get more and more poor by the day? I do not think so. I agree with Reich with all the predictions he made. His predictions may not be identical to how the industries are today, but they are very similar. Hence, because of this, Americans need to step up and speak up to put a stop to not only out-sourcing, but to put a stop to this robbery of their money to feed the wealthy. Since when did it become okay to steal from the poor and give to the already rich? What America needs is a modern day Robin Hood.

Reich, Robert B. "Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer." From "The Works of Nations." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2006. pp 417-435.

Blog 11: Response to "The Position of Poverty:"

In John Kenneth Galbraith’s, “the Position of Poverty, he broke his argument on poverty down into five distinct sections to clarify his points. Over all he spoke about poverty in England in the years past, how poverty was in America in the decades past, and how poverty is in today’s societies. He explained that there are two different kinds of poverty, case poverty and insular poverty. In this blog, I have decided to explain case poverty.

Case poverty affects the individual that is so afflicted. It is a quality (or lack of a basic quality) that is unusual to that specific person or family involved. Qualities such as, a mental deficiency, inability to adapt to discipline of industrial life, poor health, alcohol, uncontrollable reproduction, discrimination only involving a certain-limited minority, an educational handicap, or a combination of all or a few of these short-comings. Case poverty can exist virtually anywhere, even in a wealthy, well-to do community. In order to free these individuals whom struggle with case poverty a society’s best bet is to solve it with public or private charity. Giving back, or lending a helping hand to those who are less fortunate than ourselves. There is no need for a large social change in the society; in this type of poverty it would prove to be inadequate.

Although when stating that all it takes to eliminate case poverty is charity… there are a couple existing, pathetic excuses. These excuses are that a wealthier individual does not give back or help the others who suffer from this, which then spit-fires into a chain reaction, and now many people do not want to donate whatever they can. Also, and this is the main excuse, is the shortage of money over all in all societies. Case, and all types of poverty can be eliminated if as Galbraith states, “an affluent society that is also both compassionate and rational would, no doubt, secure to all who needed it the minimum income essential for decency and comfort” (Galbraith 410). Looking at this solution many pessimists would argue for an example, “why should we help the people that are just too lazy to go out into the world and find jobs and get themselves out of what they put themselves into?” And my answer to them would be, that not every person that suffers from poverty is lazy, not every person had a choice, what about the innocent children? The children of poverty stricken families did not have anything to do with their inconvenient situation. So the solution Galbraith provided I completely support, when it pertains to the children of the present; that way they can be the successful non-poor adults of the future. As the Calvinist precept says it best, “The only sound way to solve the problem of poverty is to help people help themselves” (Galbraith 411). I love this quote because it shows a tolerable, non-prejudice human wanting to better others, in order to better the community, in order to better everyone’s life in general.

So to conclude, to reach the solution stated in the previous paragraph, we need a leader, a President to actually take charge of their campaign and make poverty in America (as else where) one of their main issues. As seen in the past, there have been a select few politians and Presidents who tried to put a stop to poverty in their campaigns, but disappointingly enough… something always hindered them of their goals…. Why does that always seem to happen? Examples of these individuals are President Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. Although like I just stated, the war in Vietnam, other government policies, and the inflation rates at these times hindered these men from the advances in eliminating poverty that had surprisingly been made. So who is it going to be next, who is going to step up to the issue and confront it head on; and actually propose a solution, much like the one stated earlier, and end this disgrace in the United States?

Galbraith, John, Kenneth. "The Position of Poverty." From "The Affluent Society." A World of Ideas: Esseintial Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 403-415.

Blog 10: "The Communist Manifesto"

Reading Karl Marx’s, The Communist Manifesto, it is clear that there is an un-equalness in the society of the Bourgeois and Proletarians. These two classes of people in the society are very different from one another. The Bourgeois are the wealthy, luxury owning pompous people; they are the upper class who rule over all the other classes. These other classes are known as the Proletarians are the more poor of the two; these are the people who do all of the hard labor. The Bourgeois have always been the “top dog,” and will fight to stay at the top; therefore leaving no room for the Proletarians to be as successful. Although the Bourgeois are seen to be the present successful group in the reading, Marx believes that the proletariat will be the social class of the future.

In order for there to be this social status equalness, Marx believes in communism; that these concepts of being a Communist will even things out between all the social classes. Marx’s statements all throughout the reading support the cause of communism, and that the Communist cause is the proletarian cause. Marx expects communism to provide the proletariat with a bright future. As he stated, “Of all the classes that stand to face with the bourgeoisie today the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class” (Marx 365). This is a very clear statement that Marx is in support of the “little people,” if you will. Marx explains that the goal of the Communists is the same as the proletarian parties, in that they focus and believe in the formation of the proletariat into a class to conquer the bourgeois of superiority and the conquest of political power by the proletariat. Also, in order for them to achieve such aims, there strategy is simple, “Abolition of private property” (Marx 368).

