"Animal I Have Become"

            “So what if you can see the darkest side of me? No one will ever change this animal I have become; help me believe it's not the real me; somebody help me tame this animal.”  Everyone deals with their own demons within them at least at one point in their lives.  Some people deal with this fact in a much better way than others.  For example, Dorian Gray, had he been real, would have been tactless in this matter; giving into one’s demons is not the best way to go about dealing with one’s life.  Dorian Gray becomes deranged due to his own “animal” inside of him.  Dorian became the animal, and to restore himself, he stabs the picture of himself to destroy, and not “tame”, the animal that he had become.  This raises the question of whether or not everyone has such an animal inside them and if people just deal with it in different ways.

            Humans are powerless when pitted against their overwhelming emotions and conscience.  Does this prove that everyone has an uncontrollable animal within them?  In a way, I suppose everyone has their own “animal” inside them, but likely not to the same extent that, for example, Dorian Gray had.  In fact, what Dorian Gray became was more of a monster than an animal.  Not all animals are monsters (how could a puppy be a monster?).  This unit was about monsters within ourselves, which is very fitting in Dorian Gray and when talking about the animal within us all.  Everyone has a choice of whether or not to let that animal or those monsters within us control us.  Do we let out the bad and give into the consequences, or do we fight it off and remain our true selves?  That is what defines us and what makes us who we all are.

            Dorian Gray is seen as an evil, terrible person because of how he acted.  If he had not given in to his dark side, then he would have been seen by all in a different light.  People define you by how you act.  But what matters is how you define yourself.  If you see yourself as a monster, then you probably should “tame” that animal inside.  If you don’t see yourself as doing anything too wild, then you could stay how you are.  Obviously you should trust the evidence, even if you are in denial, but you are not necessarily an animal, even if society says you are.  Society is the reason why people think there are monsters within people more often than not; if anyone deviates from their accepted norm, then you are a beast, and likely a violent beast at that.  However, there are cases where society is right, and you should change, just like in Dorian Gray. 

            Whether you decide if you’re a monster or not is up to your own discretion; society is usually wrong in this matter.  Humans are inclined to give in to their emotions because they are what empower us to do everyday things.  Emotions can be seen as primal or could be seen as gifts to humanity.  Being an animal is natural, being a monster, however, is far from natural.  You have to work to become a monster; it is not easy to be a beast.  Even if you become a monster, there is always time to change yourself; Dorian Gray changed at the end, even if it did cost him everything.  No one is ever permanently a monster unless he/she chooses to be so.  Everything we are is decided by us and our own freewill and our decisive actions.

Deal With the Devil

            Is it worth it to trade your soul for something material?  Should you give up your soul for power, money, longevity, or even a superpower?  These questions are made on a daily basis, but on a much smaller scale.  Every day, you choose to do good or bad, be selfless or selfish.  People are bad and selfish to meet personal ends; in essence, bad things are done to achieve personal gains.  So it is quite true to say that humans make pacts with the devil every day. 

In actuality, it could be proven that good things are done for personal gain, too.  It may be going too far to suggest that making yourself feel better by doing good things is actually selfish, but if someone does good things with a selfish manner, it is virtually the same thing as doing a bad act for the same end. 

            So where is the line drawn?  What is considered a Faustian bargain in today's world?  Granted no one (okay maybe some people might try to) go into the woods to find Satan or otherwise summon Lucifer with the idea in mind that you will give him your soul in order to succeed in some respect, but if you do something such as steal for your own benefit (not pulling a Robin Hood of course), then society may deem that as making a Faustian bargain.  If kids (toddlers or around that age; not too old to know what they're doing) do something like steal, is that still a Faustian bargain?  Society creates standards to which they attribute actions, good and bad.  By abiding by this, little kids and those who don't (or can't) know what they're doing will not suffer overly-huge consequences that a fully-capable person would suffer for doing the same thing.  This raises the question, is the Faustian bargain dictated by the bargainer?  This is a likely conclusion.

