Throughout human history man has been trying to solve questions beyond his capabilities in a search for reason and understanding. Questions that have ranged from the cosmos to the smallest form of life, we have tried to find a reason for everything. Before any set boundaries of beliefs man found solace in believing in what he understood around him. Whether it is praying to a fire god for allowing flames or believing that an invisible force controlled the effects of the ocean man has tried to come up with ways to control and be at the helm of knowing. Once modern religion entered the picture and several texts pertaining to one single force as the essence of creation than man went down a road that forever changed culture, language, and even control over others. Every society that adopted monotheistic religion had to obey to a set of rules that would ensure stability within the religion and the society. However, there was no tangible object or being that could physically control the people. People put their faith into religious leaders and institutions that have a direct link with “God” and therefore had to behave accordingly. Due to the public’s commitment to their religion people had to fall in line with their beliefs as if an invisible eye was looking over them. The invisible eye, presumably God, is related to the idea of the panopticon and Michel Foucault’s theory. One of the best examples of the invisible force watching the rest of a society is seen in George Orwell’s dystopian film 1984. It is the idea that people can be rehabilitated from their bad deeds by thinking someone else is watching them; therefore they cannot perform any wrongdoings. Michel Foucault’s idea of the panopticon can be seen in direct relation with the ideas of religion, in that control is achieved through the belief of a higher surveillance constantly keeping people in check, and in turn reflecting on their beliefs in government as well, which was what Orwell was trying to display in his film 1984.
In Foucault's Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, he outlines how the panopticon essentially deconstructs the human body and mind into becoming submissive to the rules and commands of those in power (in this sense, God). In his chapter on corrective training he cites, "In discipline, punishment is only one element of a double system: gratification-punishment. And it is this system that operates in the process of training and correction"(Foucault 180). This is similar to the punishment and reward system of religion. In many faiths and beliefs one who does well by the standard of the system will receive the prospects of a good life and the potential of reaching a higher state of being. On the contrary, one who disobeys religion and chooses a life of sin is destined to a life of hardship and punishment down the road. Foucault's system of reward and punishment is identical to religion and it's use of correcting and disciplining.
Even Foucault, in his chapter on docile bodies makes a direct reference to his theory and to religion. He describes a setting of a classroom and the use of a signal in which the children are supposed to react to. "Whenever a good pupil hears the noise of the signal, he will imagine that he is hearing the voice of the teacher or rather the voice of God himself calling him by his name...the pupil will have to have learnt the code of the signals and respond automatically to them" (Foucault 166). The signal that the students react to can be attributed to sin, or for not as strong a word, something out of the ordinary. The reaction by the students is similar to the reaction of something seeing something out of the ordinary and perhaps against the proper set of protocol. In short, Foucault proves that there are automated responses taught to us when something occurs. Through religion these responses occur to signals such as to the deadly sins or anyone with a separate faith.
This also correlates with madness and medicine, another area that Foucault researched. Due to the influence of religion in western culture many of our medicinal drugs and explanations for psychological or physical problems originate from religion. In a study of Foucault and Religion Jeremy R. Carrette goes on to say, “Religion forms part of the cultural residual which shapes and determines how madness and medicine have been shaped in the West. We may note, for example, how religion in the history of madness was seen as one of the ‘safeguards’ of reason and how religion in the establishment of moral treatment represented ‘what cannot go mad’”(Carrette 14). This quote shows the power of religion in relation to the world of pharmaceuticals. Now, because of the growth of science, medicine has changed many of the ways we go about healing ourselves. Carrette suggests how prior to medicine now religion was the final word on madness and the primary reason for healing. For example, the religious healing of the “exorcism” can be dissected in many ways. Because there was no explanation for some of the symptoms or causes for certain diseases, a priest was brought into many homes to perform an exorcism to get rid of demons. Because the patient believed it to be true, as did the performers, religion shaped the way healing and medicine was performed for a long time. This form of control, in relation to the panopticon, is another example of control through an outside force that cannot be seen or touched. Similar to an inmate in prison hoping to be saved or healed from his sins, the prisoner travels through a similar road to redemption. The prisoner believes that he is infected by a demon or some corrupt being and then must perform his own personal exorcism to be fully healed. The reason most inmates reach out to God more so whilst in prison than in the outside world directly correlates with religion and the idea of being spiritually