It won’t be easy to arrange, obviously, because it would be a totalcivilizational project, involving technologies, systems, and power dynamics; but it is possibl
This is the part that makes it impossible people are not driven by the same motives especially since society classifies everyone by different categories like ethnicity, race, class, etc...
That proper distributionwould involve not just cleaner, ultimately decarbonized technologies—these are necessary but notsufficient.
now this i can agree with
which ideology? Peoplechoose, even if they do not choose under conditions of their own making. Here, remembering thatscience too is an ideology
This is true but I find it important to mention that the only acceptable ideologies are those driven in prove and credible sources.
eah yeah. Here we see the shift from crueloptimism to stupid pessimism, or call it fashionable pessimism, or simply cynicism.
Rightfully so... these claims are not coming out of thin air history has proven that being realistic is important. I wouldn't call it pessimism because there is actual proof that life is not a thing to be optimistic about overall. Optimism is just used as a way to get through life it's not reality.
Obviously there are complications, but these are just complications
They're more than complications though. We have to fight human nature of some people. A whole race of white people enslaved Africans for economical gain. Or even the halacaust, if people like that continue to exist there is no way we can reach those high goals of utopia.
This is the necessary next step following the dystopian moment, without whichdystopia is stuck at a level of political quietism that can make it just another tool of control and ofthings-as-they-are.
I more so think of it as people have tried to make it better and now people realize through the evidence of history that no matter what time in life people are inherently chaotic and selfish.This is what makes people overrepresent dystopias.
which is perhaps thinking and saying that things will get better withoutdoing the work of imagining how
Isn't imagining how still a bad thing? because your not living in reality your just dreaming up what ifs
1984 and Brave NewWorld are frequently cited examples of these positions.
I'm familiar with 1984 but not so much with Brave New World.
Collective political action is necessary in order to makethings better; fixing the problems will require more than personal virtue or renunciation.
It's hard to get the collective on the same page because leaders and others have created a society where personal interest trump the greater good. We literally have a capitalist economy based on consumership in the U.S.
Since nothingseems to work now, why not blow things up and start over
It actually is not far fetched several foundational researchers /Sociologist have offered the same sentiments.
Vicarious thrill of comfort as we witness/imagine/experience the heroic struggles of our afflictedprotagonists—rinse and repeat.
I would argue that it gives hope because no matter how bad the fantasy world is, the ending always has a hero, which is not always the case in real life.
For a while now I’ve been saying that science fiction works by a kind of double action, like theglasses people wear when watching 3D movies
I can see this it's like we're seeing the world through two different lenses. It's what makes dystopian films so interesting.
In England, it was private religious groups that carried out, for a long time, the functions of social discipline
This actually makes a lot of sense because religion has been at the center of a lot of organizations including the foundation of the United States and the constituition.
an organization in depth of surveillance and control, an intensification and a ramification of power
This has brought a on a drawn out argument for a long time, whether intense surveillance is worth the reward of being secure and having certain human rights.
at once real and imaginary
Imaginary how?
each individual of his “true” name, his “true” place, his “true” body, his “true” disease.
Everyone plays their role whether it be a law maker or a regular civilian with no power just having to take orders.
allowing a quite different truth to appear.
what does he mean by this? That there is a darker side to society that comes out during pandemics?
It lays down for each individual his place, his body, his disease and his death, his well-being, by means of an omnipresent and omniscient power that subdivides itself in a regular, uninterrupted way even to the ultimate determination of the individual, of what characterizes him, of what belongs to him, of what happens to him.
When there are rules and a system for handling circumstances then there is a sense of control that people feel.
The relation of each individual to his disease and to his death passes through the representatives of power, the registration they make of it, the decisions they take on it
Once again it's interesting to see that the organization of enforcements and health officials in the past and how it is still practiced today during pandemics
This surveillance is based on a system of permanent registration: reports from the syndics to the intendants, from the intendants to the magistrates or mayor.
It's an organized system based on level of political importance and allows for effective surveillance for that time.
syndic
government official
Inspection functions ceaselessly.
I wonder is it a 24 hour job or does it work in shifts.
thus allowing each person to receive his ration without communicating with the suppliers and other residents; meat, fish and herbs will be hoisted up into the houses with pulleys and baskets
Things of the past show up in the present just Ina more advanced and technological form. We use Instacart and other forms of delivery during the COVID 19 pandemic that was contactless.
The syndic himself comes to lock the door of each house from the outside; he takes the key with him and hands it over to the intendant of the quarter; the intendant keeps it until the end of the quarantine
This is interesting because in today's society there would be too much push back from civilians and political figures for all to agree that it be mandated to stay inside in the U.S. But other countries did do something similar to this like china.
hese articles are they which otherwise are calledthe Laws of Nature,
Basically, people want certainty and humankind has shared things that are just for humans to partake in and the same goes for unjust things.