            The Faustian bargain from the myths, like Dr. Faustus, may not exist, but society has given the idea its own meaning and application in the real world.  The Faustian bargain has thus changed drastically from Marlowe's 16th century understanding of it.  The more modern and civilized the society, the bigger the change to meanings.  In a civilized society, a Faustian bargain could not possibly apply to the innocent, and the devil could not possibly be hiding in wait for the next person to call to him with the intentions of selling his soul. 

The real point is that the Faustian bargain, however changed from the original meaning, still exists.  The risks and consequences of doing something that society has deemed bad, evil, or unnatural for personal gain are what constitutes a Faustian bargain.  While the consequence of making a Faustian bargain in today's world is not being pulled to Hell by demons, it still can be harsh and everlasting. 

            People can try to avoid doing things that are wicked, and not do things solely for personal gain, but it is human nature to provide for oneself.  This can be taken pretty far by doing nothing but selfish acts, but the person that does that already made a different deal with Satan.  Society has taught us to not be selfish, so maybe it was for something more than just manners and what's expected in humankind.  Deals are not always done physically, but can be done mentally due to an innate tendency to be a certain way.  You get what you want and deserve from the deals you make (or virtually make).  This deal is not sealed in blood, but it is still sealed with the "selling of your soul".

Cruel Cruel World

A Cruel Cruel World

The world we live in can be a horrible place.  There are problems left, right, and center.  An object of the world's horrific acts is, at many times, women.  People in the world (at least in some places in the world) have improved their views, however.  Despite this fact, some places are still under the influence that women are to be belittled and oppressed.  A Thousand Splendid Suns shows this to a T.  The idea that two women were treated so terribly, and whose lives were disrupted and destroyed is disgusting.  As shown in The Yellow Wallpaper, though, it has happened in "developed" and "better" countries in the not-so-distant past, like the United States of America.  The world that we live in is very flawed, but, as it seems, is becoming a better place.

In the past, the world was almost completely, if not completely, dominated by men.  As described in The Yellow Wallpaper, women were treated as less than humans.  They weren't treated equally to men, even though that notion was senseless.  It is disturbing that women couldn't express themselves much, if at all, as see in The Yellow Wallpaper.  Women being sent to places that were virtually prisons or asylums was plain wrong, but in that society, it was deemed fine and actually the right thing to do.  That world was cruel. The one we currently live in is still cruel, but in a different way.

Treatment of women is becoming better.  While far from being perfected, there is considerably more equality between men and women today, especially when compared to fifty years ago.  The plot of The Yellow Wallpaper may be outdated for America, but still has some truth in other parts of the world.  Countries in other parts of the world still believe that men are superior to women, and some may even go as far to say that women are barely human beings.  This is the plot of A Thousand Splendid Suns.  Mariam and Laila were treated as less than humans; neither woman married for love, but either out of necessity or because they were forced.  Once married, they were abused and belittled.  They were forced to hide themselves by their husband and their government.  What kind of world does this to its own people?  A cruel, cruel world.

Something is either innate in humans to make them act this way, or they were taught to be this way for some reason.  Whatever it is, it is very wrong.  It could be that power over other people is so appealing, or it could be an interpretation of a religion or belief system, or it could be a (however incorrect) notion that men were born "better".  There are many possibilities for these old-fashioned, out-dated, obsolete and demeaning ways of life.  The real problem is having to cope with it.  Change on a large-scale is extremely difficult and a long process.  The only way to completely change this world is through law, but that can only happen when the public opinion changes (or a tyrant or other dictator-type leader comes to power and changes it him-/herself, which seems to be unlikely).  To change the opinions and tendencies of people, sometimes the government steps in, but also requires popular support to do so.  This is a vicious and endless cycle, seemingly without end.

Humans were made with faults and flaws, some being much larger and of more importance and relevance than others.  The mistreatment of women was far-reaching enough to be considered a human flaw.  Humans are not likely to mention or acknowledge flaws about themselves, which makes correcting these flaws even more difficult.   The subject of equality for women has been a long-enduring one, and seems to be an oddly-difficult one to embrace for humans.  One day it will be settled, and hopefully soon. One day we can finally say "farewell cruel world."

