Society and the Man Behind the Mask

In two months, my school district will be performing its annual spring musical, Phantom of the Opera. And since I realized that this is my last chance to get involved, I decided that I had to metaphorically give my track team the middle finger (in the kindest way possible) and sign myself up to play in the pit. So I did. And I have to say, I'M SO EXCITED I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH MYSELF ANYMORE.

Needless to say, I've been thinking a lot about the plot of the Phantom of the Opera; I fell in love with it in 2004 when the movie version came out, read the book on the plane to Israel when I was 11, laughed for days at "Phantom in 15 Minutes", then went to see it on Broadway in Chicago in middle school. After that point, it faded out of my focus for a a few years. Until now...

It has since dawned on me that we need only look at the main conflict in the story to sneak a peek of society's dirty laundry showing beneath its t-shirt declaring tolerance: the negative perception of the physically deformed.

Think... the Phantom, the Joker from The Dark Knight, Freddie Krueger from The Nightmare on Elm Street, Shakespeare's Richard III. All were the villains of their stories (or were perceived to be by the mainstream societal consciousness), and all were vanquished in the end. Oh, and how could I forget: all had a physical deformity. Phantom was missing a nose and other parts of his face on one side, Heath Ledger's Joker had severe scarring on the sides of his mouth, Freddie Krueger was a burn victim, and Richard III was a hunchback.

After a little research, I found that assigning negative character traits to the physically deformed was a staple of the past for our society; historical canon only serves to reflect a deeper cultural understanding that deformed people were considered to be inherently "wrong" and unworthy of a role as a perfect protagonist. But is this still the case? Do we still demonize people with physical deformities? More importantly, would we notice if we did?

Nowadays, medical advances have provided inroads in fixing many birth defects and other acquired deformities. But with more surgical options available, those who cannot be treated by these means may just find themselves in a worse place than before; with fewer and fewer fellows, they may just end up more isolated and more stigmatized for not being "worthy" of correction.

Yet the opposite is also possible: as society tends toward the liberal in what concerns social issues and the perception of human difference, people may reach a new level of openness in understanding physical deformities and accepting them in our cultural definition of beauty. It has happened before, and it can happen again.

The truth of the matter is impossible to say for sure; I'd like to think that the latter will become the norm, but wishing doesn't always culminate in reality. What do you think will happen? Have you seen examples of either of these outcomes?

Careful! Your Oedipal Complex is showing.

One of the most well-known aspects of Freud's theory of the psychosexual stages of development is the Oedipal Complex, named for the title character in the Sophocles's ancient Greek tragedy, Oedipus Rex. It states that many young boys between the ages of 3 and 5 feel desire for their mother and therefore feel anger and animosity toward their father, a competitor for their mother's love.

In the years since Freud published his theory, much application of his ideas has taken place in conjunction with modern and past literature and history-- psychologists and anthropologists like Clyde Kluckhohn, Weston La Barre, and Margaret Mead have expanded and applied this theory to the early history of man and to traditional folklore, involving everything from the development of traditional patriarchy and marriage laws in tribal societies, to a psychoanalytic treatment to Shakespeare's classic tragedy, Hamlet.

When thinking about the Oedipal Complex, I inevitably begin to apply it to modern life: is the Oedipal Complex still relevant, almost 100 years after Freud postulated it? Subsequently, has our modern technology world quashed all context for Freud's theory? Can the Oedipal Complex be applied to changing familial relationships?

Considering the fact that technology now mediates almost all of our social interactions and that only about 25% of families in America are nuclear, the stage for the Oedipal Complex may have changed. The way I see it, I need only attend a family gathering to see my toddler cousin reach for his mother, sneakily trying to pull her cell phone out of her pocket to play with the touch screen. It's almost shocking how easy it is to set a baby down with an iPad and watch them wile away the hours, leaving the child entertained, happy, healthy, and without a strong connection to their parents. And the societal changes don't end there. According to the 2010 census, 115,000 households in the United States consist of same-sex partners with children, and of those households, roughly 30% contain adopted children as opposed to biological children. Freud certainly couldn't have predicted that!

The questions come down to this: when a 4-year old is more preoccupied with Fruit Ninja than his mother's affection, is there any possibility for the development of an Oedipal Complex? When a family contains two dads, two moms, a single parent, or non-biologically related families, is there any possibility that a little boy can cling to the parent of the opposite sex in competition with their father figure? Some psychologists don't think there is, namely those who belong to the movement among behaviorists ending in the conclusion that the Oedipal Complex is only of the 20th century.