Marx’s ideologies of communism remind me of the old story of “Robin Hood,” how their main goal was to steal from the rich to give it back to the poor; this way the poor can live normal decent lives and maybe even other throw their unjust suppressors. I also get reminded of how our major parties today are represented by those Marx spoke of in this reading. I made that connection that the Bourgeois are the current Republicans and the Proletarians are the current Democrats. Each party’s beliefs are alike to Marx’s social classes, for an example the Bourgeois believe in taxing the less fortunate and giving back to the already rich, just like Republicans. Whereas the Proletarians believe in giving back to the smaller people, just as Democrats believe in giving to the small businesses and less fortunate people.

Reading “The Communist Manifesto” was very fascinating and I enjoyed learning that it had many ideas about societies that are still much like todays. In my opinion, I think communism is not totally a bad idea; Marx has many well supported arguments that I agree with. He wishes to see the labor of society be equally distributed among all the people of a society and he proposes a more equal division of wealth. This is one of the ideas of communism that I agree with. In Marx’s new ideal society, instead of fighting and ruling over one another, the people will learn to work together and evenly distribute goods, money, work, and land. This new society sounds magnificent. So in conclusion, I do not agree with everything Communism offers, but I do think it could equal out a split economy.

Marx, Karl. "The Communist Manifesto." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Samuel Moore. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 353-379.

Response to Nussbaum's: "What are the central human capabilities?"

All throughout Nussbaum’s piece, the focus is on how individuals should have to right to many human capabilities that are central to their individualism and all of society as a complete whole. She begins this section of her book, “Sex and Social Justice,” by stating these central human capabilities. A few paragraphs later she continues explaining how the capabilities are goals, and how justice would be fair if it allowed for all of these capabilities to be attainable to everyone; but not just attainable, the people should have the right to decide whether they want to make these capabilities goals, and then achieve them. Continuing on through the reading, Nussbaum speaks of how the justice system should make these capabilities free and reachable, if the individual so chooses, to everyone.

These capabilities come in three different varieties, those being: the “basic capabilities,” the “internal capabilities,” and the “combined capabilities.” The basic capabilities, as Nussbaum states, are “the innate equipment of individuals that is the necessary basis for developing the more advanced capability” (Nussbaum 219). Internal capabilities are those that fulfill the adult individuals’ needs to actually function in accordance to his capabilities. A great example Nussbaum uses is where women in different cultures at one time were being discriminated against in the form of taking away their capabilities of enjoying sexual intercourse, which then leads to never wanting sex, which ends in no reproduction. The last types of capabilities are those of, the combined sort. These are defined as “internal capabilities combined with suitable external conditions for the exercise of the function” (Nussbaum 219).

The specific examples in which she wrote of were the central human capabilities of: life, bodily health and integrity, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one’s environment: being both politically and materially. All of these are categorized into the three groups of capabilities listed in the above paragraph.

While I was reading this piece from Martha C. Nussbaum, I was intrigued to find out her beliefs were similar in many instances to those of Rawls’. The main belief they share is that of the individual in a society should be protected and preserved, and not the collective, if true justice were to reign. Also, I found it interesting that her many of her examples of hindrances of opportunities were those of women; this left me wondering if she was at all influenced by the feminist writer Elizabeth Cady Stanton. I do not think Nussbaum is a radical feminist by any means, but I think Nussbaum believes women, over the centuries, no matter the culture, have had it harder than men when discussing the hindrance of opportunities.

This reading was very interesting to me, in that it discussed justice in a whole new way; a way that I have never thought to look at justice before. I agree in that for justice to be fair, individuals need the opportunity to function. People of a society should never be hindered to act against or speak out about an issue, and should most defiantly not be hindered against having the chance-the “opportunity” to decided what they would like to do about an issue or idea, and they should also never be influenced or pressured into believing, thinking, speaking, or acting in a way that is not completely their own. In other words, I believe, just as Nussbaum, that no one else should have the right to force their ideas and beliefs on to another individual; because this would, once again steer them away from their own opportunity to make a decision to function.

Works Cited

Nussbaum, Martha C. "The Central Human Functional Capabilities." From "Sex and Social Justice." "A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers." Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 209-223.

