yes but it really isn't that easy. i understand where they are coming from. is it plausible? yes, absolutely. however it's extremely difficult when you look at how that would need a structural overhaul of society and those with the funds and power to make this happen choose not to everyday. we are left with the ability to make personal decisions that does help but is insufficient. i just think it's important to acknowledge that rather than saying we should just change civilization now

do they mean that an anti-dystopia is one where the intention was to create a utopia but it was a bad idea? If so, would the purge be an example of an anti-utopia?

I have seen it in this light as well. I view dystopian media as a kind of warning rather than comforting us since we are not in the same situation as the characters. I think that this is because they take themes we are familiar with and feel personally and build on this in an extreme way. Thus, it feels like if something doesn't change, we could end up like the people in the dystopian media

This is an interesting sentiment to me because I feel like I have read dystopian books or watched movies and felt like these things could plausibly happen in the most extreme set of circumstances. I think this is because of what is stated next. the world captures and exaggerates the present feeling. It portrays themes that are personal to me which then makes me think these events could actually happen

could this also be related to the development of the scientific method? not sure if the time frame lines up but the way he is describing an investigation makes it sound like today's scientific method

this feels very similar to our discussion of how much freedom we are willing to give up to feel safe. on one hand i definitely feel like a catholic school teacher going into the home and questioning the parents' catechism knowledge is pretty invasive but the results he is listing seem so positive. same here with the hospitals collecting info on their patients but then using that info for good

the act of making amends or reparation for guilt or wrongdoing

i get that but just because it has good intentions doesn't make it a good idea. yes we become more productive and increase morality but it comes from the threat of constantly being watched. do the ends justify the means? i don't know that psychological warfare is worth it

this is really interesting even though i'm not sure i understand fully. i get that the panopticon is a symbol of power due to how it functions and how it's existence imposes fear on those being watched within it. Its the last little bit that i don't completely get. is he saying that this is a form of power that is used in politics to get any kind of desirable result or upperhand?

a highly unpleasant or unhealthy smell or vapor

This is just a really good quote to me. It's such a simple way to address surveillance and the fear one feels when they know they're being watched at all times

i see it coming together as well. it's really interesting because i never thought to look at the prison system and how it compares to how we have treated the sick in the past. the exclusion from society and further seclusion due to individual cells, plus the disciplinary aspect really does merge these two ideas together

This scenario so far is hitting close to home with the talks of quarantine and it reminds me of when we went into lockdown. Obviously it was nowhere near as extreme as this but this feels like something that could have happened to us if our government took things too far

i think here he is saying that under government we are actually more free. Without government we experience the "misery which accompanies the misery of particular men" because we have to fend for ourselves at all times. With a government there to protect us from each other, we don't have to worry as much

one who displays contempt towards another

his views are definitely sexist but he isn't completely off base. with the advent of agriculture and subsequently the development of civilizations, men's roles became more important economically than women's roles. these roles were once viewed as equally important in hunter-gatherer societies. however, the emphasis on male roles helped develop patriarchal systems and ultimately pushed women into the background

this is one of his 13 defense mechanisms that we use to cope with anxiety. sublimation is when we take our urges or thoughts that would be considered objectionable by society and we channel that energy into more acceptable activities

this section references Freud's psychoanalytic theory of personality. he developed 5 stages, the second of which was the anal stage. The major life event during this stage was potty training. this represents the change from being able to go to the bathroom whenever you want (in a diaper) to now having to control or hold in that urge he states that parents who push their children to start potty training when they aren't ready develop the "anal character" meaning they can become stubborn, obsessive, and hold on to things more. He is saying that this happens to us as well when we are in a civilization that has laws force us to control our urges for the good of society

is this a reference to Plato and his idea of the "pure forms"?

this reflects our need for control and predictability. in the worst cases this can result in obsessive compulsive disorders where the need for order is critical but never truly satisfied. makes sense as a reason for why we aren't happy

it seems as though he is suggesting that our need to make places and objects aesthetically pleasing adds too much pressure and stress to our lives, maybe this is his way of referencing a tendency towards perfectionism. if we were given the freedom to have ugly things or to not take good care of ourselves or where we live, then maybe we'd have a more free life