Summing it up, all evidence seems to point to the fact that an Oedipal Complex can't exist within the framework of a landslide shift in the necessary interpersonal relationships. Even more prevalent than the statistics are the "shivery yuckies" I feel when I think about little boys in love with their mothers. And yet, even with all this evidence on my side, I still find myself wondering if perhaps this psychology that has been mapped in history for hundreds of years can't find a way to survive the modern era. So what do you think? Is the Oedipal Complex innate, or is it socially contextual?

Understanding Interpersonal Relationships

A typical familial relationship between my father, my big sister, and me.

I've spent half of my school year posting about instances of interesting interpersonal relationships in the news, in history, and in literature, but I've only recently realized that I have never written a post about the topic itself. Maybe this is only happening now because lately I've been in a very meta mood, but regardless...voilà!

Interpersonal relationships, in their simplest form, involve the social connections made between people; these obviously include romantic and family relationships, but also some that might be missed, like the relationship between a teacher and a student, a pastor and his congregation, several families of neighbors, a pair of identical twins, or the President and the people of the United States. Sociology, psychology, and anthropology all make use of an understanding of interpersonal relationships in their research and practice. This field of thinking is limited to an undefined number of people, but generally transitions to international relations when concerning populations of people, nations, and MNCs/NGOs.

However, a few aspects remain the same when considering relationships on the people-to-people and nation-to-nation level: dominance, submissiveness, interdependence, and vulnerability. Essentially, there is usually, but not always, someone who is more prevalent in the relationship, someone who listens to and obeys the dominant person or group, a reliance on each other, and a feeling of weakness without the relationship that helps to sustain it.

Such relationships can be harmonious as with a couple that has been married happily for 50+ years or two life-long friends. On the contrary, they can be tense, as between two colleagues competing for the same promotion forced to work together. They can be necessary, like when a group of nations allies together against destruction by another force (think WWI). Or they can even be dangerous, as is the relationship between a drug dealer and their clients.

Using these universal tools of analysis for interpersonal relationships and even international relations, it is possible to analyze the people and nations in the books we read, the movies we watch, the news we hear, and in our own lives. Applying a more scientific approach even makes it possible to quantify that which seems to be beyond rational comprehension. It's all a part of the analytic approach to people and to life.

The Faces of the State of the Union

Jackie Bray stands with Michelle Obama at the State of the Union address.

As you probably know, on January 24, President Obama delivered his third State of the Union address to Congress. And whether you're a Republican, a Democrat, or a die-hard Ralph Nader supporter, you were subjected to the rhetoric in his speech (assuming that you were, in fact, listening to what he said and not just staring at the orange hue of John Boehner's face for over an hour). Maybe what stuck was his repeated use of the phrase, "built to last", or his delightfully tacky joke about spilled milk. Perhaps it was just his unique speaking style that made the entire country feel infallible for 70 minutes.

Personally, I absorbed how often he brought up the stories of ordinary American citizens. Yet that alone would not have stayed with me for long; it was the surprise of settling in for a story about the perhaps-fabricated struggles of *insert name here* from Middle of Nowhere, USA, and then BAM! I was looking right into their surprised face. It was unsettling initially, to say the least, because I actually felt guilty for doubting the truth of Obama's words when I saw that these people were not just rhetorical devices.

For this reason, I would argue that the use of Jackie Bray, Bryan Ritterby, and Warren Buffet's secretary, Debbie Bosanek, were the strongest rhetoric in his speech last week, in the same way that "Joe the Plumber" redefined John McCain's 2008 political campaign.

The strategy is not unique to politics. Everyone has seen the long commercials for UNICEF that present the name and dirt-streaked face of a weeping African orphan left to raise his five siblings, infected by malaria and HIV and without hope. While this example takes on a decidedly more depressing spin than those in a political campaign, the basic idea is the same: choose a person to represent a larger group, give them a name, give them a story, and give them a face to prove that they're not hypothetical. A play on pathos, if you will.

Thus the questions remain: why does this strategy work? Why have such diverse organizations been able to exploit this rhetorical strategy when everyone has seen it before? And why does it continue to surprise me?