No more are the actions that proceedfrom those passions, till they know a law that forbids them; which, till laws bemade, they cannot know, nor can any law be made till they have agreed upon
That is interesting because I always believe that even if there are no laws people have a moral compass or a feeling of what is right or wrong because that is the only thing that laws are developed from. One day a group of people agree that something feels wrong and then it becomes a law to protect others.
no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violentdeath, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and sho
I always wondered what it would be like with no society. If there was no togetherness or common ground. Him stating this made me want to Invision what that would look like and it also made me want to think of the criteria that makes a society.
industry
by industry I am assuming he means friendliness or relationships with others.
For ‘war’ consisteth not in battle onlyor the act of fighting, but in a tract of time wherein the wil
yes, the different elements of life are always intertwined and working together. It is a long game and if people don't share the same cause of fight they turn against each other for a fight for power.
reputation
out of all of them I think reputation might be the most deadly because people fight to be something and to have people see them the way they want to be seen. This can cause some people to do bad things.
and, upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing, naturally endeavoursas far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keepthem in quiet, is far enough to make them destroy each other) to
when people see that they are not being valued like they believe they should be they become angry and want to defend their personal honor. This causes humanity to fight with each other in an invisible battle of dominance.
if others, that otherwise would be glad to beat ease within the modest bounds, should not be invasion increase their power
Is he stating that those who do not engage in the hunger for power will eventually fall or give in. So, it is inevitable that man will search for that power even if they are initially resistant.
For there is not ordinarily agreater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man iscontented with his share.2
Yes, we all are more similar then we realize. Humans share so many characteristics and habits and it is because we are all the same species but, a lot of people fail to recognize the world around them .
there be many so wise as themse
So, this answers my previous question he was talking about how everyone may think they are incredibly wise but that might not be the case.
which almostall men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar
If he is saying that all men believe they hold wisdom then I agree because most people think they know more than what they actually do. But if he is declaring that all men are not equal then I wonder why he thinks that.
which equal time equally bestows on all men inthose things they equally apply themselves unto
I believe he is referring to what many say today, "we all have the same 24 hrs". Most people believe it is all in what you do with the time that all of us share.
And, as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts grounded uponwords and especially that
does he mean that these are all valuable equalities but there is one in particular that shines the most?
This dangeris most threatening where the bonds of a society are chiefly constituted by the identification of itsmembers with one another, while individuals of the leader type do not acquire the importance thatshould fall to them in the formation of a group.
it sounds like he is opposed to togetherness and in reading this whole thing it sounds like he is in favor of survival of the fittest and utter chaos.
Civilization has to use its utmost efforts in order to set limits to man's aggressiveinstincts and to hold the manifestations of men in check by psychical reaction-formations. Hence,therefore, the use of methods intended to incite people into identifications and aim-inhibitedrelationships of love, hence the restriction u
This is a good thing because we would not want people acting on urges and causing utter chaos.
nd the economic structure of the society alsoinfluences the amount of sexual freedom that remains.
Right like in the middle east women have to cover up more and they have laws to support those beliefs.
ts first, totemic, phase already brings with it the prohibition against anincestuous choice of object, and this is perhaps the most drastic mutilation which man's erotic life has inall time experienced
Is he opposed to incest or is he saying it should be left for people to do because it is in our nature ?
But the family will not give the individual up. The more closely the membersof a family are attached to one another, the more often do they tend to cut themselves off from others,and the more difficult is it for them to enter into the wider circle of life
I think this is the opposite of what most people are taught. I thought that the closer a family bond and structure then the more prepared people are to step out into the world and create meaningful relationships.
and itdoes so in a more intensive fashion than can be effected through the interest of work in common
Some might view this as one of the most important aspects of humanity.
What they bring about in themselves in this way is a state of evenlysuspended, steadfast, affectionate feeling, which has little external resemblance any more to the stormyagitations of genital love, from which it is nevertheless derived.
I get this because if you disperse your care and love then you won't become overwhelmed or overly invested in one person or thing.
. And yet no one would care to putthem in the background as trivialities.
This is a bold and biased statement because there is no way to measure if no one is willing to make the requirements "background".
But whereas cleanliness is not to be expected in nature,order, on the contrary, has been imitated from her.
so when he is saying man he is actually referring to the gender. Now is he coining women as less than?
We expect besides to see the signs of cleanliness and order. We do notthink highly of the cultural level of an English country town in Shakespeare's time when we read thatthere was a big dung-heap in front of his father's house in Stratford;
A I am reading I do not completely understand why he is listing these different things because he is not trying it all together. But I know in the mini lecture you told us he will bring it all together in the end.
These things that, by his science and technology, man has brough
I really want to know if he is using the word "man" in a sense of humans as a whole or just referring to the gender. Because based on that answer I would find it odd if he was only crediting the science and technology to men alone.
Motor power places gigantic forces athis disposal, which, like his muscles, he can employ in any direction; thanks to ships and aircraft neitherwater nor air can hinder his movements; by means of spectacles he corrects defects in the lens of hisown eye;
He sounds a bit sarcastic in listing what civilization has accomplished, but I think it is a good thing that we are always looking for ways to improve ourselves and quality of life.