healed in times of sickness. Religion has to power to strike fear and guilt into the hearts of many, and for prisoners this fear and guilt is only heightened. Jeremy R. Carrette finds this sense of salvation in Foucault’s study of Christianity and their beliefs by directly quoting Foucault, “’Christianity is not only a salvation religion, it’s a confessional religion…Each person has the duty …to try to know what is happening inside him, to acknowledge faults, to recognize temptations, to locate desires, and everyone is obliged to disclose these things either to God or to others in the community and hence to bear public or private witness against oneself’” (Carrete 27). This idea of an “invisible surveillance” is something that infiltrates our society today. By tying in religion and the panopticon many societies have incorporated a kind of silent watch over their citizens that cause individuals to be witness to themselves. Because of security, cameras, detectors, and other forms of surveillance, people walk around with a feeling of guilt and wrongdoing even though they themselves have no reason of feeling that way. The idea of being watched without completely knowing for certain first originated with religion, and through years of analysis of the panopticon has infiltrated itself into most modern societies.
Taking off of the idea that religion can control and has the power to control, it’s a good opportunity to look at 1984 and Orwell’s idea of Big Brother and it’s control over a society. The film presents a society being watched constantly by the government forcing each member to conform to the set of rules established by the higher force, something that is also prevalent in religion, propaganda. J.P O’Flinn of College English breaks down Orwell’s theory:
…whether the author admits it or not, every book has a “tendency,” religious, moral, or political, which it is part of the critic’s function to discern, and that even the contrary claim, namely that literature should have nothing to do with politics, is itself a political attitude (O’Flinn 608).
This fault, presented by the fact propaganda can be defined as anything that tries to suggest an idea onto others, creates turmoil for artists and authors to truly represent propaganda as a negative and possibly maniacal function. Orwell’s belief and O’Flinn’s theory spawns two separate forms of propaganda, positive and negative. Regardless of which is the right form, which would be impossible to discriminate against due to positive and negative can mean a number of things to different people, the forms at which propaganda is distributed remains relatively the same.
Sometimes words can be broken down in order to create less ways of interpretation or on the contrary words can be expanded in order to justify certain aspects that couldn’t be justified in the past. The same can be said for religion, which expands as well as reduces certain parts of itself in order to justify certain aspects. One example, which is prevalent in today’s society, is the idea of gay marriage. No where in any religious text is it written that the partnership of two men in marriage is forbidden, yet through interpretation of various clauses and passages that can be stretched and manipulated to mean a number of different ideas, religion justifies gay marriage as wrong and points to passages that supposedly connote their feelings. The same can be said about war. More people have been killed in the name of God then for any other reason, yet all religious materials preach peace and the love of one another. The contradictions found within the bible and its use of control is some of the many reasons their ideas are still used today.
George Orwell’s futuristic dystopian novel 1984 takes language to a new level known as Newspeak, a language broken down to bare minimalism with the display of propaganda is immense. Everywhere the title character (Winston) goes there are reminders of the oppression he is under. The tagline of “WAR IS PEACE/IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH/ FREEDOM IS SLAVERY” is written on every wall, beating into his head this belief. The tagline, which is used throughout the novel, is a reminder of the almost hypnotic repetition of certain words that help calm and subdue the masses, something that religion attempts to do as well. Many religious followers are not quiet about their faith and resort to plucking out their favorite words from their religious texts and displaying them for everyone to see, to slowly conform and change all those in their society. One example is the use of the words “Jesus Loves You” which is a strong Christian quote that is seen on bumper stickers, on banners, and on signs throughout religious neighborhoods. The words, similarly to the taglines from 1984, are used to get a message inside the heads of people within the community in order to believe and follow the same ideologies. Winston tries to better his situation by learning the truth but his thoughts are marred by O’Brien (i.e. Big Brother or Government) into eventually accepting the falsities that are told to him as true. Sociolinguists Pedro Louis Luchini and Adolfo Martin Garcia expand on the idea of words used in 1984 and had this to say:
…few were the governments around the world which have not tried to either gain or impose popular support by molding the masses’ language and cultural conventions through powerful speeches, constant propaganda and witty euphemisms. Although such sociolinguistic resources have proven immensely useful to rulers of all kinds, dictators and autocrats have capitalized on the aforementioned mechanisms like no one else. In fact, no tool has ever served the despotic ambitions of a totalitarian government as efficiently as lexical and semantic manipulation combined with an oppressive cultural environment (Luchini and Garcia 98).
