Contribution to Feminst Theory Presentation

For my part of the Feminist Theory presentation I helped look for videos and images to use. I contributed the Man's Last Stand car commercial and I was the one who spoke on the subject of Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex.

Analysis 7: Ethnicity Studies

So is it racist to want to mix our races together so that we are all one race? Part of race, after all, is enjoying the culture that often follows race. Mexicans, for example, enjoy celebrating Cinco De Mayo, El Dia De Los Muertos, and so on. Would something like that no longer be acceptable after the mixing occurs, or do we incorporate it as well as all other cultural traditions to make into a brand new culture? What if we can't agree on this kind of decision? Would we not then judge those who chose to incorporate it, or in turn judge those who choose not to? It's simply not likely that something like this would put some kind of end to racism. Racism, after all, is a socially constructed issue. It is not something that has to exist for nature to function or anything like that. It's made-up.

"I am Incognegro. I don't wear a mask like Zorro or a cape like The Shadow, but I don a disguise nonetheless. My camouflage is provided by my genes; the product of the Southern tradition nobody likes to talk about. Slavery. Rape. Hypocrisy. American Negroes are a Mulatto people; I'm just an extreme example. A walking reminder. Since white America refuses to see its past, they can't really see me too well, either. Add to that a little of Madame C.J.'s magic and watch me go invisible. Watch me step outside of history. Assimilation as revolution. That's one thing that most of us know that white folks don't. That race doesn't really exist." (Johnson 18)

I think too many would rather think that mixing the appearance of our skin colors would change race issues in the world, but quite frankly its not the color of our skin, its the assumption that we know what and who a person is from first glance. If one person from one race can easily assume the appearance of another and no one knows any better, then isn't that already in itself a mixing of some kind? Doesn't that mean that we should just let go of what we attribute to certain races in our minds and go, I don't know, psychologically color-blind? To mix our colors is more like trying to hide from the racists rather than trying to remove racism, so I see no point in the idea of a mixed race. It seems fanciful and silly to me, and it seems like an attempt at a lazy way out. Besides, having similar skin color hasn't kept racism or discrimination from happening in the past. Both being from Germany and having light skin didn't stop the Nazis from killing the Jews. More recently there's been issues of blacks discriminating against each other for exactly how dark or how light their skin is. It really doesn't matter how similar we ended up looking, or how different we look either. What matters is that we all think that we can place certain personality traits on people that look a certain way because its just easier to do so that to be open minded and considerate.


Works Cited
Johnson, Matt. Incognegro. New York. DC Comics. 2008.

