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.
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