The truth of the matter is that as a world, we've become unaccustomed to having to look at people. With the ease of telephone and online communication, face-to-face interaction is less important than ever and eye contact is becoming a memory of a bygone era.

I always thought I was immune to this loss on interpersonal interaction; after all, I speak competitively every weekend, where connection with the audience is essential. But I realized that while I can dish it out, I can't take it. Sure, I am able to express my point while locking eyes with my listeners and appealing to every sensitive bone in their body, but I can no longer sit comfortably as someone uses those strategies on me. I am a citizen of this changing world like anyone else, speech team or not. So to see the people who were being referenced, to put a face to the symbol, unsettled me. And if this is the case, this rhetorical strategy's power will grow as we continue to become a faceless society.

Capote's Masterpiece: In Cold Blood

Written by Truman Capote and published in 1966, In Cold Blood follows the true story of the murders of the Clutter family in Holcomb, Kansas on November 15, 1959: After hearing about this quadruple homicide and before any killers were implicated, Capote and his friend Harper Lee traveled to Kansas and took thousands of pages of interview notes, which he then synthesized into a true-but-somewhat-fictionalized account of the people involved and events leading up to this tragic event.

Let me start out by saying that I loved this book. I think the most apt word to describe it is "page turner", for that it truly what it was. Yet it's not a mystery as many murder novels are, because from the beginning, you are introduced to the entire Clutter family, as well as the two murderers, Perry Smith and Dick Hickock. The plot thus unfolds as the events start to make sense: it's not "whodunit?", but rather "whytheydunit?".

In a literary sense, one of the main things I noticed is that the story is characterized by juxtaposition. Starting with the recreated last day of the Clutter family, the events are juxtaposed against the musings and plannings of the two murderers, who often delve back into their pasts to justify their actions and give the reader a sense of why they were doing what they were doing. After the Clutters were murdered, the focus switched to the fleeing murderers and their continued crime spree juxtaposed with the agony of the evidence-less investigation. Everything came together to make one stellar novel for a blogger exploring interpersonal relations.

Basically, this book is pregnant with people relating to people: the Clutter family relating to themselves, Herb Clutter's kindness to his employees (one of whom told Dick about the Clutter's whereabouts initially, which ultimately ended in their deaths), Nancy's gentle nature that caused her to be revered among the other youths in the town, Perry's rough relationship with his dysfunctional or dead family, Dick's abuse of the trust of his simple-minded his parents, the town postmistress' hatred of the gossiping neighbors... Pick any character, and a complex web can be drawn relating them to everyone else mentioned in the novel.

But the most poignant relationship between people in In Cold Blood concerns the residents of this sleepy town (population 270) and how the murder changed their lives. Neighbors who knew each other for thirty years began gossiping and speculating that the killer was among them; the crime was as mentally harmful to random townsfolk as it was to the remaining members of the Clutter family. Truman Capote puts it best when, on page 5, he says,

"At the time, not a soul in sleeping Holcomb heard them-- four shotgun blasts that, all told, ended six human lives. But afterward, the townspeople, theretofore sufficiently unfearful of each other to seldom trouble to lock their doors, found fantasy re-creating them over and again-- those somber explosions that stimulated fires of mistrust in the glare of which many neighbors viewed each other strangely, and as strangers".

I give this book 5 stars out of 5. From what I understand, the film version is gruesome (though I've never actually seen it). But this book is tasteful when addressing the violence of this crime, getting into the mentality of the act rather than the gory details. It's simply fascinating.

Bobby McFerrin Hacks Your Brain With Music

All throughout life, I've lived in the paradigm of being a music person. That being said, I've had an innate understanding that everyone who did not live in the same realm, all the others, were decidedly non-music people. After one of my close family friends told me that he thought all music except for country pop was irritating noise, I damn near lost it. For me, it was a classic case of "us vs. them", and the "them" were just unenlightened, lazy, boring, soulless people. I simply could not imagine someone not loving music, not wanting to listen to it, study it, play it, and appreciate it for the rest of their lives.

I'll admit that my opinion hasn't changed very much in recent times. This isn't a post about how my world was turned upside down when I discovered the dark side of music, the evil lurking below the surface of the Dorian mode. In fact, what I began to realize is that there are no such thing as non-music people. I know it might sound ridiculous, but the more I read and research, the more I discover that music as a form of enjoyment and expression of identity is something unique to humans, something for which we all have the capacity.