The Problem with Modern Day Gender Issues

I've been studying gender and women's issues for a few years now, and there's something I've noticed that tends to come up as an issue when people try to have a discussion over this subject. Now, when there was the first wave of feminism and the second wave, it was a lot clearer to see what the goals were. We wanted the right to vote, we wanted better wages, etc. Third wave feminism, however, either doesn't have a specific goal or has a whole lot of them. Modern day gender issues are being discussed all over the place in all kinds of ways. We have various feminist groups that have different ideas on what feminism is and we have various groups for men that have their on take on these issues. There are women who don't believe feminism has anything good to offer the world, that it's the cause of all the modern day family issues we face in the United States (high divorce rates, delinquent teens, etc). There are those that think the only way a woman can be a true feminist is by becoming a lesbian and removing all connections with males in her life. These ideas have some merit-- although I don't think it's reasonable to just insist all hetero women to turn lesbian since I'm not of the opinion that it's a choice we can make-- but these ideas all scrambled together in one era makes for a heck of a lot of confusion amongst men and women. It's why there's such a stigma attached to the mere word "feminism", we can't often say that word with someone else assuming that we hate men and don't believe in shaving.
So this issue of having so many contradicting, scrambled opinions means that those who aren't aware that not all feminists share the same opinions will assume that one man-hater means they're all man-haters. So when the time for discourse arrives you have men and women pitted against each other with men becoming increasingly defensive and women trying very hard to clarify they're personal stance without adding to the already existing view that women as a whole are unable to agree or be organized on any matter. Not that I think we are able to agree, although I do think we can be organized. I don't think we need to agree, and I think others need to see that as well. As a woman, my feminist concerns aren't going to be the same as another woman all the time, in every situation. We might even agree on everything except prioritizing. She may think it's more important to focus on women's issue in the work place whereas I might find that my time is better invested in women's reproductive rights. There's also the same issue with men, with those who feel that it's true, they hold the privileged position in this binary, whereas others feel that they were being emasculated or that they are now included as targets of advertising in which they are being told that they need to look buffer and thinner in order to be of any worth (note emerging terms such as "Manorexia").
I think all these grievances with society on each gender's side have a very complicated background and source, and I don't think it's easy to really discusss any of these but I think it's important to be aware of that fact. Too many people, it seems to me, see gender issues as being very black and white. Us against them, one side being right and the other side being absolutely wrong. The gender issues are ridiculously layered, it isn't as easy as saying, "This is the issue, this is the group at fault, and this is how you solve the problem". I have had too many instances in which men particularly feel that once I'm talking about feminism I'm directly attacking them, when in reality I feel women are just as much to blame for the issues we have today as men are, and I don't ever automatically assume that the man next to me sees me as an object rather than a human being. We need to take the time to stop ourselves from assuming we know what the person next to us thinks on these issues and simply ask what this person's stance is. Then we can find common ground, if there is any and I bet there is in most cases, and then work up to discussing the things we disagree on. Without that process we all end up talkiing over each other, disagreeing left and right without fully comprehending, and then getting nowhere in the end.

Analysis 6: Feminist Theory

Simone de Beauvoir informs us of the problems with Othering that happens in sex and gender. Too often women are secondary to men in language and in acts, and men are seen as the original, the independent, the normal. In the video below we see a slight switch in the way this is handled specifically when concerned with the role of breadwinner and parent.



So the issue here is that the man is insulted at now being the "wife". He does not bring home the money and he takes care of the kids, so he's not secondary to his actual wife. I would say this would be an interesting way in making men feel secondary, however the fact that the title "wife" is still being used is more or less insulting to women. If one were to take this aspect out, however, and maybe discuss experimenting with the use of Woman and Husband as opposed to Man and Wife, then that would be interesting. So since this commercial doesn't do that (although to be fair, could it? that might be confusing in such a small amount of time) I'm more or less inclined to think that the message behind it is that the role of a woman, given to a man, is emasculating and embarrassing. This is unfortunate, because the language used here is just as bad as anything else that keeps us all in this frame of Man as the original and correct and Woman as the Other, the secondary, the wrong. It pulls away from the attempt to just see men and women as two sides of the same coin, it does not allow for mixing of gender roles even though the comfortable initially seemed comfortable with his choice. Those defending commercials like these could argue that Yiayia is merely traditional because of her age, and so it's funny that she's so traditional, but it doesn't look that way to me considering the wife does not argue the point Yiayia makes, and the children laugh. The husband himself looks almost ashamed. It's all portrayed as though that were the appropriate way for him to react considering he's lowered himself to such a position. So what we see is a shaming of the attempt on Man's part to take some roles from the Other. Another way to separate the two so that they're always seen not as opposites, but as superior and inferior, oppressor and oppressed.

