every system of power is presented with the same problem
I would assume this means that every government deals with the same task of finding out how to maintain control in one's country. However, it is the way in which different governments go about it that makes them perceived to be different.
Julius saw as a fulfilled historical process that which Bentham had described as a technical programm. Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests bodies in depth; behind the great abstraction of exchange, there continues the meticulous, concrete training of useful forces; tbe circuits of communication are the supports of an accumulation and a centralization of knowledge;
Is this saying that despite people in this case having a sense of liberty and freedom it is in reality a facade as they are constantly being monitored?
Military discipline is no longer a mere means of preventing looting, desertion or failure to obey orders among the troops; it has become a basic technique to enable the army to exist, not as an assembled crowd, but as a unity that derives from this very unity an increase in its forces; discipline increases the skill of each individual, coordinates these skills, accelerates movements, increases fire power, broadens the fronts of attack without reducing their vigour, increases the capacity for resistance, etc.
This in a way reminds me of the American military-industrial complex.
At the beginning of the “lock up”, the role of each of the inhabitants present in the town is laid down, one by one;
This seems like something that would be done in a communist country. This sounds like the lives of people in North Korea and China.
The syndic himself comes to lock the door of each house from the outside;
Funnily enough a few months back I saw a video from China where they had people shutting apartment buildings from the outside to prevent people from leaving during the pandemic.
If private property were abolished, all wealth held in common, andeveryone allowed to share in the enjoyment of it, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men.
i could see that as people would careless about possessions and more so about living.
instinctual life is by no means to beenvied for its freedom
I think that depending on one's income and career freedom is subjective. A rich man in the eyes of the poor is free from his financial burdens while a poor man in a rich man's eyes is free from his expected charity to others.
not all men are worthy of love
I think this is true but at the same time, one can say that because some men do not experience love in any form they embody hate which drives them down a bad path.
The essence of it lies in the fact that the members of the community restrict themselves intheir possibilities of satisfaction, whereas the individual knew no such restrictions.
Yes i think communities generally program its residents based on the accepted social norms of what successful, good etc, while individuals carve their own paths based on their own terms.
Beauty, cleanliness and order obviously occupy a special position among the requirements ofcivilization
This is true however, all three are relatively subjective based on ones culture.
Man has, as it were,become a kind of prosthetic God.
In a sense yes, with the advancements in science and technology we see that doctors and scientist are able to regrow organs, travel to space, do surgeries, erect cities etc.
If there had been no railway to conquer distances, my child wouldnever have left his native town and I should need no telephone to hear has voice; 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 see what the author is saying but on the flip side, one could say that neither the child nor friend would have found themselves and become happy or impacted others in the world if those advancements were not made.
This contention holds that what we call our civilization is largely responsible for ourmisery, and that we should be much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions.
I think there is some truth to this as we are less physically and socially active than our ancestors were.
An adequate life provided for all living beings is something the planet can still do; it has sufficientresources, and the sun provides enough energy.
This is true however, there are too many political powers that will most definitely work against this as the suffering of some people makes others rich.
It’s crucial to keep imagining that things couldget better, and furthermore to imagine how they might get better
I think most people know deep down that there will probably never be a perfect world but the most important thing is to make sure we leave a better world than what we came in to.
no oneanywhere feels properly represented by their government, no matter which style of government itis
I think this is true to this day. But the truth is there are a lot of people being governed by small governments that do not necessarily share their point of view.
Dystopia is very clearly a kind of satire
Does he mean that dystopia is an exaggerated manifestation of humanity's stupidity and shortcomings?
The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death
This is true for individuals who value their life and those around them especially those who have a lot to lose. Those who do not have much to lose and are desperate are the ones who are often in favor of war.
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or war where every man isenemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men livewithout other security than what their own strength and their own invention shallfurnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because thefruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigationnor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodiousbuilding, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require muchforce, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, noletters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violentdeath, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
I would assume that Hobbes is describing a Dystopian world in which organization and infrastructure would serve no purpose as they would be under constant threats of destruction which would make generating profits impossible. In such a world businesses, media and education would not be important as people would only be focused on surviving.
So that in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel. First,competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.