Sure, some people may claim (sometimes rightfully so) that they don't like most types of music: I even understand complaints against rap music as being obscene, against classical music as being boring and stuck-up, and against rock music as being abrasive and shallow. The thing is, not enjoying certain genres of music is no longer enough for me to condemn someone to the dreaded cult of the non-musical. In fact, this video shows that everyone has the ability to understand music and to be surprised by this ability in themselves. And the fact that every audience that hears Bobby McFerrin, every person, whether they have instruction in music or not, can figure out a basic pentatonic scale is a uniting force among the world.

So while this video didn't make me view non-musical people in a better light, it helped me realize that this group is much smaller than I previously thought. It's not about "us vs. them", it's just all "us". Everyone has something about them that is musical, whether they realize it or not, and this is the last time I view anyone in a negative light for claiming ignorance. There's no need for music to become a divisive force among people, especially not in my mind. It really has the power to bring the world together in a song.

In the immortal words of the Coca-Cola commercial, and in the cheesiest ending that will ever grace my blog, "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony..."

It may just be easier than you think.

The Gay Gene and What It All Means

It's a growing trend in my household: every mention of a gay, lesbian, or bisexual classmate is met with a falter as my parents inquire as to whether news of the homosexuality of my friends surprises me. I consistently reply with, "of course not", but I often forget the novelty of liberty to be gay; when my parents were teenagers, hardly anyone was out of the closet. Homosexuality was repressed and seen as foreign, uncomfortable, or even slightly repulsive. The times certainly have changed, and only some have changed with them. I admire adults like my parents and even my grandmother, who are clearly unable to view homosexuality as "any old thing", but try their damnedest to be as accepting as possible. In any case, homosexuality certainly is a hot topic right now.

Generally, the issue among people with traditional (and often religious) values is that homosexuality is morally wrong because it's not transcribed in *insert religious text here*. This causes people to try to simplify the issue by determining a justification for the immorality so that "them crazy liberal folk" will finally see the error of their ways in accepting such behavior. Thus the argument foments into whether homosexuality is a decision or something you're born with. Choice or gene, essentially.

Now it's pretty apparent that viewing homosexuality as a choice is a dangerous mode of thinking; it's for this reason that there are reprogramming clinics and "pray the gay away" camps for LGB teens, as well as rampant hate crimes against homosexuals. One need only look at the comments section on any popular YouTube video to find alarming use of anti-gay language in a nonsensical context to see evidence of the anti-gay sentiment among those who believe homosexuality is a choice.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe homosexuality is genetic, that it is an inevitability and should be accepted because it's not something that's about to just disappear. Among this crowd, there is heavy support for gays, with pro-gay cries echoing just as loud as those that are anti-gay. Basically, the whole issue is a noisy, reverberating mess.

What many may not realize, however, is that viewing homosexuality as being linked to genetics is also a dangerous mode of thinking. Recently, I've read several articles about scientist Dean Hamer of the National Institute of Health, who in 1993, announced that he'd isolated the "gay gene" on the q28 allele of the X chromosome in males. While his results were never able to be repeated, and he was later accused of fabricating them, this supposed discovery brought forth a new wave of talk about homosexuality. What arose from this was the shocking quote from prominent gay community members saying that viewing homosexuality as genetic is also detrimental because it makes people both pity those who "suffer" from it (in the same way we pity someone born with a physical disability) and makes the people with traditional values desire gene therapy to modify future children to prevent this "unnatural mutation".

Everything considered, my solution, and the mode of thinking that I most often employ in regarding this issue, is to stop trying to justify homosexuality. By trying to figure out why, we lose the ability to see individual people; in this way, justification, whether pro- or anti-gay, is dehumanizing. It doesn't matter why people are attracted to one sex or another, only that homosexuality is a reality in our world and that it's not going away, no matter how much we try to break it down.

Thoughts? Opinions? Post them below!

Pass the Tofurky

Being a pescetarian (like a vegetarian, but with fish included in my diet), Thanksgiving isn't exactly my ideal holiday. While I love mashed potatoes, green bean casserole, and bringing the whole family together to appreciate the good fortune in our lives, I despise fielding unending questions from my grandma about why I choose not to eat turkey on this holiday. Even on days that aren't centered on the slaughter and consumption of other creatures, people constantly inquire about my motives for limiting my diet. It's evident to me that people treat me differently once they discover my eating habits; once they know, their voices fill with both awe at my self-control and doubt about my sanity.