Luchini and Garcia touch upon the theory that true governmental power comes from the governments ability to understand language and their ability to manipulate it, which again correlates with what religion aims to complete as well as the effects of the panopticon. With this combination of power and clever propaganda techniques societies can be lost within their “truths” for long periods of time. In the end religion and society will forever remain entwined, and the panopticon will continue to develop, yet religion will be a primary backing force. One note that wasn’t mentioned are the programs that are instilled within penal systems and within charity organizations. Many of them require that the inmate comply with some sort of religious practice in order to complete their rehabilitation within their time. For those that refuse to attend the religious services, their time could be extended or they will be punished for it. It’s a shame to think that religion has created such a stranglehold on human development, but unfortunately this has been something in effect for a very long time. When the connection between helping people and faith was connected this bond gained a very powerful position. Maybe in the future men can resort to helping one another through another means, such as love and for the sake of giving people a better life. Just because someone doesn’t believe in the stories of a particular religious text or believes in an overpowering source as the means of creation does not mean they cannot have morals and the opportunities for a successful and fulfilling life.
Works Cited
Carrette, Jeremy R. Foucault and Religion: Spiritual Corporality and Political Spirituality. New York: Routledge, 2002
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1977
O'Flinn, J.P. "Orwell on Literature and Society". College English, Vol. 31, No. 6. (Mar., 1970), pp. 603-612
Orwell, George. 1984. New York, NY: Signet Classic.1961.
Luchini, Pedro Luis and Garcia, Adolfo Martin. "Turning to Orwell To Understand Orwell's Problem: A Sociolinguistic View". The Reading Matrix. Vol. 6, No. 1. (Apr., 2006), pp. 97-98.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
A Theory of Their Own
“Are you crying? There’s no crying in baseball?” is a memorable quote about the blurred lines of men and women. Much like critical theory, there’s no crying either. Penny Marshall’s film A League of Their Own dissects a period of American history in which gender roles were not only switched but also transferred from one to another. The film illustrates the way women are thrust into a position predominantly occupied (if not completely until recent years) sport by men yet the parameters of the All-American baseball league never give women a real chance to play the game. Instead, women were selected for other reasons than their ability and in the end the league failed without a resurrection for many years to follow.
Because of the Second World War a large number of young men were drafted, while others volunteered to go, leaving holes throughout American culture causing a change in lifestyle. Women went to work in factories leaving their kitchens behind in order to make ends meet, and without America’s pastime in effect a league for women’s baseball was created. During one scene of the film a baseball scout searches for possible players and runs into a tall, beautiful, and talented female baseball player. In addition she has a younger sister who is just as capable, if not better, but lacks any physical good looks. Although her talent outweighs her aesthetic appeal the scout is weary of selecting her to play. In Luce Irigaray’s selection “Women on the Market” she speaks out preconceptions from men about women and how certain ideals are kept above others in decision-making. “Woman’s price is not determined by the ‘properties’ of her body – although her body constitutes the material support of the price” (801). This quote connects with the process of selection made by the baseball teams during the Second World War and as shown through Marshall’s film. Because the society was undergoing a drastic change during the early 1940s some of the “familiar” had to stay intact. Since most of the spectators of women’s baseball were men, the business owners had to rely on crude terms in order to make money. Men were not paying money to see talented women play baseball but instead to watch cute girls run around and play a game that was familiar and took peoples mind’s off of the war.
