Mohammed Aldawsari
DR . Sue Tertter
13 November 12
#1
Family and Society Force
Individual self is shaped by two major forces, which are the larger forces of the society and the subtle, immediate, forces of the family. When people are growing up, the two forces affect development. However, as noted by various writers, the societal force is more influential than the family force. Auden in his poem depicts the plight of a man struggling through death and life in a hopeless society. The poem is Auden’s sardonic depiction of a man living in a society that views every person as a statistic. He asserts that the technology allows the government to view every person as nothing but a number hence starts his poem by talking about the bureau of statistics. In that case, Auden’s poem portrays the forces of a society directing his irony against a society, which is known to kill individuality. From the poem, then it is obvious that societal force has more influence on people as they are growing up. People are seen as numbers and statistics and they are no longer family people, as the society always tends to change one’s individuality.
This has also been clearly portrayed by Goodman in her article where she asserts that people are always recognized because of the ‘in group’ concept. This is a concept where the society groups people together depending on their values and beliefs. In her story, workers share a common belief that hard work always pays off in the end. In the article, Phil is a family man and through his hard work, he becomes the vice president of the company he works in. To him, his new role as the vice president supersedes his family. This man worked full time to in order to conform to the beliefs of the society and later died with his only focus being his job forgetting that he had a family It is obvious then that the forces of the society again dominate those of the family. People are shaped by the society and values and beliefs held tend to dominate people’s way of living. It is because of societal beliefs and norms that people work hard, as they believe that their effort will pay off. Through Goodman’s analysis of Phil’s family, it is clear why societal forces dominate those of the family. She alleges that Phil’s wife, Helen, had already given up competing with Phil’s work and had surrendered to a lonely life. It is apparent from the story, that Phil had no relationship with his family. Generally, this shows that the influential force is that of the society. Even at the time of the burial, his colleagues alleged that they would miss him while his family had nothing to say. They simply did not know him as a family man but rather as a societal man who had been heavily influenced by the norms and values of the larger society.
Egan asserts that it is always about the society. People always think as a group and not as a family. This is what has led to the coming up of numerous private institutions. When one person decides to own a company, others follow his or her footsteps in order to fit in and to feel part of the wider society. It is no longer about families but rather the society, the needs of the people, conforming to people’s way of life, imitating the values presented in the society, and living inline with to the principles of the society.
As noted by various writers, it is apparent that the societal force is more influential than the family force. It shapes how people act, live, work, think, believe, react to situations, and turn up as they grow up. Today, people think as a group and not in terms of a family, they act according to what the society expects them to and forget they have a family. Today, people grow up behaving as other members of the society do in order to please them, live according to other people’s standards and in order to fit in.
#2
Old Heistury
More than almost any first-world nation, America is a country born of immigration. Before the large scale migrations of the 20th century, recorded history shows immigrations from the Chinese and Vikings before the Europeans, and over 10,000 years before then there were migrations across Bering Strait, while the land bridge from Asia was passable. Immigration is at the heart of the land, preceding any idea of nation.
Given the frequency with which nationalism that is often evoked in the US, especially around the time of elections, it is easy to forget one simple fact; that virtually everyone in America is the descendant of immigrants, and this is a significant source of the strength of the nation. This is particularly evident in the extent to which immigrants believe in the American Dream of meritocratic reward for hard work, even when the majority of US-born Americans have forgotten or disregarded this dream. Although each focuses on a different aspects, the readings show that America’s strength lies in its hybridity and the dream that brings migration and commits people to the idea of being American.
There are four main points within the readings that support this idea. They are the impossibility of purity in Reed, the value of location-specific self-identification on performance, the essentially hybrid nature of Americans shown by Morales, and the example of the American Dreamer described by Anderson.
The first of the readings focuses on the idea of a ‘pure’ Western culture, one that has a lineage that is entirely geographically local to western Europe. He uses many examples, but perhaps it would be most useful to refer to two facts he does not state; that modern humanity began in Africa, and civilisation began in the Fertile Crescent. Reed points out that the vaunted puritans behaved in “such a bizarre and irrational manner that [it] comes down to us as a late-movie horror film”, and that in fact the influence of different cultures has strengthened the art, culture and politics of nations even in the monolithic “Western Civilization”.
This idea is taken up by the article from The Economist, which focuses on the extent to which immigrants that retain a coherent link to their country of origin, such as Mexican-Americans, Japanese-Americans or Jamaican-Americans, perform significantly better than those that define themselves more broadly, (e.g. Hispanic or black). It notes that “immigrant culture is not a problem in America. American culture is.” America’s strength lies in the vigour and drive that these immigrants possess, which has been lost to the general American populace.
This hybridity is taken up by Morales, whose poem focuses on the extent to which she is a “child of many diaspora, born into this continent at a crossroads [and] whole.” In a more personal way, she makes the same point that Reed does; that her strengths come not from a purity of Western culture, but rather from the fragments of many different cultures that have combined to produce her.
Finally, Anderson creates another personal portrait, of a man who embodies the bright side of the Puritan ethos; “work hard, save money, live simply” and thus achieve the American dream of meritocracy, where a person’s work “defines his life and aspirations”. Through Nguu’s life story, we see a man who is committed to the ideals of America, to the extent that he undergoes significant hardship but till triumphs. In doing so, he differentiates himself from the US-born Americans, who as noted in the Economist article have largely given up on the principle that America was founded on of self-reliance and hard work. As with all immigration, “Nguyen Nguu both created and re-created his America.”
