After reading Panopticism by Foucault, I began to think about how monitored I am throughout the day without even my realizing it. In school, I sit at a desk where the teacher is in center-front of the room giving his lecture and the doors have windows that people routinely look through. Also, we have windows that lead to the outside. On the main floor, certain windows allow passer-bys to peek into the room. In my house, I also have windows. Here, however, people can see through them and determine whether others are home or not, awake or sleep, avoiding them or answering the door. Our windows are not darkly tinted and even the bathrooms don't go all the way to the floor or up to the wall. At any time during my day, I have no idea how many people are watching me. Even when we eat our lunches at a circular table, there is surveillance. The only time humans are truly without surveillance is our digital-lives and our relationship with online social media.
The online world is harsh and cruel. It is a place where people who normally hide within the woodwork, now speak freely and critically. Foucault says that the Panoptican, "was also a laboratory; it could be used as a machine to carry out experiments, to alter behavior, to train or correct individuals" (Foucault 10). I believe this certainly true in the case of online bullying. When the bully is out int he open and everyone is watching her petty actions, she is less likely to continue the behavior. However, if she is left to her own devices evil words will flow over. Humans are,at the a core, flawed being. The Panoptican allows us to check our moral code more often because we are always being monitored.
Question:Have you ever written a mean comment on Facebook?
I loved reading Self-Reliance because it was filled with truth-bombs. So many of the statements really spoke to me, so I thought I would share a few really quotes that I found really applicable.
1. "We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of the divine idea which each of us represents" (Emerson 2). I find, in my daily life, I often restrain my thoughts in order to not offend people or not have to not share my ideas because what I would say would cause others to judge me. This statement is true especially when my opinion is different then someone else's. When discussing certain topics, some answers are expected and if our answer deviates from what the other person is predicting us to say, judgement and argument can follow. Often to avoid this altercation, I will say, "Hmmmm...I haven't thought about that yet". When in actually, I have and my opinion is just different from theirs.
2. To go along with my first observation, Emerson continues, "For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure. And therefore a man must know how to estimate a sour face" (Emerson 3). When encountering a situation like the one above, I read the person's sour face and then answer accordingly. The few times I have given my non-conforming opinion I have been told I was wrong and received a very sour look (much like the one in the above picture) because of my nonconformity. Going to a Christian school really amplifies the degree to which this is enacted because many of life's unanswered questions are involving religion. When my opinion differs on a religious matter it is usually because the answer is not in the Bible, and therefore a question mark. Most of the time, people are very dead-set about opinion oriented questions in relation to the Bible. Therefore, when I tell my opposing opinion, I am shut down and my idea is rejected by the other person. The person was displeased with my answer, like Emerson said would happen.
3. In order to form opposing beliefs often I can't be in a group situation. Emerson says, "it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude" (Emerson 3). Like I mentioned above, in conversation I often find myself concealing my true opinion. However, when I'm on my own, I don't have to lie to myself or flee from the judgement of others because there is no one to flee from. I wish I could be the great man and not be afraid of the judgement of others, but for now I will stay under the cloak of "hmmm....I haven't thought about that yet".
Question: Do you often not share your opinion because of what others may think?
Walt Whitman's "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry", from his book Leaves of Grass, is phenomenal at depicting the world we live with such descriptive narration. It proved impossible for me to not apply his imagery to my own life. These are just of my observations of the world in relation to his.
1. "Sea-gull, saw high in the air floating with motionless wings, oscillating their bodies" (Whitman 1). Whitman describes seagulls in such poetic terms. I, on the other hand, see less beauty in these creatures. Although their flight is pretty, Whitman failed to mention their awful attitudes. I had two seagull memories that pop-out in my mind. One was on a family vacation in North Carolina in the Outer Banks. It was summertime and we were one the beach. My parents thought it would be so perfect to feed the seagulls. Never again will I make this mistake. After I threw the first piece of bread, it was all over for me. The seagulls attacked me, with their majestic flight seemingly to cause me to have a heart attack, and I was left fleeing for what seemed to be my life leaving the loaf of bread for them to fight over. My second memory involves seeing the flight of a seagull up close. I was on a field trip in elementary school. We were on a boat in the Chesapeake Bay learning about the sea creatures. A seagull flew over us and the guide pointed out the beauty of its figure and such. In return, the seagull pooped all over the ship and us. Long story short, I remember nothing from that field trip except the angry, pooping bird.