Food is no longer just a means for survival; it is so intrinsically and uniquely cultural and so temporal that people see it as an extension of themselves. Sharing a meal, like many people do on Thanksgiving, has implications beyond those created in the production and consumption of the food that arrives on the table. That being said, people become very sensitive about food, seeing any refusal to partake in the prepared meal as a personal insult, and guarding family recipes with their lives. This puts vegetarians, vegans, or anyone who chooses to limit their diet (those with medical dietary restrictions are looked upon differently, a point to be examined another time) in a difficult spot, living in a world of indiscriminate eaters.

Well, why do I choose to limit what I eat? I have a wide range of reasons, including but not limited to animal welfare, energy inefficiency, religious belief, negative effects on ecology and health, and dislike for the taste of meat. But I do not encourage others to pursue veganism, vegetarianism, or even pescetarianism. In fact, I would argue against it if it would cause any discomfort, familial fracture, feeling of loss of culture, or desire for meat. The point is that I feel none of those things, despite my limited diet, and that's why it works for me.

My message to the people who raise an eyebrow at my diet is similar to that of author Jonathan Safran Foer in his book Eating Animals (a fantastic read!): people should not try to confine themselves within the labels of "vegetarian", "vegan", or even "carnivore" (yes, "carnivore" is a label too). What every single person should try to achieve, regardless of their opinions on eating animal products, is to become a conscious consumer.

All too often, people view eating as all-or-nothing; either you're a meat-eater or you're a vegetarian. In reality, making situation-specific choices is the best decision and is considerably more rational than blindly limiting (or un-limiting) your diet. Maybe you choose to eat beef but cut out chicken and turkey because of the amount of cruelty in their production. Maybe you choose to eat chicken only once a week, maybe you choose to eat only kosher meat. The most important thing is to be conscious of the cost of your food (in ecology, culture, and cruelty) and to make sustainable choices from that point.

In what way do you choose to eat and why? Let me know!

The Whistle-Blower

There is a nouveau-archetype evolving in our ever changing world, especially pertinent now because the Republican nomination for President is heating up: the whistle-blower. Republican nominee Herman Cain has been accused of sexual harassment by about four women in the last few weeks, occurring somewhere in the last ten or fifteen years. There is extensive evidence against him. Sharon Bialek (the only woman to come forward) lost her job in the 1990s and asked Cain, then the president of the National Restaurant Association, for help. She even remembers the clothing she was wearing at the time of the inappropriate conduct.

This is not the first time in history that someone has come forward against a politician in order to prevent them from winning a seat. In 1991, Anita Hill came forward against Clarence Thomas, running for a position on the Supreme court. He still won the seat, and as a consequence, Ms. Hill was judged, called delusional and a scorned woman out for revenge. She was viewed as someone meddling in politics, attempting to slander a candidate for personal gain.

This appears to be what is happening and will continue to happen to Ms. Bialek: already, her entire past has been chronicled, as well as her past job history and testaments to her character. It seems that everyone, especially the media and Herman Cain's campaign team, is trying to find a way to prove she's lying, whether in reality or through manipulating public opinion, it makes no difference.

Throughout literature, canon, history, and popular media, the one who spills the beans is seen as weak, spineless, and cowardly. Even as children, we mark the "one who tells" as a tattletale. Thus, in addition to the sexual harassment the women go through, there is an additional toll placed by those who should be listening. According to Laura Beth Nielsen, a researcher at the American Bar Association and an associate professor of law and sociology at Northwestern University,

"I can't tell you how many accusers have gone bankrupt, gotten divorced, or start having drinking or drug-use problems... Even if they win, they feel like they've lost. Some say, 'I'm glad I made the point that they couldn't do that'. But by and large, they feel pretty chewed up and spit out by the justice system" (Chicago Tribune, front page of the edition from Sunday, November 13, 2011)

So why do we hate the whistle-blower so much and why do we treat them in the way we do? I think the answer is multi-fold. It's partly because victims use public media in order to tell their story, which reminds us too much of the people who enter reality competitions like American Idol or Survivor just for fifteen minutes of fame. This occurrence is so common nowadays that we have lost respect for ordinary people (not politicians) propelling controversial viewpoints through the news. Perhaps we also view sexual harassment as something to be accepted or ignored, yet a major counterpoint exists in the reaction to the Penn State scandal, recently revealed; however, the difference is the nature of this scandal, involving young boys versus a grown woman with a past. Also, sexual harassment may not be viewed as a real crime because it's not necessarily rape and no one dies or gets maimed.

