True masculinity or simply a perception?

Collins dictionary defines masculinity as, “maleness: the properties characteristic of the male sex.”

A plethora of questions flowed through my head, not leading to answers but only more questions pertaining to the simple word we seem to use to describe arguably a half of our society. Perhaps because of such we have over used and altered it to an extent of losing its virgin meaning.

Do we as a society develop stereotypes that we call masculine qualities? Is Collins definition of the word “properties” meant, in this society, to signify inner qualities or is it restricted only to outer features? In Roman times the gladiators demonstrated masculinity in a very outward way, fighting and risking their lives just to prove themselves as being masculine and in the process more appealing to the female sex.  The gladiators had a need to appear stronger than nature in order to “win” their prize. Masculinity, during this time was focused more on physical attributes of strength and endurance.

As time went on, masculinity became a term meant to describe inner as well as outer qualities.  What does it mean for a man who only posses one of these qualities? Is he half a man?  What about women who demonstrate one or possibly both of these qualities, is she then seen as more of a male figure. These concepts have a great relevance to our modern society as gender roles and equality begin to be questioned and policies are developed by governments.

A man in society can look unmasculine in the eyes of the public if he does not possess the stereotypical characteristics. Is he then “not masculine”? What happens if he demonstrates many of the inner properties of the male sex? Inner masculine traits may include courage, bravery, confidence, the need to define all odds with his inner strength, and his hunger and drive to prove himself. However, such inner traits differ between numerous cultures and backgrounds, there is no single check list for inner qualities, and its perception vastly differs.

Does masculinity rise from a bottled insecurity within the male sex or perhaps can it be found within the female?

In both past times and present day, power is a concept that has provided an interpretation of whether someone is masculine or not. The more power one controls, whether it be over themselves, a group, within a job or in control of a nation has come to determine the scale of masculinity in a person.  The term masculinity and the notion of power seem to be infinitely linked. In George Orwell’s 1984 the concepts of masculinity and even femininity have been abolished. The only sense of masculinity found within 1984 is that associated with power. The only one who displays this 21^st century concept of masculinity is Big Brother. Even his name symbolizes a greater meaning of power and authority that is associated with the term. Externally, Winston displays none of the physical features associated with masculinity; however his courage to begin the journey against Big Brother proves that he continues to attempt to find the lost traits.  Even although he was defeated and in the end re-educated he still, like the gladiators, was willing to fight to the death. If this masculine trait is only demonstrated internally, can Winston be considered to be masculine, a trait disallowed in the 1984 society?

In Pursuit of Happiness

      What is that single changing factor that makes us happy as humans? Does such emotion of happy satisfaction come together in a similar combo? These are questions I pondered while reading Sigmund Freud Civilization and its Discontentments. As an early psychologist, Freud helped develop many of the theories we have about the human mind today. Even although science is constantly changing, Freud’s findings and thoughts will always be looked at as an important piece of the discoveries we make today. Freud based his studies on three main aspects or our minds;In today’s society we are often trying to seek what will make us happy and, in most cases, do whatever we can to avoid pain and experiences that bring about displeasure. This is caused by of our need to fulfill our Id. So does this drive make us happy? We are all in pursuit of happiness, but is it possible? Freud states that the most common motivator to achieve happiness is in the search for love. He states, however, that love is simply a pleasure and does not bring about true happiness. He discusses that we suppress our natural instincts, those that we really should be chasing, such as sex and violence, as a result of these going against our society beliefs. This forms a wall that will make it impossible for us to achieve true happiness. “The first request of civilization ... is that of justice.”(Civilization and its Discontentments) Freud points out that we view civilisation as security but it inhibits human beings. Freud believes that in order to achieve true happiness we must be allowed to act upon our suppressed animal instincts, found within our super-ego, that society deems unacceptable.