Fortune-For the Men in Charge of Change

Fortune-For the Men in Charge of Change

Since the beginning of humanity, gender has played a huge role in every society.  Many societies (if not most) put men as the “head of household,” the “breadwinner,” or give men a sense of power over women.  Even slogans for famous magazines, companies, etc. such as the one used for Fortune Magazine, “For the men in charge of change” are patriarchal.  Patriarchal society dominates most of the world, including the United States of America.  This form of society, however, is on its way out the door.

21^st century Planet Earth is changing.  Society, beliefs, and gender roles are changing; everything is in constant change in humankind’s world.  Every society in the world needs to change to form a more gender-equal atmosphere, but many places are already seeing leaps and bounds toward that end result.  Places that still have old, sexist traditions or beliefs, notably and notoriously places in the Middle East, are completely in the wrong (biased based on my own beliefs, I know).  Despite this, countries like the US and countries in Europe (developed, first-world countries for the most part) are hopping onto the gender-equality bandwagon left, right, and center.  There are still snags, like patriarchal traditions that seem harmless when compared to some extreme stances on gender equality.  Examples of this could be the “breadwinner of the family” stereotype that is usually tied to the man of the house, or that wimps are called “girls,” or “you throw like a girl”, all of which are truly insulting to women.  These are the sexist things that will take a long time to weed out because my parents and their parents and their parents’ parents all grew up with that kind of idea thrown around.  Today’s teenagers are much more pro-gender equality, so those sayings or stereotypes will die off.  The key thing here is that fortune will be created by “the men in charge of change.”

While women in popular literature have personal triumphs, there is something to be said about large-scale triumphs.  In A Doll House, Nora leaves Torvald and their children to rediscover herself and to break away from the man she doesn’t love and become independent (which, by the way, I found interesting information about; according to Wikipedia, “Ibsen's German agent felt that the original ending would not play well in German theatres; therefore, for it to be considered acceptable, Ibsen was forced to write an alternative ending for the German premiere.  In this ending, Nora is led to her children after having argued with Torvald. Seeing them, she collapses, and the curtain is brought down. Ibsen later called the ending a disgrace to the original play and referred to it as a 'barbaric outrage'.”  This only goes to show that society, though in the 1800s, is extremely patriarchal.)  Edna in The Awakening swims out into deep water and dies triumphantly as an escape or a way to show her “awakening” from the men she was possessed by in her life.  These two examples showed that there are personal victories for individual women.  These triumphs can set an example for more women to follow, but the thing is that men are the ones with more power and influence (not going to sugarcoat it).  Men are the ones that can easily change ideas, traditions, and mindsets.  In order for women to be victorious, men have to concede, and in the words of Star Wars, “He became so powerful, the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power”.  Men are more willing in today’s society to change (or will be once the newer generations of men become older and can start the change), so there is more hope than ever for women to become truly equal in everyone’s eyes, but there are still many obstacles to get by.

That Star Wars quote says “He became so powerful, the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which, eventually, of course, he did.”  Even George Lucas saw A New Hope.

Theory of Cultural Relativism

Theory of Cultural Relativism

Einstein would be proud of a theory that incorporates a relative stance toward an idea.  Would the father of special relativity conclude that E=mc² (where E is exceptions to the “norm”, m is morality, and c is culture), however?  The answer, he probably wouldn’t have enough time to think about anything outside of his field to answer this question, but this idea is applicable to the challenge of cultural relativism.  The issue presented in the article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” is the question of whether cultural differences are a result of different beliefs, failing morality, or both.  An answer to this question could be explained by the idea of cultural relativism, but isn’t a full answer, as James Rachels explains.

Cultural relativism is an idea that there is no true right or wrong because different societies have different beliefs in what is right and wrong.  Due to the fact that society defines and shapes one’s perspectives of what "right" and "wrong" are, is there really any way that any group of people, who does something another group of people considers wrong, could do wrong?  Cultural relativism would have that cultures could do right by their standards, and that they should be viewed subjectively against their own culture, and no one else’s.  This could be very problematic, as the article says that wars waged over the right to allow more slavery could be technically right to the one culture, so it must be allowed and legal due to this idea.  The article then states that cultural relativism could be incorporated into an overall stance towards other cultures, but not the only idea in the back of one’s head, as each culture does have morals which are virtually the same across all cultures. 