Works Cited
"Yiayia on Parenting" 25 February 2011. YouTube. 03 May 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9LinzE_85I&feature=player_embedded

Analysis 5: Discipline and Punishment

The video above illustrates the way that fashion works as a way for us to keep each other in line by monitoring each other and internalizing what is right and wrong. Fashion is something more than just what you're wearing depending on the temperature outside. Fit matters, color matters, trends matter, material matters, and so on. Clothes don't often exist for the mere practicality of keeping yourself from being nude, they exist to express personality but also to establish status and opinions. A guy choosing to wear loose fitting, cheap clothes is no more rebellious than the man wearing an expensive suit, because both styles are statements, both were chosen with something in mind, both send out a message that others will receive and decode.
We use fashion to judge each other all the time, and though many think they are rebelling, no one ever truly rebels unless they chose to go naked altogether, and even then I'm not sure. As I said, we all judge: the girl with the jeans and loose fitting shirt is too lazy to care about her appearance, the guy with the baggy jeans and oversized shirt thinks he's a baller or a player or something or another, the girl with the short skirt and the top that might as well be a bra has no self-esteem so she dresses in such a way for attention, the man who dresses in tailored pants and jacket is stuck up and privileged and therefore not likable. We do all these things, along with their positive flip sides to keep each other in line. We do it so much that it now appears in television all the time with titles such as "Fashion Do's and Dont's" to remind us of all the minor details of what's appropriate when and where. It is another way to easily check if anyone in society is stepping out of line, because all it requires is a quick glance in that person's direction.


Works Cited
"Fashion Dos & Don'ts" 22 August 2007. YouTube. 26 April 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV6xl5VHTHc

The Panopticon and Feminist Theory

While recently learning of the concept of Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon and Foucoult's take on how this works for the general society I couldn't help but make connections to how women are treated in our society specifically. The idea is that in a prison shaped like a circle with prisons along the border and a guard in the middle we eventually develop a greater sense of being watched and thus are likely to behave better. We also would develop a habit of regulating each other and making sure no one gets out of line. We do that in our society as well, by criticizing the choice of cars others own or the choice of garden decorations displayed in front of a neighbor's home. One would argue that this supervision of each other is great because it's like a large community watch to keep anyone from committing crimes, and it keeps us all moral.

But doesn't it also work to oppress us? Specifically, doesn't it work to oppress women? (It works to oppress many other groups as well, but women's issues is the area I've put the most thought in.) Don't we have a problem in which we regulate the way we all think of women by judging their appearances, making sure they're aware of what we think of their various actions such as the kind of sex life they lead or the way they dress? At this point, we're monitoring the behavior of another person in such a way that we are not keeping them from committing crimes, but rather we are limiting their freedom by making them feel as though they could be outcasted if they did not become submissive quickly and readily enough. A woman might not date a certain person because of what her friends and family will think of her. A woman might not wear certain kinds of clothes because she's afraid she'll be branded a whore. A women will be afraid to voice opinions in an assertive way because others will likely brand her a loud-mouthed b-word. I believe there simply comes a point where society monitors itself far too closely so that it becomes unhealthy. It is a neighbor's business if the person next door is fighting roosters illegally, but it is not their business if a single woman has a man over at two in the morning. It's unhealthy to monitor each other in such a way that we all end up feeling like we have to follow rigid rules in order to be accepted.

Analysis 4: Marxist Theory

So Marxist theory deals with the value of labor and many criticisms against capitalism. I've always found it interesting to consider the kind of people that would despise Marxist theory and the kind of people that would embrace it. It's more likely than not that the poor people of a capitalist society will embrace it, considering they stand to gain something and hardly lose anything. In my current position in life (specifically financially) I think I stand somewhere in the middle when concerning what I have to gain and what I have to lose. I'd much rather look at the extreme in this case, particularly the poor, because in the United States we have such a problem with only every considering the rich.

The concerns of the rich are the concerns of all, but the benefits and consequences of the behavior of the rich aren't evenly spread. Considering the recent economic crisis, it can be argued that the rich benefited from their behavior while the poor reaped the consequences. It specifically makes me think back to a book I read, Germinal, by Emile Zola.

The story within this book deals with the lives of the poor working class that live in the area of the mines, toiling away underground in order to at least put food on the table for their family, while the rich become even richer off of all the poor people's work. Marxism comes into play here with the character of Etienne, who believes that the middle class need to be removed so that the working class can have their fair share and would no longer have to suffer the way they do. With the character of Etienne, Marxism comes off as almost being too ideal, like some kind of utopia that can be easily achieved if one only sets their mind to it. I think this is more or less the fault of the character for being naive in the way he sees things.