It seems to meunprofitable to pursue this aspect of the problem any further.
what problem? The problem of pursuit of unhappiness and happiness?
stupefying
making one unable to think or feel properly.
if travelling across theocean by ship had not been introduced, my friend would not have embarked on his sea-voyage and Ishould not need a cable to relieve my anxiety about him.
I think he is saying that if society did not invent or curiously venture things in the world we could avoid some of the negatives that occur in life. For example, if someone would have never figured out how to create bullets or guns then a lot of people would not have to grieve their loved ones.
e shall always tend to consider people's distress objectively -that is, toplace ourselves, with our own wants and sensibilities, in their conditions, and then to examine what
Basically we can never know how someone felt in their own circumstances, but we can try to grasp an understanding if we take the time to "put ourselves in their shoes". As humans we mostly share a common sense of human capacity for empathy or relatability.
a factor of this land hostile to civilization must already have been at work in the victory ofChristendom over the heathen religions, for it was very closely related to the low estimation put uponearthly life by the Christian doctrine.
I think it is interesting that out of all the historical events he chooses this one. Maybe as I read more I will understand why.
How has it happened that so many people have come to take up this strange altitude of hostility tocivilization? I believe that the basis of it was a deep and long-standing dissatisfaction with the thenexisting state of civilization and that on that basis a condemnation of it was built up, occasioned bycertain specific historical events
Yes, I think this is an accurate assessment because while I disagree that we should rid ourselves of civilization, I agree that civilization has shown unstable and negative aspects. The system is corrupt many people throughout history have been affected by different unfortunate situations.
we can remove some, and we can mitigate some:
When he says that we can mitigate some suffering how does he suppose we do that? Because if we mitigate suffering is that really an improvement? That's only transferring the problem.
transient structure w
Transient: lasting for a short time; impermanent
There seems to be inconsistencies in this text, or maybe it just doesn't bring anything new to the topic of this conversation. However, there are a couple statements that I previously highlighted that helped save the text and see what she is trying to say.
now the statement on how group directed violence against members of a certain group is systematic is well written. Many people don't recognize that their preconceived animosity and aggression towards a certain group of people has been imbedded in them.
All of Young statements just make me feel like she's not adding anything new to the conversation. The statement on violence is something constantly discussed as a form of oppression.
I feel like powerlessness would fall under the same umbrella as being marginalized.
I like that she used the word "superexploitation" because it helps to emphasize the gravity of the exploitation that black people go through
We know that even though different groups experience different oppressions at the top of any group white men hold the power in any situation.
I don't think Young added new information to the topic of exploitation. If you have had any sociology class this is the description of exploitation.
Marx believed that the proletariat (the economically disadvantaged ) and former bourgeoise (now proletariat) would come together to over throw their oppressors. His theory relies on the idea that capitalism is based on exploitation and people will get tired of that.
To assert that it is possible to have social group difference without oppression, it is necessary to conceptualize groups in a muchmore relational and fluid fashion.
It's interesting because we are taught that we can all live together and in peace if we respect one another. But as time goes on there are some people that believe maybe we should start trying for separate but equal.
Exploitation
I'm excited to see how Young defines and explain these different categories of oppression
group differentiation is not in itself oppressive
It is true that not every group is oppressed but some people carry their oppression into other groups which makes it an oppressive interaction.
Nor does it follow from the tli.rownness of group affinity that one cannot define the meaning of group identity for oneself; those who identify with a group can redefinethe meaning and norms of group identity.
I don't get what Young is trying to say here? it seems like she is repeating herself.
partly by her or hisgroup affinities.This does not mean that persons have no individual sty les, orare unable to transcend or reject a group identity
Yes, as a public health major I have learned that there are individual and group factors that influence a person's behavior and one does not outweigh the other. In sociology we also know that group influences impact a person's perspective and behavior early on
affinity,
a spontaneous or natural liking or sympathy for someone or something.
. Only a plural explication of the concept ofoppression can adequately capture these insights.
That is true that oppression is best described through an understanding of intersectionality. However, I do think that certain groups face deeper consequences and challenges due to oppression. I could be placing my own bias into the conversation though.
■
on page 38 where Young clarifies that these different groups experience different forms of oppression and at different degrees. Because sometimes society likes to clump all oppressed groups together when we all have varying experiences.
Justice should refer notonly to distribution, but also to the institutional conditions necessary for thedevelopment and exercise of individual capacities and collective communication_ and cooperation
I like that Young provides her definition for justice so, that we know what concept she is using. Because some might define justice in whatever justifies their actions in that moment. Other's might see justice as representation of some kind of vigilante style. Other's picture the court systems and how they handle crimes. So, there are so many ways to describe justice.
Rape is a temble caricature of love from which consent is absent. After rape, oppression is the second horror of human existence. It is a temble caricature of obedience.-SIMONE WEIL
I love when writings start with a quote. I hate that we have strayed away from this because it can make the reader feel like we are all on one accord. This quote alone is powerful in itself because most people recognize rape as a bad thing but it is also undermined sometimes and especially rape where the woman is the victim. That shows similarity to other forms of oppression