Many times cultures are discriminated against due to their deviation from what another culture calls normal.  An example is in Things Fall Apart, where the Christian missionaries have a problem with the clan’s religious belief system.  The clan is then subjugated to the new, invasive culture’s ways of life and law.  In this case, cultural relativism was not observed, and an extreme opposite was used.  In every sense, society, which teaches what is right and wrong, are to be held accountable and responsible for one’s beliefs, morals, and motives for doing something.  Novels focusing on the very distant past, future, or an alternative world such as Beowulf and The Fountainhead all have different cultures due to their different societies.  Society, in effect, controls and changes culture, as it once started each culture. 

In my own opinion, cultural relativism should be observed only when a culture affects something in its own culture.  When a culture interacts with other cultures, a universal set of morals and objectivism should be respected.  While someone should not discriminate against someone else’s culture, if that culture impedes, influences, intervenes in, or overall affects another group of people, cultural relativism does not really apply and an objective view should be taken, viewed from outside either of the involved cultures to decide what is right, just, and fair.  No matter what, however, there are always different definitions of right and wrong, and conflict always arises.  This holds true unless there would only be one universal culture to which everyone belongs, which is nearly impossible.  The theory of relativity is more readily perfected than a theory of cultural relativism, a statement which Einstein would most likely agree with.

The Prince Hamlet

The Prince Hamlet

To be good or not to be good, that is the question that pervades Hamlet’s life in the play.  Machiavelli, author of The Prince, held the belief that the end must justify the means, and that a leader may not do good to benefit his kingdom all the time, but rather do evil or bad in order to comply with his subjects and allow an end result to be beneficial.   Hamlet exemplifies this idea in the play, as he attempts to right prior wrongs committed to him and his family, while performing a malignant task in order to achieve this end; murder of his uncle and current king of Denmark.  The play Hamlet regales the audience with a tale of loss and revenge, while asking the question of whether Prince Hamlet lives up to Machiavelli’s model of a prince or not, and to what extent. 

The Prince by Machiavelli was a work on political philosophy and, in sorts, guidelines for a ruler.  The work expressed Machiavelli’s idea that a ruler would occasionally need to “come to grief among so many who are not good” in order to be a better leader.  In essence, Machiavelli said that a leader cannot be completely good to be effective.  In reality, most, if not every, leader of any nation has, in some way, followed Machiavelli’s instructions, even without realizing.  Leaders need to attend to their people, and constantly do partially-immoral, and often corrupt, actions (albeit this is generally without a thought of the public).  Thus, Hamlet does comply with The Prince’s idea of an unholy and partially-bad-natured leader by default.  Hamlet, however, realizes the evil that he wishes to do, but continues on, possibly going farther than the Machiavellian “prince” idea.

Hamlet does many wicked acts in the tragedy Hamlet, however, when the play begins, he is very different.  At the beginning, Hamlet does not want to believe that his uncle killed his father, and he was just mulling in grief for several months after his father’s death.  Only once his father’s ghost told him that Claudius killed him did Hamlet seek revenge (after much careful thinking, though).  Hamlet, in the course of the play, killed Polonius, father of Laertes and Ophelia, seemingly without remorse, as a result of his own madness that he claimed to be fake.  This is the point where Hamlet’s qualities akin to the leader in The Prince start to differ; Hamlet not only “came to grief” but influenced that “grief” by adding in his own personal indifference, making it less of a quality for a ruler, but more of a quality of a madman.  Hamlet goes even further with this “madness” by letting his two friends be killed, possibly leading to Ophelia’s death, and killing Laertes and the king.  If Hamlet just killed the king, then he could be considered to be living up to the prince’s ideals in Machiavelli’s work, because he seldom did evil, and when he did it was to create a beneficial end, but he killed too many people and without remorse that should have been there, so The Prince cannot be completely applicable to Hamlet.

