A Little Boy and His Mother

A little three year old boy, who was already distant from the father, was incredibly distressed by the birth of his new baby brother. As soon as the baby brother was brought home from the hospital, the three year old boy reached his boiling point. In all seriousness he took his baby brother and placed him on a serving tray and put the tray on the table. He got a fork and ran to get his mother a different part of the house. Bringing the mother to the table, he offered to eat the baby brother to make himself the only child of the family again..

This is a perfect case for Freud’s theory of “tie of affection, which binds the child as a rule to the parent of the opposite sex, succumbs to disappointment… or jealousy over the birth of a new baby” ( Freud 435). The three year old boy had the father figure to deal with, in terms of competing for the full affection of the mother, so a new baby brother would be too overwhelming. Another male in the family to vile for the love of the mother is something a little boy, who has not completed the separation process yet, can’t handle. The boy was not ready to identity with the father yet, because he was still in the phase of wanting to take the fathers place, the “Oedipus Complex”. I do not think that the desire to be with the mother was sexual though at three years old, it just had the aspects of the emotional attachment to the nurturer. A new child in the family means less time with the mother, which means less pleasure for the older sibling. Also the situation of becoming an older sibling, forces one to grow up faster and to reach the stage of more socially acceptable identification with the mother quicker.



Works Cited
Freud, Sigmund. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan.
2nd ed.Malden: Blackwell, 2004. p.389-396, 431-440

"Rachel Green" versus "Lara Croft"

Movie stars are a hot item for entertainment purposes in our society. The public loves when two celebrities’ are placed in “battle mode,” because that sells more tabloids and movie tickets. The stars become itemized for the entertainment industry and for the viewing or reading pleasure of the masses. Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie are a perfect example of this methodology by media to pin two Hollywood starts against each other, and the only thing that was needed to spark the battle was the drama situation with Brad Pitt. The two women had their own image and name established in the industry, but their little love triangle sparked interest for them in measures never before seen. Aniston and Jolie are signifiers (“sound image”), but they are completely different in the signified (“mental concept”) department. The media which often time plays the role of authority from above, made these two women opposite signs from each other, for their own benefit. Structuralism states that “linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound image” (de Saussure 61). The mental concepts for these women can change with time and with the help of the media, because “the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary” (de Saussure 62). In the entertainment industry every scandal, publicity, interview, movie, or even photograph has the possibility of altering peoples’ opinions about them. Language is not stable; it is affected by the region, culture, and people, which means that it is always on an evolutionary path. The ability to evolve is what allows words to not have “pre-existing concepts” (de Saussure 67) attached to the signifier.
Jolie is binary to Aniston, which mean their mental concepts are in opposition to each other. The mental concepts for Jennifer Aniston would be: glamorous, beautiful, elegant, “girl next door,” innocent, feminine, hopeless romantic, comedy/romantic star, loyal, and the biggest one with the Jolie situation would be the mental concept of victim. The media focused on the aspect of Aniston being dumped by Pitt for Jolie, and how Jolie got pregnant immediately following the break up drama. Aniston was turned into an object, because the media was not focused on her as an individual, but only the action that was done unto her in order to create this opposition with Jolie. These two women were made pawns by many magazines and tabloids for entertainment and monetary beneficial purposes. Even years after the drama and a couple of kids into Jolie and Pitt relationship, magazines are still using these women in “battle mode.” The mental concepts for Angelina Jolie would be: sex appeal (sexy), adventurous, edgy, gothic (at times), strong, athletic, provocative, action star, unstable (especially in relationships), and concerning the Aniston situation the mental concept would be home wrecker or the other woman. This example also shows that a signifier does not necessarily have one signified attached to it, because the signified is a mental concept the possibilities are endless. The media is a powerful tool is shaping the mindsets of individuals who are incredibly into the pop culture and entertainment industry, because it gives them an escape from their own realistic problematic lives. Movie stars are presented to people in certain images and when the media can get an opposition going they really milk it for as long as the readers or audiences allow them. Aniston and Jolie are still compared today in magazine titles like: Jennifer Aniston vs Angelina Jolie: the Vogue Battle, Jennifer Aniston vs Angelina Jolie: a box-office smackdown, Jennifer Aniston vs Angelina Jolie: Whose LBD do you like better?, and Jennifer Aniston Legs Versus Angelina Jolie Legs (all articles titles found in google search). These tabloids show that these women are just objects to be used for sexuality, publicity, movie ratings, and entertainment purposes. Media allows this to happen, but it forms in the minds of the audience different mental concepts (signified) for these two individual signifiers.


Works Citied
Saussure, Ferdinand De. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan.
Malden: Blackwell Ltd, 2004. p 59-71

Word Picture of Harsh Reality

http://barangayrp.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/new-sakal-for-blog1.jpg
(site to the image)

There is a man who is suffering extreme pain, devastation, and is being choked. His eyes are bulging out and with all the veins popping. There are tears coming out from both of his eyes, and one of tear streams is so big it looks like a small river. His mouth is wide open and his tongue is positioned in a way where one can see that he is gasping for air. There is saliva coming out from the bottom of his lip and his arms are positioned vertically to his shoulders. There is a huge hand, with big fingers, choking the slender neck of the dying man. The man’s head is also wrung back helplessly past his shoulders.
This picture defamiliarizes murder, the fact that a person does not have to personally kill a man with his hands, to be responsible for his death. Even though in the picture there is a literal hand doing the choking, it represents the people or government that chose to implement the food blockade. Murder does not have to come from personal actions only, it can be related to decisions outside of the environment where the death occurred. Consequences for decisions, like implementing a food blockade, devastates a large scale of people and the death toll could be countless. In reality this type of murder is harsher, crueler, and more dangerous than what we generally think of as physical actual killing.