In addition to pretty women being selected over the talented players the uniforms of the players speak volumes of the purpose of the league. All of the women were forced to wear dresses during the games, which was completely irregular for the players at the time due to the nature of sliding and playing in the dirt. But because the society at the time was run by a group of men who wanted to see women perform their tasks, changes were made in order to suppress the true capabilities of women but give enjoyment to the spectators.
WORKS CITED
Irigaray, Luce. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed.
United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Because of the Second World War a large number of young men were drafted, while others volunteered to go, leaving holes throughout American culture causing a change in lifestyle. Women went to work in factories leaving their kitchens behind in order to make ends meet, and without America’s pastime in effect a league for women’s baseball was created. During one scene of the film a baseball scout searches for possible players and runs into a tall, beautiful, and talented female baseball player. In addition she has a younger sister who is just as capable, if not better, but lacks any physical good looks. Although her talent outweighs her aesthetic appeal the scout is weary of selecting her to play. In Luce Irigaray’s selection “Women on the Market” she speaks out preconceptions from men about women and how certain ideals are kept above others in decision-making. “Woman’s price is not determined by the ‘properties’ of her body – although her body constitutes the material support of the price” (801). This quote connects with the process of selection made by the baseball teams during the Second World War and as shown through Marshall’s film. Because the society was undergoing a drastic change during the early 1940s some of the “familiar” had to stay intact. Since most of the spectators of women’s baseball were men, the business owners had to rely on crude terms in order to make money. Men were not paying money to see talented women play baseball but instead to watch cute girls run around and play a game that was familiar and took peoples mind’s off of the war.
In addition to pretty women being selected over the talented players the uniforms of the players speak volumes of the purpose of the league. All of the women were forced to wear dresses during the games, which was completely irregular for the players at the time due to the nature of sliding and playing in the dirt. But because the society at the time was run by a group of men who wanted to see women perform their tasks, changes were made in order to suppress the true capabilities of women but give enjoyment to the spectators.
WORKS CITED
Irigaray, Luce. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed.
United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Religulous
The ultimate form of control and effective use of the panopticon is best seen through religion. Instead of a guard tower this form of "watching" is done through an invisible force that can never be seen or touched, yet it has set a marker of rules that reward or punish as well as keeps tabs on everyone's life. Unfortunately, it is hard to mistake religion and religious texts as man's way of instilling power and conformity for people and to keep society from erupting into anarchy. Religion was the first use of panopticism and is still the most effective way to instill discipline and the fear of punishment through a set of preordained texts.
In Foucault's Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, he outlines how the panopticon essentially deconstructs the human body and mind into becoming submissive to the rules and commands of those in power (in this sense, God). In his chapter on corrective training he cites, "In discipline, punishment is only one element of a double system: gratification-punishment. And it is this system that operates in the process of training and correction"(180). This is similar to the punishment and reward system of religion. In many faiths and beliefs one who does well by the standard of the system will recieve the prospects of a good life and the potential of reaching a higher state of being. On the contrary, one who disobeys religion and chooses a life of sin, is destined to a life of hardship and punishment down the road. Foucault's system of reward and punishment is identical to religion and it's use of correcting and disciplining.
Even Foucault, in his chapter on Docile bodies makes a direct reference to his theory and to religion. He describes a setting of a classroom and the use of a signal in which the children are supposed to react to. "Whenever a good pupil hears the noise of the signal, he will imagine that he is hearing the voice of the teacher or rather the voice of God himself calling him by his name...the pupil will have to have learnt the code of the signals and respond automatically to them" (166). The signal that the students react to can be attributed to sin, or for not as strong a word, something out of the ordinary. The reaction by the students is similar to the reaction of something seeing something out of the ordinary and perhaps against the proper set of protocol. In short, Foucault proves that there are automated responses taught to us when something occurs. Through religion these responses occur to signals such as to the deadly sins or anyone with a separate faith.
