The reason segregation didn't "end" until the 60's was because those in power didn't want it to end. In so far as a person has to have an idea to create revolution, you are correct. But the government controls, directly or indirectly, the reasons for thes ideas. You rebel against government policy because you disagree with the government. Conversly, government rebel's against practices it does not like due to policy.
Concerning your talking about sex arguement, the reason the young are more open is because the society they live in became that way. Why? Government action regulating tolerance of many things and enforcing action when people aren't tolerant. With out the FDA, there would be no "pill" and hence no sexual revolution. Without the sexual revolution, young girls would still be quick to guard against using the word vagina.
On the little man you speak of: There is no little man, if there was he wouldn't be little and it would be string he was pulling. He's using his direct power, his power to control society. I mean, he WOULD be using direct power... And he isn't on top of the world.
But societies change because policy changes. When policy goes into effect, lives become different- and with different lives, different mindsets occur. At best, for your arguement, personal mindset changes that change society are directly influenced by past instances of implemented policy.
P.S. Ibsen did want to change the world, he wanted women to be more like men. However it took government action to make them more "equal"
Really all we are doing is going into the whole: which came first, the chicken or the egg. You say people are the way they are because the government/society makes them that way. I say society/government is the way it is because the people's opinions form it (in a democracy... obviously this does not apply to communist/totalitarian countries).
You say the reason segregation didn't end (even though the issue was supposedly solved with the war), was because the government didn't want it to. Now that's a 'no shit' kind of statement. Because what makes up the government is people. Common, every day people who have biases and vices. So of cource, until they changed their thinking, nothing was going to happen about segregation.
You're argument that society changes when policy changes is true. And when policy goes in to effect it does have a big impact on peoples' lives. But to say that a policy change has the power to change your mindset goes against human nature itself. It has the power to oppress, it has the power to invoke change, but it does not have the power to shape peoples' beliefs/thoughts. And, in any case, it is a moot point, as a policy change is initiated by a human. With a particular mindset. You can't argue human nature.
P.S. - In Ibsen's own words: "I wrote the play not to promote the emancipation of women; it was only to establish that the primary duty of anyone was to find out who he or she really was and to become that person." That's far from a cry to change the world. It's the essence of Realism. Now, if you want to argue philosophy, that's a whole different story. And we can go back and forth about Naturalism vs. Existentialism, but I'd rather not. The realism Isben employed was first realized by Shakespeare, in creating complex characters with substance. The essence of realism in drama is to portray life. Real life. Real situations. Real people.
Concerning your talking about sex arguement, the reason the young are more open is because the society they live in became that way. Why? Government action regulating tolerance of many things and enforcing action when people aren't tolerant. With out the FDA, there would be no "pill" and hence no sexual revolution. Without the sexual revolution, young girls would still be quick to guard against using the word vagina.
On the little man you speak of:
There is no little man, if there was he wouldn't be little and it would be string he was pulling. He's using his direct power, his power to control society. I mean, he WOULD be using direct power...
And he isn't on top of the world.
But societies change because policy changes. When policy goes into effect, lives become different- and with different lives, different mindsets occur.
At best, for your arguement, personal mindset changes that change society are directly influenced by past instances of implemented policy.
P.S. Ibsen did want to change the world, he wanted women to be more like men. However it took government action to make them more "equal"
Reply
You say the reason segregation didn't end (even though the issue was supposedly solved with the war), was because the government didn't want it to. Now that's a 'no shit' kind of statement. Because what makes up the government is people. Common, every day people who have biases and vices. So of cource, until they changed their thinking, nothing was going to happen about segregation.
You're argument that society changes when policy changes is true. And when policy goes in to effect it does have a big impact on peoples' lives. But to say that a policy change has the power to change your mindset goes against human nature itself. It has the power to oppress, it has the power to invoke change, but it does not have the power to shape peoples' beliefs/thoughts. And, in any case, it is a moot point, as a policy change is initiated by a human. With a particular mindset. You can't argue human nature.
P.S. - In Ibsen's own words: "I wrote the play not to promote the emancipation of women; it was only to establish that the primary duty of anyone was to find out who he or she really was and to become that person." That's far from a cry to change the world. It's the essence of Realism. Now, if you want to argue philosophy, that's a whole different story. And we can go back and forth about Naturalism vs. Existentialism, but I'd rather not. The realism Isben employed was first realized by Shakespeare, in creating complex characters with substance. The essence of realism in drama is to portray life. Real life. Real situations. Real people.
Reply
Leave a comment