I agree but I think he is missing manipulation of individuals that causes them to hate people they do not know and also fear and ignorance. We tend to fear those we do not understand and often hate their beliefs or actions due to ignorance.
if any two men desire the same thing which nevertheless theycannot both enjoy, they become enemies
I think this is one of the reasons there will probably never be true peace and equality. One person will always refuse to compromise which will ultimately result in conflict. Unfortunately, humans often embrace a mindset of all for one instead of one for all.
Forprudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men inthose things they equally apply themselves unto.
I do agree that prejudice is developed through experience. We often judge people and individuals based on what we see in the media or heard from other people. Especially here in America where people are grouped into racial and ethnic groups.
one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body orof quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the differencebetween man and man is not so considerable
It can be inferred that Hobbes means that some people are more blessed or talented than others. However, in life, we are all equal as we are all blessed in different ways.
I do believe that in order to unpack the oppression of various groups we must indeed look back to the history books to see the cause or causes then make an effort to highlight them and do better. In doing so we will better understand the programming we are given by society and how to live in an create a more just and humane society.
I agree with his five categories of oppression. They all make sense and add depth to the problem of oppression.
I think his outline of the violence that minorities and marginalized groups face in America is spot on.
The culturally dominated is indeed judged as a group and is made invisible. This is due at large to the confirmation bias that is present in the media. Unfortunately, a lot of prominent minorities are those in the media that often represent a lot of the stereotypes of minorities. As a result, people start to believe the stereotypes of minorities as after all it must be true if public figures at large display similar characteristics to the stereotypes.
I completely understand when he says that men and women of color do not get respect until they reveal what they do for a living. Unfortunately, this is a known thing in the black community and a lot of people spend a lot of money trying to look rich in order to garner some type of status.
He is right when he say most work places are not democratic environments even though we live in a democracy. Now that i think about it the way the capitalist system is set up is quite hypocritical to the constitution. Workers do not have freedom of speech, the right to vote on important matters, or in a lot of cases unionize.
I never thought about the effects that marginalization has on society. This was definitely eye opening.
"menial work still tends to be linked to Black and Latino workers." This is so obvious here in the south where people often go out of their way to hire Hispanics for cheap labor.
"oppression occurs through a steady process of the transfer of the results of this labor of one social group to benefit another."
I believe this is the root of most injustices in society.
Blacks are not a simple, unified groupwith a common life. Like other racial and ethnic groups, they are differentia�ed by age, gender, class, sexuality, region, and nationality, any of which in agiven context may become a salient group identity.
I'm relieved to see this mentioned as it rarely is. As a consequence, African Americans as a whole are judged as a whole group instead as individuals.
Eliminating oppression thus requires eliminating groups.
I believe this can be a serious solution as it will most definitely remove biases when dealing with problems in society.
A contract model of social relations is appropriate for conceiving associations, but not groups.
People are way too complex to put in a box and be described as "thats how they are."
he self is a produce of social processes,not their origin.
This is so true as people no matter their race when raised in similar environments have similar outcomes in life. Ones upbringing and environment have more to do with ones character than their ethnicity.
When philosophers and political theorists discuss groups, theytend to conceive them either on the model of aggregates or on the model ofassociations, both of which are methodologically individualist concepts
This unfortunately results in limited, vague, and stereotypical approaches and ideas when looking at other groups of people whom they do not truly understand. After all, everyone sees the world through a different lens that is conditioned by one's upbringing and environment.
ecause differentfactors, or combinations of factors, constitute the oppression of diffe'�entgroups, making their oppression irreducible, I believe it is not possible to giveone essential definition of oppression
This is true as people face challenges and discrimination based on who society usually demonizes the most.
■
"Its causes are embedded in unquestioned norms...." I believe this to be true. When you know something to be the way it is forever no matter how much you want it to change you think that's just how the world is so most people just keep going in life without trying to be or contribute to the difference they want to see in society.
■
"attempts by theorist...."
I like that he doesn't fall into the trap op relegating different forms of suffering and oppression into a competition of who is suffering the most and calls it out instead.
When our will finds expression outside ourselves in actions performed by others,we do not waste our time and our power of attention in examining whether they haveconsented to this.
This caught my attention as it is in fact true. Whenever I see someone who is in a field that I aspire to be in I unconsciously take an interest in them.