     Super-ego, ego, and the Id. Our super-ego strives for perfection and, when we have done wrong, is the source of our guilt. It deciphers the difference between right and wrong and pushes the human psyche in our pursuit for happiness. The ego is our face, it is how the world sees us, and it is a personal representation of character moral and decisions. Our ego, Freud states, is our rational part of our mind. Lastly, Id consists of the pleasure principle. According to Freud, each one of these three make up our psyche. However when he factors in civilisation the prospect of happiness becomes more insignificant and raises greater conflict becoming a cause to unhappiness and anxiety.


     In Canada, as stated by the charter of right and freedoms, we have the right to act and say what we wish as long as it does not affect those around us in our society. Freud points that if we cannot allow our bare selves to live how do we perceive achieving true happiness?

     There is great value in Freud’s theories, but they are just that, theories. Just like theories with issues like education, we must change and alter them as society grows and changes. Happiness is possible if we are allowed to follow our true instincts. We need the freedom to follow our super-ego, develop our own ego and act upon our Id. Has society grown and altered enough to follow these? Is it possible to achieve true happiness by bringing satisfactions to ones desires? Are they even true desires or do they come from an installed “need in order to have a fulfilled life” on account of our culture and civilisation? If these are installed rather than true desires then it may never be possible to achieve true happiness.

Lion verus Lamb...

Critical thinking, it’s what separates us from the masses. Socrates died for his personal and philosophical beliefs. He died for the action of critically thinking and the belief that everyone one should develop their own opinion, which perhaps differs from the gods. The masses he believed were a nameless and selfish public opinion that was always changing. He was defending beliefs that have been developed over time versus a public opinion that is constantly in changing motion. The morality defended by Socrates is built on three basic ideals a combination of beliefs, principles, and character over time. As stated in “Real World” Ethics by Robert J. Nash, Back grounds beliefs are developed though our experience good or bad. Principles are “developed overtime and agreed to by everyone as right way to live”. Lastly, moral character which are “the guides provided to us over time by our communities”.[i] These three moral ideals outline what Socrates had been fighting for and believed were worth dying for. As made appoint in the Apology he could not put a name to the masses, represented by the shallowness of thinking in public opinion, the ones who were deciding his fate. Socrates alludes to this in his statement “But all the rest who have persuaded you, from motive of resentment and prejudice, and sometime, it may be, from conviction, are hardest to cope with. For I cannot call any one of them forward in court to cross-examine him.”[ii] Ironically this was his point the fact that we all hide behind one general opinion instead of truly understanding and having our own. Socrates was dealt a matter of choices, for us to look upon them now they seem like a matter of tests to show his true purpose. He could have converted to the public opinion; however he didn’t base on his morals. He also could have escaped and continue to live with the help of his friends. However, he would then be breaking his beliefs and at that point become a martyr.  If he would have escaped it would affect the integrity of his personal and philosophical beliefs causing them to become corrupt, just what he was charged with. However by staying and accepting his fate he remains truthful and making the sacrifice worthy as his teaching has stood the test of time. This is proven by Aristotle, whom was taught with the Socrates personal and philosophical beliefs, who stated “For the courageous person is one who, above all, stands firm and keeps his head in the midst of danger”.[iii] This is exactly what Socrates did. He did not enfold on his beliefs yet fought for them and importance of individual thinking which has and continued to have a constant impact and relevance in our society.

[i] J.Nash, Robert.Real World" Ethics. New York: Teachers College Press, 2002.

[ii] Plato.Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Trans F.J. Church. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1984.

[iii] Broadie, Sarah and Christopher Rowe.  Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2002.

---

Two roads diverged in Omelas I took the one less traveled by, did it make all the difference?

For 45% of us bright shiny faced first years our initial reaction to The Ones who walked away from Omelas would be to walk away from this so called utopia. However, after further analysis in class and an opportunity to deliberate the facts, many had a slight change of opinion. By the end of the story there were three possible choices and our task was to choose one; to stay, to save or to walk.  My options were laid out as follows, I could stay and possibly convince others of the city of the wrong doing so it could be corrected, save the child and raise it as my own, or become a wanderer and walk away from the so call “utopia” of Omelas. I was part of the original 45% that opted to walk, and even as others changed their minds and decided to stay, my gut kept telling me my original decision was right.