Machiavelli was a man who believed that any end must justify the means.  This ties in to Hamlet because Hamlet sought out revenge for most of the play, thinking it was the way to right the wrong of his father’s murder.  The same idea applies to this as with the idea that Hamlet simply became immoral to become a better ruler; Hamlet seems to have gone too far.  Hamlet, if he simply killed his uncle, the one responsible for his father’s death, would have had an end that justified his means (murder).  As a result of Hamlet killing or leading to the deaths of several people, the end that arose (Hamlet’s own death) was called for.  In this regard, the end of Hamlet justified Hamlet’s means, but the end of Polonius, Ophelia, and many others was not justified by Hamlet’s vengeful acts.

When Hamlet was written, Machiavelli’s The Prince was probably not used as a model for Hamlet, however, Hamlet does model some of the qualities of a leader that The Prince expresses are necessary.  Hamlet lowers himself to Claudius’ level by seeking to kill him, and he does become immoral, as The Prince believes is needed in a leader, but he takes it several steps further by leading to the deaths of several more people, and does so without remorse.  Hamlet even, in a way, shows that the end does justify the means, even if the end is now what was intended.  Hamlet, even if not intentional, was created in such a way that Machiavelli’s beliefs hold true and prominent.

Holding Out for a Hero

Holding Out for a Hero 

Beowulf is no doubt the hero in the epic Beowulf.  But is he a hero in today’s society?  The word hero means multiple things.  It could be as simple as the main protagonist in a literary work, or a grand, immortal being that saves the day.  Having just watched Shrek 2, so many relevant comparisons came to mind.  In this movie’s climax, the song “I Need a Hero” by Bonnie Tyler was sung by the antagonist, Fairy Godmother.  The song made me question Beowulf as a hero.  According to this song, a hero needs to be “strong”, “fast”, “fresh from the fight”, “sure”, “soon”, and “larger than life”.  Beowulf is all of those, so Bonnie Tyler might think that he is a true hero.  She brings up Superman and says that the hero is in her “wildest fantasy”.  She basically describes a superhero in her song, because only a superhero would be capable of saving her, but it is relevant because Beowulf, for all that it is told that he did, is a superhero.

The meaning of the word “hero” is purely subjective.  A hero could be a role model or could be someone who has done great things for others.  A hero is commonly thought to be someone who can save people; a hero is a good person.  Beowulf saves people, and can be a role model, but is he a good person?  In the time that Beowulf’s story was originally told, and especially when it was set, Beowulf was a perfect hero.  The oldest definition of a hero is someone who defies all odds, and uses physical ability to save people.  Modern usage of the word, however, has changed its meaning.  In today’s society, a hero doesn’t have to use physical prowess to save; he/she could use intellect, compassion, or any number of qualities deemed by society as being positive.  A possible reason for this change is that there is a lack of need for the Beowulfs and the Hulks in society, because the types of conflict and problems have changed.  Many people’s problems in life are based off of feelings, and those types of heroes don’t appeal to emotions as much as a man who helped an old woman cross the street would.  Beowulf is a physical hero, but he is so one-dimensional that he can’t be a hero based on his character.  In our day and age, Beowulf might even not be categorized as a hero, because of this lacking characterization.

I see both sides of the argument.  In its simplest meaning, Beowulf is a hero.  I personally wouldn’t want Beowulf to “sweep me off my feet”, though, and I don’t think he is “a white knight upon a fiery steed”.  He is not a hero in the newest sense of the word, but a firefighter, a police officer, and even my seven-year-old brother are heroes.  Could my brother physically defeat Beowulf?  No, but he is a smart, strong-willed person and is much more of hero than the nearly-invincible Beowulf, at least to me.  This is the major distinction: today’s heroes are family and the common man.  Once people’s innate appreciable qualities started to make headway into stories as the major focus, people could start seeing brains over brawn and that motivation is might.  Granted, people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and Mahatma Gandhi might be seen as larger than life figures due to their accomplishments, but they aren’t invincible mythical heroes. 

I wouldn’t be “holding out for a hero” if Beowulf is the model of a hero.  Figures like Beowulf aren’t as prevalent as heroes anymore, and aren’t the types of heroes I would appreciate in my life.  Beowulf might be the “streetwise Hercules” but he isn’t the force “to fight the rising odds” that I want or I need.  Though powerful, Beowulf is not my hero, nor is he today’s society’s hero.  The days of Beowulf are gone, and the time of rationality and relatability are reigning.