At the centre was still the idea put forward by Karl Marx: capital was the result of theft, and labour had the duty and the right to recover this stolen wealth. As to putting this into practice, Etienne had at first been seduced, like Proudhon, by the attractions of mutual credit, if one vast clearing bank that would cut out all the middlemen; then it hand been Lassalle's idea of co-operative societies, funded by the State, which would gradually transform the earth into one great big industrial city, and he had been widly in favour of this until the day he was finally put off by the problem of controls; and recently he had been coming round to collectivism, which called for the means of production to be returned into the ownership of the collective. But this was all still somewhat vague, and he couldn't quite see how to achieve this new goal, prevented as he was by scruples of humanity and common sense from enjouing the fanatic's ability to advance ideas with uncompromising convition. For the moment his line was simply that what they had to do first was to take power. Afterwards they'd see. (242)

I think that Marxism wouldn't really work regardless, though. You see throughout the book that even characters of the poor working class constantly strive to step on their comrades necks in order to get ahead, and I genuinely think it's a reflection of human behavior in the real world. You'd need a considerable amount of laws to keep everyone even and make sure that no one thought about finding a way to get ahead of their fellow people. I know many would argue against this, but I do believe it's slightly part of human nature to be competitive. I should explain that I think in a much smaller group, a set of people could work quite fantastically together to create a little village (or what have you) into something that resembles Marxism, but considering how large the world is, and how it's getting bigger by the second, I don't think something like that can be maintained on such a scale. In the larger scale, in other words, systems like Marxism just don't work. It's a shame, but I see the example of this in the way the United States is currently run. If we were incredibly smaller, then I'd believe much more strongly in the ideals of capitalism.


Works Cited
Zola, Emile. Germinal. England: Penguin Books Ltd. 1885

Marxism is so damn depressing.

That's right, Marxism is depressing. I have to admit first off that I personally don't know every single detail or variation of Marxism theory for several reasons but the one reason that specifically comes to mind more often is the simple fact that Marxist theory depresses me. It completely depresses the heck out of me because of the focus on the value of labor and production. My understanding is that too much value on the human being is placed on simply what product they can create, how fast they can do it, and how cheap they can be paid. I think of coal mines and I think of poverty for the working class, so yes, a bit depresssing.
This is of course not to say that I think the theory is wrong, in fact I think it's a little too accurate, which is why it depresses me. I dislike a world in which I am only worth the amount of pizzas I make and how quickly I can make them (I work with food in general). I guess I shouldn't say it's accurate, though. We in the United States are allowed to work towards showing our worth in producing something we genuinely enjoy producing. Authors have been made rich, so have film makers, and so have musicians. They aren't all working in a factory repeatedly making one small piece of a larger object day in and day out.
Unfortunately, we can't all be authors and musicians can we? I'm still working in food even though I'd rather be working with animals. At the moment though, that kind of production isn't found to be very valuable so it's not really an option. When capitalism is at its worst we really lose the beauty of being able to get rich out of doing something you love rather than someone that will benefit the majority as soon as possible. It will benefit the majority for me to work in making pizzas and sandwiches and so on, it won't really help them, at least not immediately, for me to work in animal rescue or what have you.
I don't believe that some of the solutions brought forward by Marxism are very ideal. Actually, the problem is that they're too ideal. In the end, our current system seems to work for the best, it's just got a lot of problems concerning priorities.