If I made the grand heroic gesture of rescuing the child there would be no end credits of a happily ever after that would begin to play as theatre lights came on, rather I would be awarded the blame of making a whole city doomed of possibly never being happy and send it into sheer chaos. To me that seems to carry, if not the same then a greater, amount of guilt. A decision like that would take planning and thoughtful attention to detail. The people of Omelas had no right to place the “innocent” child in a room to have to forever endure torture but where is my right to take the child and make the whole city enter a state of unhappiness. What makes it my right to do such a thing? When I asked myself this question I drew a blank so I continued to think through my last two options. 

To stay or not to stay? Staying doesn’t present itself as being any more practical a decision than saving the boy.  Finding out that the life you’ve been living is a lie, as observers in Omelas did when they saw the boy, would be damaging and quiet soul crushing. If I was flooded with a wide variety of emotions such as guilt, anger and fear as those in Omelas were, I would be left paralysed and unable to help the boy further. With my head glowing warm and my insides turning out I would not understand where this horrid feeling was arising from and therefore be left unhappy.   I would feel pain, something that has never happened to the people of Omelas.  How, therefore, does one feel true happiness without feeling true pain? Looking back, my happiest moments have been those when I have accomplished something where people have come together and as a group and created even the smallest successes out of seemingly impossible situations.  It is moments like these, where I felt at least a tingling of pain that I wouldn’t trade for the world or in this sense Omelas. Why would I stay and continue to live a life of false happiness and utter confusion in a procession forced upon us since birth.  The sense of a perfect city, utopia, is not truly perfect if even one child lives a life of disgust. Maybe it would be the price I would pay until I could gather the people of Omelas together and free the child. However, what are the likely possibilities of me staying in the city and convincing them that the tradition their society and their happiness is built on is wrong and disgraceful. Asking them to drop everything and change their “perfectly happy” lives for the life of one child. This may sound selfish but I don’t believe I would have the significant majority I would need to accomplish such an act as to free the child. I would be looked at as crazy and incompetent.  To me, staying feels more like ignoring the problem and admitting nothing should change. I strongly believe I could not bring myself to stay and feel like David without a sling shot in the battle against Goliath.

If I walk shall I be looked upon as pitied or admired? I believe I should be neither.  To walk away from Omelas would be to walk away from the procession and the false Utopia. To stay would be to think that difference can come by pretending that all is fine, however, to leave the procession does not have to be a sign of cowardness or weakness. Rather, it can be a sign of strength. Those walking away into the “darkness” are those willing to seek new answers and a new way of life, rather than following the simplicity and security of the mindless known entity.  Those who have walked away in society have proven to have profound effects on changing the very society they walked away from. Therefore, to leave the procession is to make a greater impact, just as the the French resistance during World War two.  They did not blindly follow the utopian society of Hitler that was being supported by the masses. They  walked into the darkness of the unknown in order to make a difference.  Similar to this, Jem, Scout and Atticus in To Kill A Mockingbird,  stepped out of a racist procession in Maycomb County in order to help the Afro-American community, and as a person in an abusive relationship steps out of the procession of that relationship in order to better help his/her children. In Omelas the procession was seen by the people to be the reason for true happiness but if what they have is only perceived to be happiness, then the procession is causing more harm than good.  Leaving the procession of a society to journey into a darkness is to walk away, and for some, the way they can truly help the situation they are walking away from.   I would leave to escape the city of Omelas and find the truth to erase the lies I have been taught.  With a head filled with anger and disgust I would be in search of a better world, not necessarily a perfect one. This would not be a utopia, as defined by those in the procession in Omelas, but a place where mistakes and sadness can be corrected.  A new norm would be created where I could find my own way outside of the procession and, no matter how long the battle, answers to a happier world for all.