Irrespective of the reasoning, from now on, the public should operate under the knowledge that by exposing their harassment, the whistle-blower is putting him or herself into more danger than if they just remained quiet. Scrutinizing them for evidence of lies, bad character, or desire for fame is not necessary to the extent we make it seem. This is not meant to deter questioning the situation, but rather to keep that questioning productive, constructive, and considerate.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know!

The World's Kampf with "Mein Kampf"

According to a post by Sarah Wildman on the Latitude blog of the New York Times, in 2015, the state of Bavaria loses its copyright on the infamous novel Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. To recap on history, let's explore the implication of this book on Germany in the decade before the outbreak of WWII. In an article entitled "How 'Mein Kampf' Changed the World", Heather Whipps breaks it down:

"[In Hitler's book,] chief among his ideas was the absolute, innate superiority of the Germanic race, which Hitler called Aryan. "Mein Kampf" singled out Jews as a source of many of Germany's ills and a threat to Aryan dominance. The Aryans had a duty to restore Germany's former glory and enlarge its territory.

"Mein Kampf" gained enormous readership in the early 1930s and became the de facto Nazi bible. Every new married couple received a free copy on their wedding day, and every soldier had one included as a part of his gear. At the outset of World War II, the book had been translated into 11 languages and sold 5 million copies."

That number has since grown to 70 million copies. What does this mean? Well, after this point, any efforts to prevent the publishing or sale of this book will be futile because it will belong to the public domain. Also, Germany's previous efforts to prevent all promotion of Nazi paraphernalia will be undermined in a huge way, with the novel "that started it all" falling outside their jurisdiction. Still, there might be actions that can be taken to further the ban on this book starting in 2015, but they would make many people around the world (even in the US) cringe, appearing to be ardent infringements on the rights of free press.

Is this a problem? It depends on how you see it. Historian Jean-Marc Dreyfus put it best when he said:

"There are those who say, oh, it's passé... But my students tell me they find it engaging. It still 'speaks' in the psychoanalytic sense of the word... It still sells."

I hope this issue can be resolved as some have proposed, by respecting the copyright's expiration, but by publishing only annotated versions of the book which outline the terrible power of the words reflected on the pages. The world (especially Germany) will have to be ready to again receive a dirty part of global history.

Regardless, this whole hullabaloo brings up an a slew of questions: what will the world be like in 2015, just a few short years away, but seventy years after the end of WWII?

I've always gone through school and life believing that this was a war that could never be forgotten, yet everyday, more and more survivors, people with direct memories of that time, are dying. If Mein Kampf goes into the public domain, will it even matter, or is the issue truly passé, like some people believe? How will the way people relate to each other and their history change when the people teaching and learning about the Holocaust weren't alive for it? When my children's children learn about WWII, they will be the child of a child of a child of a child of a Holocaust survivor. Will they even feel a connection to this part of their past like I do and like my mother does? Will WWII even be a part of the world's memory anymore?

Thoughts? Comments? I'd love to hear them!

Hobophobia

This graph, off of a post on the Sociological Images blog on the Society Pages, is the main message of the Occupy Wall Street protesters and the inspiration for today's post. When they say, "we are the 99%", they're referring to the minuscule 1% of the population that controls about 40% of the nation's wealth. But regardless of whether you agree with the Occupy movement, there is no denying the facts of wealth inequality. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer.

This raises the greater issue of how people relate to those in lower socio-economic situations; generally, those with less money are pitied, or else seen as dependent on the wealth of the upper classes and treated with the same paternalistic attitude as the one embodied by imperial America in the early 1900s. But what especially interests me is how virtually the entire country, not just the richest 5%, treats those with nearly no money and nowhere to live: the homeless.

Because I'm writing a piece on the issue for my Speech team in my high school, I've been doing a lot of research into the plight and treatment of the homeless today. What I have found is shocking: people think the homeless are lazy, stupid, mentally ill, or addicted to drugs, otherwise they would have dusted themselves off and gotten a job already. Otherwise, they are considered as simple children in need of a parental hand to guide them to the enlightened realm of home-ownership. Even worse, especially since the early 2000s, the amount of violence against the homeless has shot up, with hundreds being brutally murdered without reason since 2006.