In summary, although each of these authors focuses on a different aspect of American culture, but what is true for all of them is that they show that immigration is the lifeblood and strength of our culture. It is in the hybridity and drive that immigration brings that America can be continue to be the nation it dreams of itself as.
#3
Heroes were celebrities before celebrities; people and characters whose lived were idolised as the apex of what a person could or should hope to be. As such, heroism, just like celebrity, is always a matter of fantasy; it is axiomatic that we should never meet our heroes, because they always disappoint. Heroes represent ideal of behaviour, ways of acting that are simple and pure, black and white in a world made up almost entirely of shades of grey, and it is exactly this simplicity for which we valorise them. Even scientific heroes such as Einstein or Tesla are noted for single accomplishments, which are treated as if they happened in a moment, rather than as a lifetime’s work. They are willing to risk great odds for victories beyond the reach of ordinary men, and it is in this that we find our aspiration.
This is also why great heroes are unrealistic. Having said this, the everyday hero has become a far more developed concept over the last few years, from the firemen and other service personnel in the wake of 9/11 to the protester, listed as man of the year by time magazine in 2011 – an anonymous everyman, standing up against the system for what they believed was right. As such, there is always a tension between the idealised hero and the everyman, to the degree that in many places they are separately embodied in the same person; Clark Kent is a prize winning investigative journalist, but superman is the hero; and similarly, Bruce Wayne is a highly successful businessman, but Batman is the hero.
The classical unrealistic hero is valorised because they are unrealistic; they are capable of expressing something that we aspire to in a way that no real person could, and we need our heroes to be statements of ideals, who constantly push us further towards those ideals, no matter how unrealistic they are in practice. As Bellah et al. state, this mythical status is especially endemic to American heroes, who are often characters who have no real existence or quotidian lives. They need the lack of this day-today life to truly represent the ideals that they embody – being realistic would detract from the purity of their goals and actions, muddy them by showing that their grand dreams and actions are formed from the clay or ordinary live rather than from a conceptual commitment. The Lone Ranger must ride off into the sunset, and the Detective must disappear into the night; anything else would make them less worthy. Unlike many heroes, the American hero is always the outsider, and often a misfit. This means, like the fool who is the only one allowed to speak the truth to the king, they are capable of acting as society’s guardians in a way that those within society cannot.
However, this disconnect from society is by no means a good thing. As we see in Feiffer’s story of Superman, there is a dark side to this imaginary hero; his behaviour is antisocial, maladjusted, chauvinist, masochistic, and sadistic; this hero, in being outside society, treats those within it as toys. These traits are, on closer examination, common to the fantastical celebrity hero; filled with arrogance, cruelty and wanton disregard for the long-term consequences of their actions; superheroes do not pay for property damage, and Jack Bauer does not have to worry about the fact that the American use of torture is the number one recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda, as reported by the CIA recently. This is not a hero that serves a role model; rather, it is a hero in the classical sense, merely a fantastical character pivotal to a story.
This is in stark contrast to Lindbergh, as he is described by Allen; a modest, self-effacing man who achieved something extraordinary. In Allen’s story, Lindbergh is revered for the same reasons that the protester now is; he was a real hero, empty of the caricature of celebrity, merely a man who has achieved greatness. It is in this that we find the great advantage of this kind of heroism. It does not require that one holds oneself to unrealistic ideals that are so vivid that, in reality, they are severe character flaws; rather, it holds open the possibility of greatness for all of us, and shows a kind of hero that is much more sophisticated and deeper than the imaginary hero that celebrity creates. Real heroism is not a matter of high drama, but of proper living, and that is why Rosa Parks is a better role model than Superman.
#4
Family Communication
Family connection, as observed in minor cultures, is something mainstream America can learn from. The communication is different in different countries. Long time ago, people used to take a long time to connect with each other. Nowadays, there are so many different ways in which people can use inventions and new technology to contact with each other. However, there are many ways for communication and its different in each country.
Frist of all, we have some rules in our family, for example if my father requests me to do something I have to do it as what he said, that we stick to strictly. I used to stay with them all the time and also I spend most of my time with them. Am not allowed to leave home until I get married unlike what I saw here in the United States. I saw a lot of people leaving their families when they get over age.
Family if they get problem the decided it together and they haven’t get a lot of problem because the asset them family as what they want to. Our family likes to make them children happy and more responsible. They can bring everything to their children so the kids stay home, most of the time and don’t leave them sad. They like to keep them exited but they have to listen to their family. Parents have to be more responsible with their children because they are a gift from God. Furthermore, they study in good schools and they get higher education.
Almost every single person in our country goes to the mosque to pray on Friday. After that, they meet each other and drink Arabic coffee and talk about a lot of things, like politics and family issues, then they eat lunch together. People get ready for schools and jobs on Friday. In my country, I have to visit my grandfather and grandmother each Friday and some time I visit them on Wednesdays and it’s the kind of communication that gets our family very close and it’s different compared to other countries.
My family is a big part in my life and I like to spend most of my time with them. Sometimes we like to hang out with each other and I never leave them alone. I like to listen to them and follow their rules. My family trust me for everything because am the older one in my family. They always push me just to get higher scores in school. Whatever happens, I’ll be what they want me to be.