WORKS CITED
Foucault, Michel. "Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Random House: New York. 1979
In Foucault's Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, he outlines how the panopticon essentially deconstructs the human body and mind into becoming submissive to the rules and commands of those in power (in this sense, God). In his chapter on corrective training he cites, "In discipline, punishment is only one element of a double system: gratification-punishment. And it is this system that operates in the process of training and correction"(180). This is similar to the punishment and reward system of religion. In many faiths and beliefs one who does well by the standard of the system will recieve the prospects of a good life and the potential of reaching a higher state of being. On the contrary, one who disobeys religion and chooses a life of sin, is destined to a life of hardship and punishment down the road. Foucault's system of reward and punishment is identical to religion and it's use of correcting and disciplining.
Even Foucault, in his chapter on Docile bodies makes a direct reference to his theory and to religion. He describes a setting of a classroom and the use of a signal in which the children are supposed to react to. "Whenever a good pupil hears the noise of the signal, he will imagine that he is hearing the voice of the teacher or rather the voice of God himself calling him by his name...the pupil will have to have learnt the code of the signals and respond automatically to them" (166). The signal that the students react to can be attributed to sin, or for not as strong a word, something out of the ordinary. The reaction by the students is similar to the reaction of something seeing something out of the ordinary and perhaps against the proper set of protocol. In short, Foucault proves that there are automated responses taught to us when something occurs. Through religion these responses occur to signals such as to the deadly sins or anyone with a separate faith.
WORKS CITED
Foucault, Michel. "Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Random House: New York. 1979
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Marxist Riddle
No, I cannot imagine a world completely taken over by technology for the simple reason of oversight. Despite the rise of technology and the continuous rise of jobs being replaced by technology, the simple fact remains: Human control will preside above all machines. As we keep making smarter and more efficient technology we will be able to control certain motives residing within these "robots" that will always ensure that power will be given to the humans who make the machines. For example, a chip can be placed within the robots mind to ensure it is never disobedient or attempt to take down it's "master". This is similar in Marxism where the workers are put down through constant propaganda and the idea that they must work the whole and that they just complete there work of they will be replaced - value is given to the product of the work and not the individual. Because of this we can compare blue-collar workers to robots, since most of them know that they are being underpaid in our society yet refuse to take action against larger companies.
Only yesterday AIG took $100 million in bailout money and distributed the emergency income amongst the highest executives - the people's response? nothing. We live in a society where we are comatose objects going to and fro from our "duties" without ever questioning value and a want of something more. For these reasons I believe that those in power will always keep one thing in their mind before any action - their safety of power in relation to their decision-making. Therefore there will never be a society completely run by machines without the oversight of at least one human being controlling the working class.
Only yesterday AIG took $100 million in bailout money and distributed the emergency income amongst the highest executives - the people's response? nothing. We live in a society where we are comatose objects going to and fro from our "duties" without ever questioning value and a want of something more. For these reasons I believe that those in power will always keep one thing in their mind before any action - their safety of power in relation to their decision-making. Therefore there will never be a society completely run by machines without the oversight of at least one human being controlling the working class.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Hopesfall: "Icarus"
One of the great mythological stories of the past is of Icarus, about the boy who flew to close to the sun and burned his wax wings eventually crashing into the ocean and drowning. The story, since it's inception, has brought about arguments about ambition, desire, and early death. In the song "Icarus" by former band Hopesfall, the lyrics suggest the same principles while at the same time presenting may Freudian ideas, including segments that can be attributed to the id, ego, and super-ego.
Early in the song are the lyrics, "Youth spent but still so young...if you could have her, where would you be tonight?" which tie into the idea of the Oedipus complex as well as the helpless state of the child. The first part of the line suggests that the early development years, which in the story of Icarus were used being trapped inside a maze with only his father, Daedalus, show that his helplessness was also tied into the fact that the child had no means of freedom, which in turn represent the causes for his journey towards the sun; it was as if Icarus was trying to fill a void in his life caused by the lack of youth as a child. The second part of the lyric invites the idea of "her", which could symbolize the mother of the child and in turn suggest as Oedipus complex further. The fact that the child "can have her" symbolizes possession of the "her" away from his father, which causes the super-ego, which is constantly analyzing and in pursuit of perfection, to allow Icarus to fly so high towards the sun without any regard for the ego (reality) which causes him to burn and drown.