Response to Rawls's, "A Theory of Justice:"

Rawls's attitude toward the least advantaged people in society is one of determination for equality among thoes who are better off than them. He wishes to create a type of justice in which the lesser fortunate are equal to the fortunate persons in society. His argument is that it is not fair for the rich to get richer while the poor get more poor. This arugment is best defined by this statment from Rawls, "It may be expedient but it is not just that some should have less in order that others may prosper." Rawls believes that justice must be fair to all individuals, in that the rights of the individual should never be sacrificed for the greater good of society. In order to achieve his beliefs, he proposes what he calls the "origional position" concept (Rawls 200), which means that society chooses an origional starting point in which the designers of the society make certain assumptions about the primary goods (which are things such as freedom, equality, opportunity, wealth, income, and power) that each person in the society must have. To obtain this origional position, the "veil of ignorance" (Rawls 200), which is simply means that the members of the society make their decisions about the "primary goods" without knowing where they, themselves would fall in the classes of society, was created. Only blinded by this "veil of ignorance," can the members of society fairly agree upon an even distributation of the primary goods among the citizens and their decisions would not be baised by personal circumstances.

Therefore it is obvious that Rawls supports the "little people" over the more fortunate people. Rawls's attitude toward the less advantaged people is one that reminds me of how the Democratic party runs its campiange. The Demopcrats also believe that justice cannot be fair if only a certain group has more of the wealth, opportunities, power, and income than another. Such an unfair situation gives way to a loss of equilibrium, and eventually the plunder of a society. If a party were to support the ideals of one group being more successful than another, it would be a lot like the Republican party in today's government.

I must say that I truely enjoyed reading this piece from Rawls's book, "A Theory of Justice." My political beliefs are a lot like Rawls's, in that I believe the lesser fortunate group of people in a society should be equal in obtaining and keeping the primary goods just as the more rich and successful people of a society. In my opinion, if a society continues to have an unfair advantage to only one particular group it will not last long, for both groups will be greedy, and unforgiving; only one will prosper and that is incomplete inconsistancy to the constitution of the United States of America. Although the constitution was written by wealthy, well-to-do men, I believe they were writing it for everyone to live by, and for future politions to make rules in accordance to. Although the society we live in today is baised and one-sided, I believe times are changing and we will soon begin to see more equality among the different persons in our society.

Works Cited

Rawls, John. "A Theory of Justice." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2006. pp 195-206.

Response to "Letter from Birmingham Jail"

In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King explains how he views this horrible injustice which has come down upon his people. Through the entire piece King goes into great, beautiful detail that unjust laws against a minority are absurd; one example being the fact that his minority must abide by any unfair law, yet they did not have a say or get to part-take in its creation what so ever. He also states that, “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (King 179). Here he explains the injustice against a person’s inner-self, a person’s conscience, a law that takes away a person’s right to be his or herself; I totally agree with King’s opinion about an unjust law; no one should be cut down to nothing from unfair government decisions. King supports just laws, and will abide those that are fair to all people, but if it is not fair, just and moral, why should he or anyone it hurts abbey it? They shouldn’t have to, and that is the stand King takes in his argument. From these statements above, it is obvious to see that King has been significantly inspired by Henry David Thoreau, for Thoreau believed unjust laws should not be obeyed as well.

In King’s essay he discusses the white churches in great detail. He explains how he was sure that they all would support him in his fight for equality, for they are places of God, and under God all people are seen as equal. Although, to King’s dismay, the white churches did not support him, or they went the route of keeping silent on the issues. King only gained the support from a couple, if that, churches; and even though it was appreciated he needed more. King’s most powerful argument of why the white Christian churches should support him in this fight is the most compelling argument, in my opinion, in this letter. He states, “Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators” (King 186). Here he is relating the early Christian church’s struggle to be accepted to his own. King goes on to say, “But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment,” (King 186) just like King and his followers. I strongly agree with the approach King is taking with the churches to earn their trust, respect, and support. When I first read these few statements, I was moved by them; so I can only imagine how the Christian churches responded.

Even though King did not earn all the churches support and respect, he did earn the support from many single members; members who did not care if they would be kicked out of their church for supporting him, members who did not care if they went to prison along with King and his followers, they were true members to the spirit of God within their corrupt church. King’s disappointment with the white Christian churches did not derive him from his goal though; it only made him more determined. This determination is what I love and respect of Martin Luther King Jr. He is an amazingly man, and every day I thank him for what he accomplished; because without him and his followers American would still be racially segregated and in much depression. I only wish I had the opportunity to thank him in person!

Works Cited

King, Martin Luther. "Letter from Birmingham Jail." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 177-190.

Response to "What kind of government does Thoreau feel would be most just?"