Analysis 3: Psychoanalysis and the Oedipus Complex

The above video is, I think, a great example of a well known film that uses a bit of the ol' Oedipus complex described in Freud's "The Interpretation of Dreams". Marty McFly gets transported in a time machine to the past where he meets his mother and his father before they've been begun dating. The problem is that Marty takes the place of his father at a crucial point in which George (his father) and Lorraine (his mother) meet. So instead Marty and Lorraine meet and Lorraine instantly becomes smitten with him. Marty is so very obviously uncomfortable with this, however he doesn't realize how serious the problem is until it becomes obvious that his mother is no longer going to fall for his father and is even at risk of being taken by another guy entirely. Marty is uncomfortable at the idea of taking his father's place but is also completely against the idea of anyone else doing so. Certainly the difference here is that in since this deals with time travel Marty and his siblings would be erased from existence, but I think overall this is an interesting take, possibly not a conscious one, on Freud's theory. What does it mean that Marty is completely disgusted with being physical with his mother? Does he experience guilt in thinking she's pretty, as he mentions at one point in the film? What does it mean that at some point Lorraine too recognizes that something's off? Is it a way to show that relatives share an unseen connection that goes beyond blood and DNA that all of us can sense even through space and time? Or is it simply a way to ease Marty's guilt at wanting his mom? I won't say that Freud was right in his theory that people feel this rivalry with their fathers regarding their mothers, but I do think that people find it to be an interesting scenario to be stuck in. I think many of us want to shun times in which relatives married each other by showing how modern day people would reject such an idea on all levels. It's interesting to consider, all in all.

Works Cited
"Marty McFly in Lorraines house" 31 July 2007. YouTube. 22 March 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YVxzBR7xMo&feature=player_embedded

Analysis 2: The Word Picture

In this painting, The Houses of Parliament by Claude Monet, we see the silhouettes of the houses of Parliament with almost entirely blurred lines and no sharp images. The setting is sunset and the two things that stand out the most is the tallest tower of Parliament and the sun. There are no color blocks, all colors blend in with each other and it is not easy to pick out any particular detail. The colors involve mostly blues, some oranges with some red and variations on those colors due to them blending out into one of the other colors. It simply shows us a blurred image of the houses of Parliament at sunset.

I believe it would be interesting to analyze this painting from a Formalist perspective, considering we could look at the minimum of what Monet offers to us here. The way he paints, you often want to look beyond what is simply painted to what the image symbolizes, but in using Formalism we'd have to think simply about what is there not what we think is intended in inspiration. So the focus here is the silhouette of Parliament and the sun along with a bluish background. I suppose we can focus on the choice of lighting, since art all tends to have lighting coming from somewhere, even if the source is not easily identifiable. The source of light is the sun here, and it is the only source of light almost directly above the center of the image. Monet has chosen to contrast his colors and he has chosen to blend them and make them complimentary. Artists often choose one or the other. He chose landscape rather than portrait, since that allows him to focus less on detail and more on the broader picture. Because of this and because he chose to blur the entire thing I think we're allowed to focus the three points I mentioned earlier only: the sun, Parliament, and the blue background. To me this says that this is all Monet wanted you to see, rather than for you to see the tiny details of the windows of the lines of the ground and so on.


Works Cited
McCrory, Jeremiah. "Claude Monet Prints on Demand"Art of Europe Web. 2 March 2011 http://www.artofeurope.com/

Do we really need all this stuff?

"Art as a Technique" by Shlkovsky is one of the most interesting reads I've come across in a while, particularly concerning the part of Tolstoy making the familiar unfamiliar. In some parts it almost makes me consider Marxist theory because of the idea that we as humans might simply own only the things we produce or inhabit. A laborer does not own the products of their labor because he or she is usually working for someone else, which might be the case of the person who tends to the horse but is not the actual owner of the horse in Tolstoy's story. It is possibly one of the few aspects of Marxism and of familiarizing/de-familiarizing that I find simultaneously depressing and inspiring.

It isn't possible, really, in such a capitalist country to resort to selling and buy things from the person who actually made them with their own hands because we all demand so much. If we resorted back to this style, we could not in fact own as much as we do. I could not own this laptop because if it existed at all it would probably cost too much. I could try to make it myself but that would mean most people would have to know how to make their own cell phones and their own refrigerators.