Yet the face of homelessness has changed drastically since 2008; with the economic downfall, more and more ordinary people find themselves without economic means to pay for their homes, moving into temporary or charity housing in order to get by. These are families with children in schools and hardworking individuals with jobs, currently homeless, but fitting none of the stereotypes of a dirty old man with a beard and a coat.

To discover the reason behind the relationship between the homeless and everyone else, we must look to the human tendency to project the situations we experience onto our own lives; as we encounter someone living under newspapers, we are subconsciously aware of how little separates them from us. All they'd need is a house and they could be our neighbor, or maybe even a member of our family. This painful awareness is what makes us so uncomfortable when we see someone sitting on a street corner with a sign asking for food, and this discomfort is implemented differently in everyone: as fear, as disgust, as sadness, as sympathy, or even as violence.

The Help vs. District 9

I’m a big movie fan; I’ll pretty much watch any genre and enjoy something about the movie. I recently plumbed the depths of HBO and came across a movie I always wanted to see in theaters but never got the chance: District 9, a film symbolically about aliens, set in Johannesburg with ties to apartheid South Africa. It was fantastic. Then about a week afterwards, I went to see The Help, a new movie about maids in Jim Crow Jackson, MS that got great reviews from my parents and friends, and it was also excellent.

For some reason, when I think about either film, the other always pops into my head, so I've decided to compare and contrast these two movies together to see why that might be. The Help vs. District 9, a showdown of less-than-epic proportions. I have race and racism on the brain because we’re reading The Poisonwood Bible in English class and both of these movies have an interpersonal-racism theme, so it seems appropriate.

Similarities:

1. Both used most white characters as “bad guys”, and even some of the white characters that were supposed to be “good guys” had character flaws that made them less appealing to the audience. In District, Wikus Van De Merwe (the main character) was dangerously racist, despite his views being tested as he slowly turned into the race he oppressed. In Help, Celia Foote was a sweetheart and had the best of intentions, but her speech was annoyingly squeaky and she acted without thinking, getting drunk at a party and making a fool of herself.

2. Both narrowed in and focused on a few members of the protagonist race, using Minny and Aibileen in Help and two nameless “Prawns” (a crude name for the alien race, pictured below) in District. This built a connection between those few characters and the audience so that the viewers wished them the best by the end of the film.

3. Both films utilized the strong feelings that go with history to their advantage: Americans often still feel shame at the behavior of their parents and grandparents in the beginning of the civil rights movement, and I've talked to a South African friend who says his country still regrets apartheid. Choosing to set the movies with direct and indirect connections to these times added symbolism and an answer to “who cares?”

Differences:

1. The most shocking and important difference between these movies is the level of symbolism: while Help used actual black actresses to play African American maids, District turned the blacks in South Africa into a race of aliens that, thirty years after their arrival, were

thrown into a ghetto and oppressed. Not only were they clearly not human, but they were repulsive looking. In short, when watching The Help, the audience saw the characters as they were in real life. But in District 9, we saw the blacks as disgusting, inhuman creatures, exactly how they might have looked through the eyes of a racist South African at the time. The symbolism other-ized the Prawns to enhance the movie.

2. Another important difference was the violence level of the movies. While The Help was poignant in its own way, it focused on a war of words as the main character Skeeter wrote her exposé on the plight of the Jackson maid. In District 9, the filmmakers chose a more drastic approach as the Multi-National United company used Wikus’ alien arm to murder innocent Prawns with their own weapons, as an example. I haven’t yet decided which approach was better, if one was at all. I’m not convinced there is a definitive answer to that question.

If you’ve seen these movies, do you agree? Disagree? Let me know!

The Post-Apple World

Hello blogosphere! We all know that Steve Jobs just died. It’s everywhere and it’s a big deal. The end of an era. Instead of writing directly about him, my post is inspired by his legacy: the iPhone, the iPod, the iPad, and all the other competing technology he brought about indirectly.