Rhetoric and its powers!

Plato was against rhetoric, because he was afraid of its power, which is honestly a substantial fear. Rhetoric could be used to convince people of lies, by people who know how to use it well. Aristotle knew the power of rhetoric but went a step further than Plato and described how its power worked by dividing argumentative speech appeals into three categories: logos (logic), ethos (credibility), and pathos (emotion). Using these rhetorical appeals properly a speaker can convince his audience of anything he wants. In the movie Wall Street, Michael Douglas exemplifies exactly what Plato was afraid of using the Aristotelian Devices of Speech.
The speech that Michael Douglas gave to the share holders of the particular company portrayed in the movie was in its entirety an appeal to logos. The whole speech underlined the fact that the company was in trouble and without his efforts it would be sure to fail. He even managed to make greed (an immoral emotion) appear logical and normal to the situation. Douglas used greed as one of the ways to connect himself to the share holders he was trying to convince, because nobody would invest in a company without expecting some kind of benefits or profits in return. He connected himself to his audience by standing amongst them, while the Board of Directors he was ridiculing were situated separately and above the audience they were appealing to. Douglas appealed to ethos, when he was giving his audience facts about the other companies that he has saved and the profits that were produced from his efforts. Douglas showed his knowledge in the previous business giants and the Board of Directors that were in control of the company. By raising his credibility he broke down his opponents by pointing on their mistakes, their non-investment into the company, and their excessive spending for no rational reasons. Douglas used appeal to pathos by connecting himself to the
audience, in ways I mentioned before, but also by connecting them all as Americans. He made his argument appear as patriotism and an appeal to nationalism is always a hard one to reason against. Douglas constructed his speech in such a manner where it had a beginning, middle, and a clear dramatic finish, like Aristotle truly appreciates. Douglas lead the audience through pointing out the problems of the company first, giving his knowledge of business and success facts in the middle, and ended the speech with the necessity of his taking over the failing company. Douglas gave the share holder audience no reasonable choice but to accept his proposal and the rejection of the Board of Directors.
This speech showed the power of rhetoric, but considering we did not watch what happened previously in the movie or afterwards, we do not know if Douglas’s intentions were noble or not. Aristotle mentions that in order to perceive the appeals as truth everything must be taken in consideration, including the particular situation and the background of the speaker. Nothing should be taken as face value, because rhetoric is powerful and there is a fine line between lies and truth. A person should always consider all the facts and form their own opinions based upon the knowledge they have, and not something they were convinced of on the surface.

"My Bloody Valentine" and Plato

“My Bloody Valentine” and Plato
In the time that Plato was alive there were no such things as music videos, rock bands, or the internet, but he would have frowned down on these human developments. Music lyrics are related to poetry and Plato wanted to ban that type of expression from society in general. The song “My Bloody Valentine” by Good Charlotte is exactly what Plato was afraid the community, especially the young generation would be exposed to. The song is centered on a crime of passion, a murder, which does not represent good moral character or uphold the values of virtue. This song teaches the wrong way to deal with emotions of love and jealousy, and illustrates no encouragement for “self-control in young men, who hear them” (Plato 29). Plato would have been heartbroken to know that the youth generation of today is so used to this type of lyrics that they are not even surprised by its violent nature.
Good Charlotte is singing about a brutal, merciless murder, which they have not experienced first hand since they are not in jail or on trial, so they are imitators. Plato had a problem with imitation, because that made the poet or singers in the case “at third remove from the throne truth” (Plato 43). Lies are immoral and do not help in building a strong character which knows the difference between wrong and right. This song is playing in the background of a video that has drawn imaginary characters playing out the actions of the lyrics. The colors are animated and the graphics are simple, almost childlike, but at the same time represent the evils of human nature. This video is available on a site that is very popular in today’s internet surfing community and it is no censored for children of young impressionable ages. Lyrics such as “I ripped out / His throat,” (Good Charlotte 5-6) are an inadequate reaction to jealousy and are teaching its listeners the wrong way to deal with emotions. The murder is justified by true love, which is not a reasonable excuse and should not be accepted as being realistic, because then nobody in the real world would be safe. The song’s lyrics are so dangerous because “everyone will excuse his own wickedness if he believes such things are done and have been done” (Plato 31). Plato fears rhetoric for its power over the mind of the regular thinking citizen living in society.
This video and the song are accessible to anyone who wants to find it, and it is extremely appealing with its rhythmic beat, catchy chorus, and good vocals. Plato was afraid of the power of poetry, because it had a great audience who were easily swayed to emotions that are inferior to the noble, strong character. People derive pleasure from listening to this song and watching the video, which means they are not in their right mind to judge the truth behind the words since they are so overcome with emotion. The chorus, which is repeated numerously in the song, gives the message that “I’ll wash my bloody hands / and we’ll start a new life” (Good Charlotte 3-4). That says that a person can clean away their sins without having major consequences for the immoral actions committed. Plato says, “writers are wrong about the most important matters in human life, when they say that there are many unjust men who are happy,… that wrongdoing pays if you can get away with it” (Plato 32). His statement explains perfectly why the message presented by the song should not be allowed to be heard by the general public, because it does not provide justice. People should have good role models to look up to in pop culture, which would mean extracting lyrics that provoke violence. Plato was trying to keep corruption, sin, and injustice out of the lives of people in his Republic, which is why this song and video would be banished in his realm.



Works Cited

"Good Charlotte - Bloody Valentine lyrics." LYRICS007. 4 Feb. 2009
.

Plato. Classical Literary Criticism. Trans. Penelope Murray and T. S. Dorsch. New
York: Penguin Books, 2004.pg. 1-56

Sndrsrbcc. "Good Charlotte - Bloody Valentine + Video." YouTube. 4 Nov. 2008. 4 Feb. 2009.