Rumination - Self vs. The Collective Whole

While reading "Utopia" by Sir Thomas More, I could not help but feel uneasy about the constant debate over what matters more in life: personal freedom or protection & fairness. It is common to hear the saying "life isn't fair" but if it could be . . . should we strive for it? Are we selfish for craving freedom and individuality when we know full well that we could end a lot of human suffering by giving up this piece of ourselves? How much should we sacrifice? Essentially, is one person more important, less important, as important as the collective whole?

"Utopia" hits on several of these questions. Speaking to More, one of the characters presses that "... as long as you have private property, and as long as money is the measure of all things, it is really not possible for a nation to be governed justly or happily. For justice cannot exist where all the best things in life are held by the worst citizens; nor can anyone be happy where property is limited to a few, since those few are always uneasy and the many are utterly wretched" (Utopia 543). Here he is arguing that anything held private by an individual that is not shared with the community can only harm said community. He attributes the loss of  justice to the idea of private property and seems to suggest that as long as money is used to fuel the economy and settle debts, happiness is unachievable. However, this leads me to wonder: what kind of happiness does he mean? Is he referring to the raw "happiness" that you feel walking barefoot through the woods as you think to yourself how perfect it feels to exist today? Or is he referring to that overwhelming happiness that you feel when you breathe a sigh of relief now that your upcoming exam has been pushed back for a week?

All of this debate brought me to re-read a few sections from George Orwell's 1984, which is famous for it's portrayal of government as being overpowering and restrictive of personal freedoms. In several instances, Orwell uses the dialogue between his characters to argue that when people choose protection over freedom, they lose a part of themselves and become almost zombie-like. Speaking of the community in chapter 5, he writes that "until they become conscious, they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious"(Orwell 5). In this way, the community is seen as powerless. Not only did they surrender their personal freedoms for the collective whole, but they also relinquished control of their fists.

A later Science Fiction interpretation of Orwell's "1984"and More's "Utopia"named "Little Brother" attempts to continue raising these issues but in a more realistic setting. Among countless other things, "Little Brother" comments on the use of "EZpasses" and pressures it's audience to recognize the danger in allowing the government to monitor and track your every move. (Upon first reading this I thought it was a stretch - until this week when I received a 130.00 ticket in the mail from my spring break trip to South Carolina this year. Even though I was not actually caught speeding - I'm from Jersey, I can't help myself - I was given a ticket because the time elapsed between one EZpass scan to the next was considered too short for me to have been going the speed limit). Anyway, all three texts raise similar issues. I find it interesting how many years this same storyline/argument has been going on in literature, society, and government without resolution.

Wildcard - A Sign From Above

The letter I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN last year to the boy's who lived below me at Montclair State University. They will never know the extent of my sleep deprivation  . . . 

:)

Rumination - Lady Anne Halkett, A Gender/Religion Commentary

While reading Lady Anne Halkett's work from The Memoirs, I couldn't help but pick up on the many references to gender and religion of the time period - both subtle and direct.

The passage beings"this gentleman came to see me sometimes in the company of ladies who had been my mother's neighbors in St. Martin's Lane, and sometimes alone, but whenever he came his discourse was serious, handsome, and tending to impress the advantages of piety, loyalty, and virtue" (1764). In her description of his discourse, Halkett attributes the gentleman with not only masculine characteristics and adjectives, but with personality traits such as piety, loyalty, and virtue. These attributes make him masculine, but also make him almost godly. The traits of "piety, loyalty, and virtue" have religious undertones and are each expressed directly in the bible. It just so happens that these traits that are typically used to describe a "good Christian" are here used to describe a "good" man. In this way, we see religious expectations and expectations of manhood intertwined.

However, masculine roles are not the only ones commented on in this passage. Halkett later writes of these traits when she admits that "these subjects were so agreeable to my own inclination that I could not but give them a good reception, especially from one that seemed to be so much an owner of them himself"(1764). In this way, we see her embracing a typical female role as she engages in servitude to the gentleman. This can also be taken as suggestively religious if we take into account the way the man is deified by the adjectives used to describe him.  Through this lens, perhaps her servitude to him may be representative of a "good Christian's" servitude to God.

Creative Engagement - Laura Thatcher Ulrich

I was inspired by the video blog for this week that began with the question: how much historical context can be seen through diary entries? How much of it is valid, applicable, or of interest to us? This led me to comment on a movie that I watched for a history course, "A Midwife's Tale" by Laura Thatcher Ulrich.

Laura Thatcher Ulrich created the film “A Midwife’s Tale” in order to provide an introspective view on life for a typical woman during the 18th century. Her work focused on analyzing and making a visual representation of the diary of Martha Ballard, a midwife who lived during the time period. A lot can be said about the time period and women's role in society at the time by looking at the text. For example, all of Ballard's diary entries are incredibly short, direct, and to the point. Her sentences are often grammatically flawed, lack verbs, and have tense disagreement. There are repeated misspellings and improper capitalizations. This careful examination of her writing may suggest that women during the 18th century were not as well educated as men, or at least not provided with the same learning opportunities. This lack of education is seen through her writing skills and can be broadly attributed to other women of the time period. 

Focusing more on the actual content of her diary entries, we see that almost every day she writes about falling ill or the sickness of a child. These entries directly parallel historical facts that disease and illness dominated the 18th century and was essentially inescapable. Her diary captures this historical fact and records it in a more personal context. Similarly, we see that most of her entries describe her role in helping these ailing friends and family members - suggesting that women's roles at the time were that of helpers who engaged in servitude and healing.