One of the lines in the song showcases the true nature of Icarus and a perfect example of the super-ego. Despite being "put back in his place" the narrative of the song implies a desire for something more. The line, "eyes full of stars" not only describes Icarus' drive and desire to satisfy the super-ego, but also the id - his basic functions. Because the child had been trapped for so long and was without a mother, a proper upbringing, and constant attention his basic drives no longer exist. The only drive he showcases is a desire to go as high up as possible and escape the id, and all of reality. In the end, the song shows us that a desire for more without any regard for reality will ultimately cause one to die. But did Icarus die unhappy? I believe that when he came crashing back down to earth, noting could erase the smile on his face.
- Hopesfall Lyrics
Early in the song are the lyrics, "Youth spent but still so young...if you could have her, where would you be tonight?" which tie into the idea of the Oedipus complex as well as the helpless state of the child. The first part of the line suggests that the early development years, which in the story of Icarus were used being trapped inside a maze with only his father, Daedalus, show that his helplessness was also tied into the fact that the child had no means of freedom, which in turn represent the causes for his journey towards the sun; it was as if Icarus was trying to fill a void in his life caused by the lack of youth as a child. The second part of the lyric invites the idea of "her", which could symbolize the mother of the child and in turn suggest as Oedipus complex further. The fact that the child "can have her" symbolizes possession of the "her" away from his father, which causes the super-ego, which is constantly analyzing and in pursuit of perfection, to allow Icarus to fly so high towards the sun without any regard for the ego (reality) which causes him to burn and drown.
One of the lines in the song showcases the true nature of Icarus and a perfect example of the super-ego. Despite being "put back in his place" the narrative of the song implies a desire for something more. The line, "eyes full of stars" not only describes Icarus' drive and desire to satisfy the super-ego, but also the id - his basic functions. Because the child had been trapped for so long and was without a mother, a proper upbringing, and constant attention his basic drives no longer exist. The only drive he showcases is a desire to go as high up as possible and escape the id, and all of reality. In the end, the song shows us that a desire for more without any regard for reality will ultimately cause one to die. But did Icarus die unhappy? I believe that when he came crashing back down to earth, noting could erase the smile on his face.
- Hopesfall Lyrics
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Who is Heath Ledger?
If I was to say the name “Heath Ledger” two years ago the reaction I would receive would be completely different than the one received today. Two words, signifying one man, an actor poised to become one of the greatest of his time. Or is this just the symbol we attach to him now? Was he really on his way to become one of those elite actors among the ranks of Marlon Brando and Paul Newman, or is this just our societies reaction to losing a young man far too soon?
Now, when the words “Heath Ledger” are said the thoughts that come racing to our minds are not teen idol, Australian actor, or curly blonde hair but rather simply one word – the joker. Jonathan Culler writes that signs “…are defined by a network if relations, both internal and external” (56). Internally, through Ledger’s portrayal of the character, society sees a troubled young man lost within a dark character and an actor that has given himself to the role beyond all recognition of the initial self. Externally we see a distraught character bound by hatred and disillusioned ideas of anarchy trying to set the world ablaze. This character serves as a symbol, not only in regards to the fictional character, but now (due to Ledger’s death) a symbol of his own plight in his final days. The image of the Joker is not simply one for Ledger but a symbol for Ledger’s downfall leading towards his death. His submission to his roles, especially while filming the Dark Knight, led to his dependency on pharmaceutical drugs and preeminent death.
Today, Ledger is not only an actor but is also the Joker. In this respect he has embodied the sign through the outcome of his passing. Since there will be no other opportunities to understand Ledger as a father, a man, or in another role, the memory of his self will be seen through his portrayal of the symbol (the Joker). He is forever immortalized in this complex character, which in itself is a shell of a human being.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Devour
A tortured creature stands in complete darkness devouring a stiff motionless body. His eyes bulge out of their sockets as desperation and fear torment him. His hands dig into the man's back as blood trickles around the edges of the body. The creature's hair and beard are overgrown showing a lack of care for his own good, rather a being succumbing to his inner-most demons and allowing them to consume all signs of sanity. The only fragments of light are found in the face of the creature, the body of the man, and the creature's knee - the rest of the canvas and almost the entierty of the creature are drenched in black.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Aristotle Drops Back For The Pass...