But all of that comes down to desire. Should we, as capitalists, work on not desiring so much? It's the disease that spreads throughout many layers of our society. We desire so much in so many different areas of our lives that many of us are never satisfied. At this rate, the only thing we're teaching future generations is that the more you gain, the happier you'll be, even if you never again pay attention to half the things you purchase. Certainly no one would be happy living off of only what is necessary, such as food and shelter, but do we need five televisions on a three bedroom apartment? Do we need that brand new iPod even though our one year-old iPod is functioning perfectly? It seems to me that when you begin to own too many things by some form of decree, like a paper stating your ownership, then you're going way too far off the mark to be healthy. My best example would be if you own a home you never inhabit. Why own a home you never go to, that is only inhabited by people who keep it clean but don't consider it their own homes either? Isn't that unhealthy for you, that you desired a new home so much you decided you couldn't just have one?

I think there's something to be said over trying to keep with what we actually produce at a practical level. I can't produce my television, but at least I can try to keep the count of what I won and did not produce relatively low. I think, in the end, this would make for a happier mentality.

Is the sublime universal or personal?

When discussing ideas on what counts as being sublime and what doesn't, I wonder on whether or not we should ever categorize anything as sublime depending on how many people see it this way. There have been many discussions in what constitutes sublimity and what doesn't, in our English class for example it was clear that some did not agree with others on what a sublime moment was because it's all dependent on taste, perception and position relating to the sublime subject. I feel that the sublime can quite honestly be down to someone that only one person feels is sublime.

Personally, there are many things I encounter in films and in books that I find to be sublime time and time again even though others may not feel the same thing. Then of course there are sublime moments in which millions agree with me on its sublimity. Does my own small sublime moment become any less valuable? I don't think so, although I'm sure many would argue that a sublime moment requires a majority opinion. However, I see the concept of the sublime as I see the concept of beauty, which is that it is in the eye of the beholder and nothing else.

Analysis 1: The Art of Persuasion

The above video works to illustrate Aristotle's ideas on rhetoric by showing us an example of a speaker who is persuasive because of reasons outside of his actual rhetoric (or at least along with his rhetoric). It comes down often to things such as establishing a credible identity. In Obama's case it can be many things, such as his youth, his attractiveness, and his race. As an excerpt from Aristotle's Book II says, "for it makes much difference in regard to persuasion (especially in deliberations but also in trials) that the speaker seem to be a certain kind of person and that his hearers suppose him to be disposed toward them in a certain way". Obama made much of the youth in this country feel as though he was inclined towards caring what their opinions are, since in the video he mentions the supposed apathy of youth.
It is also greatly about presentation, not simply the persuasiveness of the content alone. Content can be extremely persuasive, but it can be delivered horribly and thus not actually achieve its goal of persuading anyone. There is an importance in being charismatic and the loss of elections are often due to lack of charisma, and this is illustrated in the importance of good speeches and good orators in our political system. Barack Obama is a great example of how presentation works in terms of being persuasive, because many times before his specific wording and general ideas have been compared to that of politicians such as former president Bush. While Bush and Obama shared the same ideas in some cases and even at times the same phrases or terms, many responded more positively to Obama because of the way in which he appealed to them. His physical features were important in that he was youthful and handsome, but it also mattered that he had a knack for public speaking, and at times it simply mattered that his voice was more appealing to people than that of Bush’s.
There is also the importance of the audience’s emotions. You can also look to politics here in that many times the audience, the United States for example, is inclined to a certain political party simply because they have lost their faith in the way of the old party. This is temporary, however, and stems from a feeling of disappointment in that the current party did not deliver what they promised. Politicians often use this to their advantage, knowing that the American people are tired of specific things, such as financial deficits and wars.
Credibility of character is also important here in that it is often valuable in persuading people of criminal cases for example by establishing some form of a personality for the people involved by either demonizing someone or making them look like victims, even if they were absolutely guilty of the crime, the jury and/or judge might still rule in favor of them deciding that it’s possible the crime was truly not their fault because something else might have been at play that affected them in some way that was out of their control, since their character implies that normally they would not have committed such a crime at all. Some might want to claim this is sneaky, but the truth is that it works on the best of us.


"Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech pt 1/2 " 04 November 2008. YouTube. 6 February 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrKFYDbqUC4&feature=related

On the Gorgias Helen

I wonder how well Gorgias' defense of Helen was received at the time of him writing this considering how silly I find it to be now. I'm certainly not one to place blame on Helen when thinking of this story, the story of Helen of Troy, but his defense of "Well if it's the gods' will!" doesn't really hold well. If you kept that idea around then no one's behavior would ever be excusable or inexcusable because they'd all be pawns of the gods.
I'd rather agree with the idea that a good speech may have convinced her of leaving her home. Gorgias mentions the possibility of her running away for love, and how often do we know of stories in which a man or a woman (usually a woman) is persuaded by some well-prepared speech of deep love and admiration? Many argue that this is what happened with Juliet in the case of her and Romeo's tragedy. His speech of complete adoration convinced her to follow through with a series of events that eventually led to both their deaths. As Gorgias puts it, "speech is a powerful master and achieves the most divine feats with the smallest and least evident body" (39). I don't agree with the way that he follows his argument in saying that Helen being compelled by a speech is just about the same as forcing her to follow along. One can be manipulated, but one cannot be outright controlled. Was she manipulated? Possibly, but part of the blame in this argument should then be laid on her for not keeping her senses about her. Many people learn to push against persuasion in their lives, many stories in fact illustrate heroes pushing against persuasion from the gods themselves, so why should Helen get a free pass if someone was particularly convincing? Not that she's the most to blame here, because the other person, her persuader, would be the greater villain here for attempting in the first place.
My point here is simply that I don't think a speech, however great the speech, can be used to blame the speaker for the actions of those persuaded. I think a speech is incredibly strong and is capable of convincing people to do things, but I think it only plays one role in manipulation along with several other factors and I believe those factors should always be taken into consideration.

Gorgias. "Encomium of Helen". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.

Everything is relative, even this theory.

This is my blog for English 436: Major Critical Theories.

During our first lecture we were asked to consider what our "theory" is. Although most of the class seemed unsure what was meant by this question, some of managed to jot down a few ideas. I personally wrote that my theory was that everything is relative. A person can have a theory on any given thing in this world, and chances are it will not be infallible in some way. Perhaps someone has a theory or personal belief on anything regarding murder. One might ask, "Is murder always wrong?" and this person may reply with a yes, but then come to find that there are some situations in which it isn't entirely wrong. These would be extreme situations, sure, but they'd still apply.

I chose this "theory" simply because I dislike having an unchanging, non-developing view of the world. I feel that if I choose to say that one single idea is absolutely true then I'm not allowing myself to be flexible. I am narrowing my ability to be open-minded about any given thing. In general I think it's a good idea for people to discuss or consider anything with the notion that what their initial beliefs are could be proven to be incorrect at any moment.

This is not to say that I think no one should ever stay true to their personal beliefs or be loyal to their way of thinking, I just think that everyone should be their own personal watch dog; that they should police their own thoughts by looking for instances in which they're being obtuse or closed-minded. If members of our political system thought this way, for example, we might get a lot more done much more quickly. Much of this world's problems come from people refusing to be swayed from their personal beliefs even when those beliefs are damaging others around them. Even those who have great belief systems can still fall under the category of someone who is closed-minded if they are the type to never reconsider anything at all. It makes them bad candidates for attempts at open discussions in our political system or in anything else in our world.

So my theory is that everything is relative, and it gives me more freedom to analyze things as they're presented to me, case-by-case. It keeps me from shutting myself off from open discussion, and it keeps others from being discouraged when discussing things with me. No one can ever talk about anything after all if you have on person refusing to listen and another person refusing to speak. I think it's a way many people should think, although of course I could be completely wrong in that idea.