While reading “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau I noticed many similarities to “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching” by Lao-tzu. The kind of government Thoreau feels would be most just is the kind of government Lao-tzu describes. This kind of government is one that gives its citizens their space and lets them mainly decide what laws they want to abide by; basically it is a non controlling government, very un-totalitarian, and defiantly not a good representation of the government in which rules today. The quote that is famous to this piece, and also happens to be my favorite is, “That government is best which governs least, (Thoreau 137)” and the other quote which is supported fully by Thoreau is, “That government is best which governs not at all. (Thoreau 137)”

These two quotes easily sum up Thoreau’s entire essay. He goes into great detail about how the government should pull back and respect its people much more, how laws are meant to be broken if they are unreasonable, and how lawmakers should give the right to decide to the people of the government, not the higher-up authority. All these aspects create a more just government in the eyes of Thoreau; a government in which Thoreau would actually respect and agree with. When Thoreau states, “But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it, (Thoreau 138)” he is explaining how if not every single human being’s opinion is taken into consideration when it comes to governmental decisions, the government is not one of justice at all. He explains how every person has a conscience and if it is always ignored by the individual and set aside to abide by an unfair legislator’s decisions, then why have one at all (Thoreau 138)?

Is a conscience sole purpose not to direct us in the “right way,” the ways of our morals, and our views on what is right and what is wrong? Isn’t it our flashlight when we are in the dark; it helps us remember our values in time of confusion and disarray? I believe so; I agree with Thoreau in that the government, at times, is too over-bearing and controlling. I do not agree to his extreme that there should not be a government at all, but I do believe if the government lightened up and let its people speak out and decided what laws are just the world would be a better place. I have realized from this reading that again there needs to be a happy medium in government; for there is a time for force and strict guidelines, and a time for letting go and having faith in the citizens.
Works Cited

1. Thoreau, Henry D. “Civil Disobedience.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College
Writers. Ed.Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006. pp 133-158.

Response to "The Separation of Church and State:"

In “The Separation of Church and State” by Stephen L. Carter, the issue of protecting religion from the state vs. protecting the state from religion is discussed. In this discussion, the only side of this argument that is represented by the First Amendment is the fact that religion is protected by the state not the other way around. Since the First Amendment was written congressmen, judges, and many other types of governmental men have said they are looking out for the best interest of religion, but as history shows their intentions are only that, just “actions meaning to be done.” In Carter’s argument he quotes Thomas Jefferson in saying that “the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights…” (Carter 103) are the rights that were designed to secure religious liberty. But I ask where has Jefferson’s way of thinking gone?

It is obvious that congress and the government as a whole have started to leer away from protecting religion from the state, and switched to protecting the state from religion. Carter states the best known case of this is the example in which the government denied the schools the right to have organized prayer in public schools (Carter 105). I believe that the government is neither abiding by nor breaking the First Amendment, they are just trying to casually ignore it. By not passing laws over the citizen’s right to practice what every religion they so choose they are abiding by the First Amendment. It is when they rule that schools and treatment centers cannot be funded by the government for the sole reason they may use a few prayers is when the government is not necessarily breaking the First Amendment, but just trying to get by it, by saying, in my opinion, “No we will not fund your programs, but we support your ideas and will let you stay as an organization!"

Therefore I believe Carter is trying to expose to the nation that our rights may not be taken away, but they are being compromised. It is plain to see that congress has changed its views on who to protect. I personally think that prayer in school would not harm anything or anyone. As well as prayer in rehabilitation centers would not harm anyone; it would only make them believe in themselves and a “higher power” even more, therefore giving them hope in breaking their addiction. Believing in and praying to a higher power is not going to change peoples’ opinions about the government and make them lean away from it and support only their God, no… all prayer does is give people the strength and belief that they are going to make it through any tough time they may encounter. So if religion is not harming the state, why does congress feel it necessary to protect the state from it?

Works cited

Carter, Stephen L."The Separation of Church and State." From "The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law

and Politics Trivialize Religous Devotion." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed.

Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: BEdford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp99-111.

Response to "What Happens to humans beings in concentration camps?"

After reading, “Total Domination,” the better question is… “What does not happen to humans in concentration camps?” It seems as though answering this question would lead to a much shorter essay, for just about any in-humane, horrible, and de-humanizing action was carried out in concentration camps. I believe, the best description of a concentration camp is a place where masses of humans are cut off from the world, just like they no longer exist, and they, even though are technically “alive,” are forced to work themselves to death. When they do die, they are just replaced by another inadequate soul, in the eyes of their oppressors, until each and every one has been exterminated. “Concentration camps can very aptly be divided into three types corresponding to three basic Western conceptions of a life after death: Hades, Purgatory, and Hell,” says Arendt (Arendt 96).