There are moments in life when certain words must be said in order to lift a man’s spirit to accomplish a difficult task. Whether the words used are right or wrong the most important factor is that the words are delivered with emotion and weight. The following speech delivered by Al Pacino, taken from Oliver Stone’s football drama Any Given Sunday, uses many of Aristotle’s rhetoric techniques in order to force a catharsis on, not only the characters in the film, but also on the audience.
In Aristotle’s Poetics he states, “The change of fortune will be, not from misery to prosperity, but the reverse, from prosperity to misery, and it will be due, not to depravity, but to some great error either in such a man as I have described or in one better than this, but not worse.” (Aristotle 73). Pacino emphasizes his own troubles and misfortunes in order to illuminate struggle, determination, and redemption. Aristotle believed that the best tragedies are “constructed in this way” (Aristotle 73) and Oliver Stone’s use of taking a successful coach and lowering him to a disgruntled alcoholic at the end of a career makes the tragedy work. Not only does Pacino’s fall from power and understanding of his plight make his character tragic, but the emotion used during the speech lifts the entire locker room into a frenzy.
Aristotle also believed in the effect that rhetoric has on Logos (logic), Ethos (community), and Pathos (emotions). In Pacino’s speech he targets every single one of Aristotle’s ideas in order to motivate his players. The most used of the three is his appeal to Pathos, due to his references to his own struggles and the metaphors to “climbing out of hell” and fighting spirit. Coinciding with the pathos is the recognition between Jamie Foxx and Al Pacino in the scene. Aristotle writes, “a recognition is a change from ignorance to knowledge…” (Aristotle 71). This is seen during the speech when Foxx realizes the impact of the speech and begins to walk towards Pacino as if handing over his trust and self to Pacino. The recognition of both characters serves not only to bring the two together but to also connect the two emotionally, through pathos. The recognition also works on another level through their understanding or their individual selves. Pacino recognizes that he is “too old” and “can’t do it for them” therefore he is incapable of providing for the group. Foxx recognizes that he is the key to their team’s success and without his involvement the team cannot be successful. The combination of the two men’s understanding is what forms the bond and ascends both men to higher levels.
Works Cited
Murray, Penelope. “Aristotle: Poetics”. Classical Literary Criticism. London: Penguin Books, 2000. 57-97
7940962f. “Al Pacino’s Inspirational Speech”. YouTube. 4 August 2006.
In Aristotle’s Poetics he states, “The change of fortune will be, not from misery to prosperity, but the reverse, from prosperity to misery, and it will be due, not to depravity, but to some great error either in such a man as I have described or in one better than this, but not worse.” (Aristotle 73). Pacino emphasizes his own troubles and misfortunes in order to illuminate struggle, determination, and redemption. Aristotle believed that the best tragedies are “constructed in this way” (Aristotle 73) and Oliver Stone’s use of taking a successful coach and lowering him to a disgruntled alcoholic at the end of a career makes the tragedy work. Not only does Pacino’s fall from power and understanding of his plight make his character tragic, but the emotion used during the speech lifts the entire locker room into a frenzy.
Aristotle also believed in the effect that rhetoric has on Logos (logic), Ethos (community), and Pathos (emotions). In Pacino’s speech he targets every single one of Aristotle’s ideas in order to motivate his players. The most used of the three is his appeal to Pathos, due to his references to his own struggles and the metaphors to “climbing out of hell” and fighting spirit. Coinciding with the pathos is the recognition between Jamie Foxx and Al Pacino in the scene. Aristotle writes, “a recognition is a change from ignorance to knowledge…” (Aristotle 71). This is seen during the speech when Foxx realizes the impact of the speech and begins to walk towards Pacino as if handing over his trust and self to Pacino. The recognition of both characters serves not only to bring the two together but to also connect the two emotionally, through pathos. The recognition also works on another level through their understanding or their individual selves. Pacino recognizes that he is “too old” and “can’t do it for them” therefore he is incapable of providing for the group. Foxx recognizes that he is the key to their team’s success and without his involvement the team cannot be successful. The combination of the two men’s understanding is what forms the bond and ascends both men to higher levels.