Although he has a point, I think this is the problem with much of Freud's work. Because he based his theories on his own opinions and to this day has very little science to back up his ideas, his emphasis on subjectivity makes his arguments less credible

here i think he is saying that modern society has become to complex and this adds a lot of pressure on humans, who like other animals, weren't made for extremely complex situations. life was more simple when survival was the goal. i don't know that i agree completely. Life is difficult but i'd much rather live my current lifestyle than live outside and have to catch my own food. maybe i'm reading it wrong though

modicum: a small quantity of a particular thing, especially something considered desirable or valuable

this is the key paradox that was discussed in the microlecture. everything we have acquired and sought after to protect ourselves is actually hurting us. i wonder why that is. probably because we weren't meant to live in a society this advanced. even back in Freud's time there was probably too much information flowing for our brains to fully comprehend

this is referencing some of his psychoanalytic theory where we have these urges that need to be satisfied in some way. i'm sure he will mention it later on in the document but the 3 structures of our personality, the id, ego, and superego help us determine how we satisfy the urges. thus our behavior is driven by a need to resolve a need

Here she does answer one of my questions. I was wondering how to criteria was going to be applied. According to her, presence of any of these categories is grounds for labeling the group as oppressed, which makes sense. However, I do think this may be slightly problematic because it almost equalizes oppression between groups. This is not to say that we should be comparing who is more oppressed than who BUT I do think there are some groups that need a little more attention than others in certain aspects of life.

Although it was brief I enjoyed her commentary on the exploitation of people of color when she talked about menial labor. I expected her to relate that to the exploitation of women as well, seeing how many of the jobs that many women do are labeled as menial tasks (secretary filing papers, nurses checking patient vitals). I know it would veer off topic but I wanted her to discuss intersectionality and how women who are also people of color may experience twofold exploitation. However, as a White woman it may not be the most appropriate thing for her to discuss.

Marx's theory could also stand if we broaden the meaning of the word "class". I know that in his theory he uses class to reference a person's monetary status. However, people of color are oftentimes referred to as "2nd class citizens". If we look at class as a vague positions in society rather than attaching it only to monetary differences then I think we can still use Marx's idea

This explanation of exploitation is really fascinating because it shows it as a cycle. I never really thought of it this way, but it makes sense that the cycle continues over and over as the owners of means of production continue to benefit off the backs of the laborers

I agree. We can definitely still have social groups without oppression. In order to get rid of oppression, we don't have to eliminate recognition of similar characteristics, backgrounds, and history. Those things are important to us as individuals and help to unify people. Social groups really only pose a problem when members of one group believe they are better than another group because of some perceived difference

Jurgen Habermas. German philosopher and social theorist who focused on communicative rationality and the public sphere

I took a psychology class last semester about stereotypes and prejudice and this reminds me of an experiment we read about. I believe the participants were told to estimate if the amount of marbles in a jar was over or under 100. After they put in their estimates they were put into groups and were told that their group members gave the same or similar answers. The researchers then noticed through subsequent tests and observations that people tended to favor the people that were in their group. Just an example of how people will find any reason to form a social group

For example, Black people with lighter skin. They have social privileges that darker skinned Black people do not have, but at the end of the day, they are still Black people and will most likely be treated as such

Again I am having some trouble highlighting but I wanted to comment on the first sentence of the second paragraph on the third page where she states that when oppression becomes systemic, there is no one group that is the clear oppressor. I disagree. I think in systemic oppression we have to look at who or what group built the system in the first place. Although the lines are bit blurred nowadays I think it is still pretty clear that there is a group in power that actively and passively oppresses other groups in cases of systemic oppression

I am having some trouble trying to highlight the section but I wanted to touch on her first sentence at the top of the second page. Her mention of other races and those with disabilities relates to another question I posted in the microlecture. I asked if she was going to try to address oppression for different types of women. Although this sentence doesn't necessarily answer that question yet, it makes sense to look at these different minority groups as a starting point to defining oppression. I don't think there is anyway to properly define oppression without looking at these groups

This section reminds me of another part of the microlecture where Dr. Todd talked a little bit about how feminism and Marxism have similar qualities and principles. When she states that "justice should not only refer to distribution" I believe she is referring to the unequal distribution of goods and resources between those who control the means of production and the laborers. It will be interesting to read on and see how she connects this Marxist point to feminism

This first line is vaguely related to one of the questions I asked at the end of the microlecture. I asked if a woman is in a situation that fulfills the criteria for oppression but does not know or understand that she is oppressed, should we still consider her to be oppressed. This statement suggests that even if the person doesn't see it, doesn't know it's there, it is still there.