2. Whitman describes the port cities as, "Come on, ships from the lower bay! pass up or down, white-sail'd schooners, sloops, lighters!"..."Thrive, cities- bring your freight, bring your shows, ample and sufficient rivers, expand, being that which none else is perhaps more spiritual" (Whitman 4). While there is a ton of beauty in the way the ships glide across the water and how harmoniously sailboats sail, the port cities at the time period of 1855 were disgusting. Industrial growth around the ports led to huge amounts of people. This is only natural because people will flock to whether the jobs are, however with more people comes more problems and hygienic issues. The waters were murky due to the whaling industry and factory waste.
In conclusion, although Walt Whitman is correct about so much of the simple beauty of nature, he also fails to comment on the realities of life. Nature is not always as glamorous as Whitman would have it appear. From reading his article, it is understandable that so many Americans back in the day pictured these perfect little seaports and wanted to travel there only to be disappointed upon arrival. Nature shows glimmers of beauty, but also, the harsh reality is, it is also disgusting at times. I would have like Walt Whitman to pay tribute to both the beauty and the less-admirable parts of nature.
Question: Have you ever had a gross encounter with nature when it was well, just being nature?
"The Wound-Dresser" is a poem about an old man who is asked to recount his days, during his youth, when he worked as a wound-dresser in the war-field hospital. The man recalls the faces and remembers his agony for the patients. "I onward go, I stop, with hinged knees and a steady hand to dress wounds, I am firm with each, the pangs are sharp yet unavoidable, one turns to me his appealing eyes- poor boy! I never knew you, yet I think I could not refuse this moment to die for you, if that would save you" (Whitman 2).
This poem really captures the basic human compassion, which is instilled in all of us, that we feel towards those in need. The wound-dresser was not immune to the soldiers pains and sufferings. Today, we often consider doctors as non-congenial robots who take no personal claim in their dealings with patients. The doctor from the show House comes to mind. He will purposely put his patients in agony and cause them both physical and emotional pain at times. He is definitely not afraid to tell them how it is. However, the side to House that many don't see is his hidden compassion. He will stay up all night and labor over his patients possible diseases and ailments. His own health is often put in second place compared to the lives of his patients. He truly cares about their lives even though he is afraid to show any compassion towards them.
The wound dresser is a personification of this hidden compassion. The old man says he would have even given up his own life in order to remove his patients' pains. This man is truly amazing and I think we would all be very lucky to have put our wounds in his tender hands.
Question: Have you ever received the unmerited compassion of a stranger? How did it make you feel?
In Henry David Thoreau's paper, Resistance to Civil Government, he discusses his views on the government and how to actually make a difference. One of his main points was, "Even voting for the right is doing nothing. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of the masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote" (Thoreau 856). Basically, Thoreau is stating that voting in mass is worthless because when change happens it will be due to economics not what is morally right or wrong, and it is the individual who breaks away from the mass to make a difference because he is acting solely on moral means.
I'm torn whether to agree or disagree with Thoreau because I believe in the benefit of both the mass and the individual. Also, I believe that some individuals are completely wrong and are protesting the wrong things. For example, current day neo-Nazis should be silenced because their morals are wrong and the mass of America has told them so. However, some big movements began with the works an individual. I believe there has to be a certain balance between the mass and the individual. If a mass of passionate individuals come together as a group, I believe this is the perfect harmony in Thoreau's theory. Unlike Thoreau I believe in the virtue of the masses of men. There is nothing wrong with placing a well informed vote in a ballot box. It doesn't mean you aren't standing up for what you believe in it simply means you are quieter in your means of creating change.
Question: Do you think there is more benefit in individual protests or the vote/protest of many?