Works Cited
Murray, Penelope. “Aristotle: Poetics”. Classical Literary Criticism. London: Penguin Books, 2000. 57-97
7940962f. “Al Pacino’s Inspirational Speech”. YouTube. 4 August 2006.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Origins: The Chicken or The Egg
Although many of Plato's ideas are unrealistic found within Plato’s Republic some part of me does agree with the idea that there are certain aspects of human nature that have been further developed through our nature functioning in a society than simply from innate aspects. For my first example I will discuss a problem that has plagued our humanity since day one: War. In Plato’s Republic he states that by censoring war myths to the youth of the society this can eliminate war altogether. This statement originates two issues: 1) War is a learned experience and not a natural part of nature and 2) By eliminating all ideas surrounding war in a culture than war altogether will be nonexistent.
In order to fully comprehend Plato’s idea of censorship I will argue both sides of the point in order to clarify the topic completely. First I will argue how this could possibly work. If a child is brought up learning stories of love and understanding while being taught to solve every situation through a method of communication instead of violence than a society free of violence is possible. How can someone who has never seen or heard of throwing a punch or firing a weapon be capable of such actions? This idea is hard to swallow for every one that will read this post will have experienced violence in more than one form therefore imagining the concept of a lack of violence in society will be hard to grip also making this idea hard to swallow. I do agree that there are some aspects of our nature that are innate, such as when suffocating air from any being there will be a forceful retaliation since it is nature’s way of securing the most vital part of life: life itself. This is where Plato’s concept hits some uncertainty.
The other side of the argument will insist that a society free of violence can never be completely free of violence because a member of a society will eventually succumb to the rawest of human emotion – anger. If not within the society than the influence will come in from an outside culture or society. Unless Plato wants to separate Greece from the rest of the world than violence will undoubtedly be introduced in his society for there will be another society out there in the world that believes only in violence to solve their situation. Can anyone say the Romans?
Even though my deepest of feelings want Plato to be true in his theory, reality forces me to believe otherwise. As long as there are people, there will be violence. Regardless of the amount of censorship and lack of talk about violence, it is as part of nature as breathing. The best example of this is in animal nature. There are predators, and there is prey. A tiger does not sit down and explain to another tiger how to hunt, how to kill, and how to survive. There are natural elements involved that cannot be taught or explained. Violence is nature.
In order to fully comprehend Plato’s idea of censorship I will argue both sides of the point in order to clarify the topic completely. First I will argue how this could possibly work. If a child is brought up learning stories of love and understanding while being taught to solve every situation through a method of communication instead of violence than a society free of violence is possible. How can someone who has never seen or heard of throwing a punch or firing a weapon be capable of such actions? This idea is hard to swallow for every one that will read this post will have experienced violence in more than one form therefore imagining the concept of a lack of violence in society will be hard to grip also making this idea hard to swallow. I do agree that there are some aspects of our nature that are innate, such as when suffocating air from any being there will be a forceful retaliation since it is nature’s way of securing the most vital part of life: life itself. This is where Plato’s concept hits some uncertainty.
The other side of the argument will insist that a society free of violence can never be completely free of violence because a member of a society will eventually succumb to the rawest of human emotion – anger. If not within the society than the influence will come in from an outside culture or society. Unless Plato wants to separate Greece from the rest of the world than violence will undoubtedly be introduced in his society for there will be another society out there in the world that believes only in violence to solve their situation. Can anyone say the Romans?
Even though my deepest of feelings want Plato to be true in his theory, reality forces me to believe otherwise. As long as there are people, there will be violence. Regardless of the amount of censorship and lack of talk about violence, it is as part of nature as breathing. The best example of this is in animal nature. There are predators, and there is prey. A tiger does not sit down and explain to another tiger how to hunt, how to kill, and how to survive. There are natural elements involved that cannot be taught or explained. Violence is nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