It’s often talked about, that my generation is losing the ability to communicate interpersonally, that we spend all of our time staring at the little screen of our phones and not enough time really seeing the world around us. Our brains move at technology speed so we don’t have time for real human relationships; we turn to Tumblr, we turn to twitter, we live vicariously online before even trying to live in real life. We come out of the womb wearing earbuds and flicking our parents the middle finger. And to complicate the issue, we start revolutions through facebook and we change the world without even having to talk face to face.

Up until about a week ago, I thought this was just a huge over-generalization. Sure, there’s some truth there, some people are like that, but look at me! I only use my phone to text and make calls. I only have one iThing. I hardly ever buy products online. I hang out with friends in person. I’m on the speech team so I know how to communicate without saying the word “like”. Ding ding ding, here I am, the exception to the rule! But I was wrong.

I went with my mom to a store called Akira, where employees work on commission, to look for a homecoming dress. As soon as we walked in, we were greeted by a young salesperson named Julia. She started asking me questions about the dance and I was a little taken aback by her boldness, but I answered her inquiries, hoping she’d leave me to shop. But Julia did not—she’d give me about 10 minutes to look around and pull a few things, then run over to ask if she could add them to my dressing room. In my head, I thought, why can’t I just hold onto them and pick my own dressing room when I’m ready? Out loud, I said, “Uhhhh sure” (eloquent, no?). It didn’t stop there. Julia meandered by every time I came out, complimenting the dress I had on, making accessory suggestions. Just being a general bother.

In my mom’s generation, friendly salespeople were welcomed, even expected. Piling on compliments, making sure shoppers were comfortable, it was all part of what made a good salesperson. For me, I usually get in, find what I want, and get out, without ever having to speak to anyone. I’ve lost the notion of the shopper-salesperson relationship. And this is only the beginning of the relationships I’ve lost. I’m afraid that all the accusations mentioned a few paragraphs above are true, but they’re not attributable to owning the technology anymore. You don’t have to have an iPad to think in iPad speeds, you don’t have to have a facebook to feel more comfortable expressing yourself with the anonymity of the internet. It seems that no one growing up in this time is immune, not even me.

But this brings up the curious question of whether this change in the way we communicate, thus relate to others, is cause to regret the times of our parents. Is it okay that we communicate differently? Should we even bother criticizing the modern mindset and technology dependence? From close up, it seems like important values are being lost, but if we step back, are we just going through a normal historical change? Can the post-Apple world be equated with the post-automobile world or the post-Cold War world?

I’d appreciate any thoughts or comments from people of all ages. This is not an issue that can be addressed by one generation.

Hello, my name is...

Well howdy there, all. I, Anna, cordially welcome you to the first post on this here blog. Today marks the creation of an online extension of my nearly-18 year old self. In my life thus far, I break things down too much, searching for the logic and reasoned evidence at the bottom of every issue. This means that I often lose sight of the bigger themes inherent in many current topics. Therefore, this blog is an attempted antidote for my over-empiricism; as I explore (hopefully) relevant topics, I’ll try to use an analytic approach that draws heavily from knowledge and experience with interpersonal relationships and human interactions. Basically, I’ll draw on what I know about why people do the things they do to other people, on multiple levels. And what I find might not make sense to me logically, which may just mean I’m going about it the right way. Nothing throws a science girl out of her element like making her analyze human behavior, which is about as unpredictable as it gets. I'm taking myself out of the micro world and going macro.

Apart from being logical thinker, I'm often influenced by music, which is one of few grasps I have on the world of emotion and feeling-driven thought, neither of which are easy for me to explain. Music is the one part of my life I don't worry about not understanding, and since its spirit can be related to human actions and relationships in a visceral sense, you might find music references here and there throughout my blogging journey.

Something to get excited about is the variety of topics I can cover under the umbrella of human interaction and relationships: I can span anything from major historical wars to pop culture; I can talk about the DSK scandal in France and the genocide in Darfur, Harry Potter, reality TV, and just about anything else that tickles my fancy. I hope that I can bring a viewpoint of informed youth, and also to prove that teenagers these days do have original thoughts and novel ideas. I am not in any way an expert on the psychology of human relations, therefore, the perspective I bring will be one of pure observation; I don’t really know if there’s an official term for something I’m describing, so forgive me my psychology transgressions. I'll probably become best friends with the APA's Glossary of Psychological Terms.

Overall, I’m really excited for this blog because it’s a very freeing feeling, being unrestricted in thought, and hopefully this feeling will carry over through the rest of the year (and maybe even longer).

Thanks for reading!