This quote is one of my favorites, because it clearly sums up how concentration camps work and she expresses them as easy to understand concepts for a reader such as me. Arendt then goes on to state that each level represents a different type of concentration camp; meaning, Hades is considered the DP camps, Purgatory represents the Soviet Union camps, and then the worst of the three, Hell represents the Nazis camps. In concentration camps it is clear that total domination does, in fact, occur. The idea of horror is imposed on to the camp’s poor members and they are treated not as the individual they are, but as a mass of one characteristic. At such camps, humans are stripped of their individuality and are worked and murdered. Arendt states, “Here, murder is as impersonal as the squashing of a gnat (Arendt 94).” If that is not a powerful statement of how oppressors felt towards their victims, I do not know what is.

Reading “Total Domination,” gave me a new way to look at concentration camps. I have always been taught that they are horrible places, and humans there, if they even made it through, were not the same people after; but now I see them for everything they are. Which is not just one race believing they are superior, so oppressing another to work for them to get a job done, oh no, not just that. Concentration camps, explained by Arendt, are places where racism and prejudice run in high amounts, where humans are transformed into “uncomplaining animals (Arendt 89).” I think it is such a sad day that our world could be so cruel and unresponsive. It is ludicrous just to know there used to be places of such terror. Although, we no longer see the use of concentration camps, I think a relative to the idea still lingers today. Such examples would be the suicide bombings we experience in today’s society. The only difference is there is no “higher race opinions,” only a cult leader, if you will. This “cult leader” persuades persons of low morals and who lack their own opinions, to believe in his cause, and get them to come together and start attacking many parts of the world by suicidal bombing missions. Although suicide bombings are technically forms of terrorism, I think they are a close relative to concentration camps. After my reading and analysis of the reading, I can only ask this question, will terrorism ever stop? Will it, like concentration camps, eventually loose its power and seize to exist? I suppose I can only hope.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. "Total Domination." From The Origins of Totalitarianism. A World of Ideas: Essential

Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 85-

97.

Response to Machiavelli's, "The Qualities of the Prince"

It is difficult to come up with one conclusion, in my opinion, about whether a prince should be loved or feared. If he is loved he is supposed to have the loyalty of his subjects, as well as their support. Yet is seems if a prince is only loved and nothing else that he may, at one point in time, loose this loyalty and his subjects may rebel and turn against him. This is the point in which I agree with what Machiavelli has to say. The way I see it (and it is obvious Machiavelli also sees it this way) is if a prince is feared he gains his subjects’ respect. Then in turn from gaining their respect he gains their obedience, which then becomes their loyalty. This is a different loyalty than that of being a loved prince, for a feared prince will never loose his subjects’ loyalty because they are all too scared of the repercussions of their actions if they were to attempt to rebel. I believe a good prince is both loved and feared; he just has to know when he wants to be loved and when he needs to be feared. Although if I must pick only one quality, I would say a feared prince is a better ruler. My opinion is in agreement with Machiavelli’s which states, “I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking" (Maciavelli 44).

Having such a strong power over one’s subjects that the prince actually scares them out of doing something against his will, seems to me, to be the ultimate ruler. In my opinion, the ultimate ruler/prince is one whom unites this army and people, keeps them in line, and rules fairly for many years. Although, I believe a prince can be strict and feared without having to resort to cruelty all of the time. For if he rules with only cruelty he will become hated, which is the opposite of what he is striving for. If the prince must be cruel, I think he should make an example of an individual who broke his rules in public; this way he sends one clear message to all his other subjects’, the message being, “This is what will happen if you break my rules.” By only having to be cruel once in a public example, the prince has put fear into the mind’s of his subjects so they stay in line, and now he will not have to resort to more cruelty, thus not becoming hated. My opinion stated above is in best agreement with this quote of Machiavelli’s, “And if he must take someone’s life, he should do so when there is proper justification and manifest cause; but, above all, he should avoid the property of the others, for men forget more quickly the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony” (Machiavelli 44). This quote is speaking about how to be cruel, but it also speaks of being cruel in moderation, which in turn agrees with my point stated earlier.

Thus ruling with a strict upper hand but being gentle is the best way to rule. For being only loved by one’s subjects, the prince may be vulnerable to disrespect and loss of loyalty, because love is only promise, and promises are meant to be broken. “And men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned; but fear is held together by a dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (Machiavelli 44). This is a quote that reiterates the point that is it better to be feared than loved; for a loved prince will fall while the feared prince will reign all.

Works Citied section for quotes in response

Machiavelli, Niccolo. "The Qualities of the Prince." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers.

Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's,

2006. pp 35-51.